CCMIN021500 - Laserfiche WebLink

interest rates went up, the bond holders would like to have the bonds called because they can then reinvest the money. Fifteen years from now, if the community wanted to use the proceeds for something else, if that clause is not there, the bond holders would have control and could sue the City if it does not call the bonds. Ms. Ayala said the concern was about using the funds for facilities not related to the site. Ms. Rossi said whether the funds are used on the site or elsewhere, if the clause that allows a vote in the future is not there, the decision is tied to the bond holders for thirty years. Mr. Pico felt that could be compensated for by adding "if so approved by the voters" after "on site" and still delete the adjacent or offsite facilities. Mr. Tarver understood the rationale but did not want to include that in this case. Ms. Acosta pointed out that the Task Force recommendations included some housing, but Council did not discuss that aspect. Mayor Tarver said that would be worked out in the plan later. Ms. Michelotti asked if Council was comfortable with not providing for adjacent infrastructure. Mr. Swift said the only thing contemplated would be a couple of traffic signals and a small amount of improvement on Berual Avenue. Most people would interpret that as on-site improvements anyway. He did not think there would be any other mitigations required for what is proposed. It was moved by Mayor Tarver, seconded by Ms. Ayala, to adopt Resolution No. 00-012, accepting the Task Force Recommendations Report, adopting the policy that "If the City sells any portion of the 430 acres, the City shall use the proceeds to retire debt (after ten years) relative to the property or to finance public facilities or infrastructure on site"; and directing staff to include that provision in the bond documents and directing the Task Force to include the policy in any land use plan that is submitted to the voters, if Measure I is approved. Pleasanton City Council 18 02/15/00 Minutes