CCMIN090193 - Laserfiche WebLink

3 Mr. Roush stated that there was a section that referred to that Dower: however D\ entering into the agreement and paying the school facilities fees, a developer will not ~e faced with the potential of a moratorium over school facilities issues. Mr. Pico then referred to the Cooperative Agreement and asked why it was based on an out of date general plan estimate of 20,000,000 square feet at build out. He believed that created a commitment to build that much. He was also concerned about the assumptions for school facilities which are based on the general plan assumptions. He asked if the School District was satisfied that the assumptions were correct. Mr. Eddinger indicated they had revisited the numbers many times and were very CO confident in terms of new students from new development. With regard to students from Ce) existing development, they were not as certain. However, it is the School District's C~ responsibility to meet the needs of existing growth. Mr. Pico also wanted it clear that the city would be involved in any negotiations regarding alternative financing, such as Mello-Roos financing. He did not want the city to be required to agree with Mello-Roos type financing. Mr. Pico then indicated his concern about the timing between the determination that a shortfall exists and when a home builder actually pays its contribution. He was concerned that there appears to be a year and a half during which a shortfall exists and building permits are still being issued. Mr. Tarver indicated the School District and the City are doing three-year projections, which will give an idea of how many units are to be built. The determination of a shortfall will occur three years in the future and that should give enough time to take care of the situation. Ms. Dennis referred to page 18 and the reference to default. She asked for clarification of the circumstances that would cause a default. Mr. Roush indicated this referred to a method of enforcing the agreement, not just to the payment of fees. Ms. Dennis then referred to page 11 and indicated there is a debate on what are the true expenses of a school. How does one determine the mount of "state or other funds". She also asked if there were provisions to cover conversion of affordable housing or added square footage to existing homes. Mr. Roush indicated that when a particular use is changed, then the fees can be renegotiated. The 5,000 sq.ft. limit was discussed and it was explained that there does not seem to be a nexus on bigger houses generating more children. The 5,000 square feet cap should be in both Agreements. 9/1/93 - 3 -