Laserfiche WebLink
intensely for the past month. It was delayed once to make the public more aware. We <br />are here to get consensus on how we want to move forward and then to move forward. <br />At the end of the ,.Lay the schools and children will benefit from this. We are addressing <br />a!l the students from new houses and tho~ moving into older neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Ms. Dennis asked what staff person could explain the agreement to Mr. Sorensen. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush indicated he would be glad to speak with him to answer his questions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sorensen referred to the statement that this is the start of the process, but the <br />agreement is retroactive to September 19, 2000. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush agreed that under the Agreement as proposed the new fees would be <br />retroactive to September 19. There have been discussions the School District about the <br />timing of the new fees. The School District needs to look at how it will apply the fees to <br />those already in the approval process. The District would have to review its cash flow <br />status to decide when the new fee should be applicable. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti indicated that the question of individuals in progress with plans <br />would be addressed in the future, but that the fee would apply to individual builders as <br />well as the development community. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sorensen asked what am the developer's obligations under the current <br />agreement. <br /> <br /> Ms. Micheloff~ replied that they would be paid ten percent interest on funds that <br />they advance. In the proposed agreement, advances are interest free and there are no <br />reimbursement provisions. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver stated he was absolutely not in agreement with this. He has been <br />tilting at windmills for twelve years. He worked a long time to get this agreement. He <br />was appalled to hear that a School Boardmember had thought the City was on the same <br />side as the developers against the District. He supported the School District 100%, The <br />District should not be developing facilities on a napkin. It should know what facilities it <br />needs and make developers pay for every piece of it. He carmot believe that after eight <br />years of making sure there is no shortlhll, the Cooperative Fee Agreement will be <br />terminated. He felt the DisUict was letting developers get away with not paying their fair <br />share because it doesn't want to be in litigation. He believed the developers in Vineyard <br />Corridor are willing to take care of the infrastructure because lhey wanted something in <br />return. They want development and building permits. Ponderosa will build a school if it <br />can get development approval. He could not believe he was still sitting here talking <br />about this after eight years of telling the community there is a funding mechanism for the <br />necessary school facilities. The School District sold the Del Prado site and then paid six <br />times as much for a new school site. It sold the Sycamore High School site and will have <br />to pay ton times more for another site. It delayed a middle school and when it opened it <br />was fidl. He did not think good decisions were being made for the kids. We are not <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council s 10/03/00 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />