CCMIN100201 - Laserfiche WebLink

doesn't follow through with its commitments. We have children at the doors of the schools and we don't have schools built for them. If we don't make sure all the pieces are in place, there won't be schools unless we go back to the taxpayers for another bond measure. She was concerned about the pressure to proceed with these agreements because Signature Properties has already spent so much money. Under the old agreement, she felt it owed the District a lot more. It was their decision to not honor their contractual obligation and that forced the District and City to look for another way to mitigate the growth. She said Signature received a $2 million discount with the reduced fee and that is a lot more than the money spent to date on Neal Elementary. She is optimistic Signature will continue to help to get the school built, but she felt it was a ineffective offer when you recognize the money is not going to be there to pay them back. There is now a demand that they be paid back within two years with interest that did not exist under the old agreement. She asked Council to look closely at this and make sure all the Points of Agreement are met and that there is a way to get the facilities built. She asked if the District really believed this agreement can accomplish its goals. Ms. Michelotti asked Ms. Testa about her comment about interest payment. Ms. Testa said she believed there would be no interest for two years. Under the old agreement there was an unspecified amount of time. If the schools or the projects on Exhibit B needed to be built, there was an obligation to meet the shortfall with no interest tied to that commitment. There was an interest clause, but it was not related to the shortfall. She objected to the impression that Signature was building the school, when in fact all funds it advances will be reimbursed with interest after the first two years. She felt they had a much greater obligation in the old agreement. Melinda Price, 1850 Spumante Place, indicated her son started kindergarten at Vintage in 1999 and now her daughter has started kindergarten and was to go to a different school. They assumed Neal would open soon and elected to pay for a private school. Now she finds that Neal will not be opening soon. One of the reasons she purchased a home in Ruby Hill was because of the promise of a school. That is a community of 850 homes and the children are spread all over the City. She understands the problems with the economy, etc., but the bottom line is she wants a school that both her children can attend near home. Meribeth Detweiler, 553 Santel Court, agreed with the previous speakers. She said her understanding of the old agreement was the interest was on funds due back to developers at the end of the completion of all the facilities on Exhibit B. She asked Council to slow down and review these agreements more thoroughly. She did not feel the school facilities goals could be accomplished without getting both the Cooperative Fee Agreement amendments and the Girl Agreement signed by all parties. She did not believe it was wise for the City to sign off on the Cooperative Fee Agreement without all developers signing the Gift Agreement. In the business sector, it is not wise to close a deal without all documents complete. These agreements are three- way, therefore the City has an equal responsibility to the community. If there is any information suggesting these agreements are not in the best interest of the community, they should not be approved at this time. As has been discussed earlier, the economic slow down will affect the new housing starts and that in mm indicates these agreements will not accomplish what they Pleasanton City Council 8 10/02/01 Minutes