CCMIN100201 - Laserfiche WebLink

Agreement and the Facilities Plan. It was determined that it may be necessary to borrow from itself in order to proceed with plans; but without the agreements being in place, that would not be possible. Deborah Kleffman, School Board member, indicated she did not agree with the remarks of Ms. McGovem and asked that Council not take action on this item. She did not think the new agreements were better than before. The new agreements are interrelated and in order to work properly the whole package has to be in place. She was not confident that was the case. She said the infrastructure around Neal Elementary has not been resolved; the Cooperative Fee developers also have a portion of that infrastructure and Standard Pacific has not signed on the endowment, yet Signature Properties has signed the agreement. She referred to Exhibit B of the prior agreement which listed the high school expansions and Neal Elementary as part of the planned facilities. She said these were never questioned; however she did not have confidence that they can be accomplished today. She was concerned that the District will ask for a bond measure or parcel tax. She referred to a cash flow document presented to her in a closed session this evening and it does not list Neal Elementary. She was also given a plan of how the District would meet the needs at the high schools and no dollar amounts were indicated. She felt this was incomplete and she needed more time to get information. She was confident Signature Properties would do its part help resolve issues. The economic environment has changed since the District signed the new agreement. Since September 11th the whole world has changed. She was concerned that funds from the Girl Agreement would not be spent for facilities and reiterated her concerns about a potential bond measure. Ms. Ayala read from the proposed agreement "the Cooperative Fee Agreement when taken into account with other developer agreements in the City was intended to insure the District would be able timely to complete work on school facilities as identified on Exhibit B." She asked if the word '~imely" should be eliminated from the agreement. Ms. Kleffman did not think setting this decision aside for a month would have any effect. She felt the rainy season was about to begin and construction would be delayed anyway. She was concerned that the infrastructure problems be resolved. Ms. Michelotti referred to Ms. Kleffman's remarks about Signature Properties assigning its reimbursement to the District and Standard Pacific had not done likewise. She explained that 90% of the amount would have gone to Signature and only 10% to Standard Pacific. Ms. Kleffman said even though it is only 10%, that could equal $2 million. Matt Sullivan, 7882 Flagstone Drive, thanked Ms. Ayala for continuing the item from the last meeting. This is an important issue and we need to have all the answers. His concern with the agreement is that the funds may not be available to build the necessary school facilities or the infrastructure. He had doubts that the Gift Agreement would provide the necessary funds for the infrastructure due to the lower than expected housing starts. He was also concerned that once the City signs the agreements, it will have little ability to obtain the necessary funds to support these costs. What happens if the City signs on but the development community does not or if there is insufficient new development to supply the fees needed? He believed the existing agreement Pleasanton City Council 6 10/02/01 Minutes