CCMIN100201 - Laserfiche WebLink

were intended to do. We should not let go of the old agreement unless we are certain the new agreements will accomplish the desired goals. Juanita Haugen, 3845 Pinot Court, responded to a prior comment and said she did not say she would support a bond measure, nor did she ever say one should be conducted. That is not feasible nor is it the right thing for this community. She believed new development should pay for itself and that is why these agreements were drafted back in 1993. The District also uses state funding and funds from prior bond measures, which are financing current school improvements which are not attributable to new development. She wanted to make it clear she did not support a bond election now or in the near future without having this agreement signed and reviewing other ways to do things. The community has already indebted itself enough. Ms. Ayala agreed the community has indebted itself enough. It has passed $164 million in bonds over the years. She referred to the cash flow statement that did not include Neal Elementary, which sounds like a worst case scenario. If no more than 55 homes are built a year, is there a mechanism in place with the new agreement that insures the District will not have to go back to the taxpayers? Ms. Haugen deferred to other Boardmembers to answer that question. She said the cash flow that was handed out this evening was based on 75 houses being built a year. Harold Freeman, legal counsel for the School District, referred to the question that has been raised of whether to go forward with the new agreement or go back to the old agreement. It was his opinion that the 1993 Cooperative Fee Agreement was no longer effective. On January 30, 2001, the District signed Points of Agreement with the developers committing the District to the terms in the agreement presented to Council at this meeting. On February 6 the Council also approved the Points of Agreement. On June 5 the District signed the amendments with the full understanding that this was a "done deal". The committee that worked on this, Signature Properties and Standard Pacific also believed it to be a "done deal". The District believes it has a signed contract with a developer and is just awaiting one final action. The District has shared as much information as possible and is not sure what more information is necessary. In March 1999, Mr. Freeman said he appeared before Council and discussed the impacts of SB 50. A city can no longer tell a developer to pay a fee or its development will not be approved. However, in Pleasanton there is a group of developers who have volunteered to continue to meet the District's needs. The District has always planned for the worst case scenario, whether it was for lack of state funding or the possibility of fewer houses being built. He referred to the question of interest due and explained that under the 1993 agreement, if a shortfall was declared and the developers paid the shortfall, the District was obligated to pay the developer back without interest as it had the funds to do so. That could be in ten years or in six months. There was a second interest clause in the 1993 agreement that stated at the end of the day there was a refund allocation provision which required interest to be paid at ten percent to the developers. Signature Properties has walked away from that. He clarified the intent of the agreement was not to have the developers be paid ten percent. That was supposed to be allocations among the developers and what they owed each other. In negotiations, the developers indicated their belief that they were entitled to ten percent, but that was left as an unresolved issue. Another unresolved issue was the fact that the City and District did declare a shortfall. The shortfall was a result of the Pleasanton City Council 9 10/02/01 Minutes