City council approves school fields deal, reaching agreement following contentious dispute with school district

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

It only took the Mountain View City Council about 10 minutes at a Tuesday, Jan. 23, meeting to consider and approve a deal with the Mountain View Whisman School District to jointly use and maintain school fields, a subdued resolution to an issue that has caused substantial discord and drama in recent months.

The city and school district have collaborated for decades to share campus fields, with the district allowing the city and public to use open spaces outside of school hours, and the city paying to maintain school fields. The city has also managed field rentals when school isn’t in session.

With the last contract dating back to 2000, the two parties have been in multi-year talks to reach a new agreement. Early last year, the school district paused the negotiations and in September, city staff recommended that the council terminate the existing agreement.

The council members voted at a Sept. 12 meeting to accept the staff recommendation, but to give the district until the end of 2023 to agree to a city proposal for a new deal, framing it as a final, “take it or leave it” offer. Ultimately, the school board voted on Dec. 7 to take the deal, leaving it up to the council to give its final approval.

Council members unanimously agreed to do just that, voting 7-0 to approve the contract this week.

“Thanks to everyone who has worked on this – I know it’s a very long list of people and it is important for all of the residents of Mountain View,” Mayor Pat Showalter said after the vote. She was the only council member to comment on the item at Tuesday’s meeting.

School board President Devon Conley attended the meeting, and told the council ahead of its vote that the school board hoped the council would approve the agreement and looked forward to continuing to partner with the city to serve Mountain View residents and students.

“We certainly do more for our community when we can work together, and we value the many years that the district and the city have partnered on this issue,” Conley said.

The comments Tuesday night were a substantial change in tone from September, when council and school board members expressed frustration over the joint-agency negotiations.

School board member Laura Blakely said at the time that it was “abrupt and premature” for city staff to recommend ending the joint use agreement, and compared the situation to “young kids at the playground getting into an argument in the sand box … and taking their toys and going home.”

At the same September meeting, Showalter said there had been “an awful lot of posturing – very counterproductive posturing” that wasted “colossal amounts of time” and seriously damaged the relationship between the city and school district.

There were no such exchanges at this week’s meeting, with the school fields agenda item consisting of a brief staff presentation, two public comments (including Conley’s) and the unanimous vote.

The city had raised concerns ahead of the district’s Dec. 7 meeting about whether changes that the school board was considering to its policy for the use and rental of school facilities would impact the new fields agreement. The district responded that the updated language was necessary to implement and comply with the joint use agreement, and that the city didn’t have to adhere to the district’s rental fee schedule.

That was enough for city staff, who ultimately recommended that the council approve the agreement at this week’s meeting.