CCMIN090193 - Laserfiche WebLink

2 and Driefiv descriDed the historw of the committee and its intent. which was to have new ~rowt! pay for the students it generates. Mr. Eddinger believed the key element of the Agreement wa~- that the City is now a partner and the City will look at the school facilities needed before approving projects. The product of the months of meetings are two agreements, a "Flat Fee Agreement" and a "Cooperative Agreement." Mr. Pico asked why it is believed that most developers will sign the flat fee agreement. Mr. Tarver responded that the developers have indicated that because the Cooperative Agreement commits them to funding any shortfall for schools, which is a significant financial exposure. Mr. Pico requested clarification on the deadline of 12/31/93 for execution of the flat fee agreement. He thought this would exclude future developers from that option. Mr. Tarver explained that the school district uses a 36-month time frame for planning and it needs a financial commitment by a certain dam. The flat fee agreement will continue to be used after 12/31/93, but not necessarily with a 36 month payment schedule. Ms. Acosta further indicated that the 12/31/93 date is applied to existing projects and future developments will still be given the two options. The agreements do allow flexibility. Mr. Roush stated the intent of the flat fee agreement is to address the number of developers who have projects with the school impact fee condition and to allow them to satisfy that condition and move ahead. This agreement provides that if the agreement is signed by the end of the year, the developer has three years, depending on when the units are allocated, to pay those fees. This gives the school district a firm idea of when fees will be forthcoming. There was discussion about clarifying which developers have project approval and allowing a wider "window" for signing the agreements. However, there was consensus on the wisdom of having two forms of the agreement. Mr. Roush pointed out the intent of the parties is to continue to use this agreement in its basic form after 12/31/93. The cutoff date of 12/31/93 was used to prevent developers from waiting until the end of the three year window to sign the agreement. Mr. Eddinger stated the committee will meet every year to review the agreements and the only thing that will probably change is the term. Mr. Pico indicated he felt assured of the flexibility of the agreement. He then asked why there was no clause in the flat fee agreement similar to the long term agreement regarding the city's police powers. 9/1/93 - 2 -