CCMIN100201 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Freeman explained that the Gift Agreement has explicit language that states the funds can be used for a broader interpretation of"facilities needs." For instance, is a clock part ora facility? Can you equip a classroom as well as build it? The Gift Agreement says funds can be used for facilities or a facilities driven program. For example, the District may want to build a theater, gymnasium, or foreign languages lab. The developer could say it is not an increase in population that leads to that need. It would certainly enhance the school. The District believes the Gift Agreement ailows the funds to be spent for program-driven facilities. The Agreement explicitly states funds cannot be used for teacher salaries or on-going operating costs. Mr. Campbell referred to the assumption that if the City signs the agreement, it gives up control and asked if that were true? Mr. Freeman indicated the City will still be informed and the District will continue to come to the City with issues. When SB 50 passed, the City no longer had control of the Gift Agreement. With the Cooperative Fee Agreement, the City would have given up its authority over the agreement to a certain extent when Signature and Standard Pacific finished building. Standard Pacific may or may not be finished building, depending upon the extension of a certain roadway. If the economy stays great and Signature finishes building this year, then its obligations under the agreement are over. The District was trying to lock in what it could. He conceded that under the proposed agreement, the City does not have as much control as it once did, however the City remains involved, is informed of issues and meets with District staff. The City does retain whatever police powers it had before. Mr. Campbell asked if the City had ever had or exercised control up to this point? Mr. Freeman said the Cooperative Fee Agreement would have allowed the Council to impose a moratorium on the Cooperative Fee developers' projects. Council never did that. There was discussion when the shortfall was declared on whether to impose a moratorium if the developers refused to advance funds, but that point was never reached because the choice was made to take another avenue. Ms. Michelotti said the City has always been directly and actively involved in the school impact agreements. She asked how SB 50 affected the City's ability to declare a moratorium. Mr. Freeman said it did not affect the ability under the 1993 agreement because those terms were grandfathered in. What SB 50 states is that one must assume the statutory fee of $2.05 is adequate mitigation and the explicit intent was to take the power away from cities to do anything. Some feel that is unconstitutional, but a test case has not come before the courts yet. He said the developers would not have come back to the table without the cooperation of the City. Under the Amended Cooperative Fee Agreement, the intent is still to involve the City. In conjunction with the Liaison Committee, the City will be updated every six months, and will continue to be involved. The District cannot plan schools unless it knows what the City is planning and vice versa. Ms. Ayala read the list of six original goals for the School District and asked if approving the Amended Cooperative Fee Agreement meant all those goals had been accomplished. Pleasanton City Council 12 10/02/01 Minutes