CCMIN120302 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush said the agreement indicated the school would be built by the fall of 2002 and that was unrealistic at the time it was approved, given the fact that it takes a year to build a school and there was no road or infrastructure in place. In hindsight, it would have been better to reflect a more realistic date in that agreement. Timeliness is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed at this time. Ms. Ayala felt that at the time the agreement was amended, the goal was still a 2002 opening. Mr. Roush said that was true, but there were a number of other steps that had to take place between when the agreement was amended and the opening of the school. The timeline was a bit tight. Ms. Ayala asked if the two years of free interest was an oversight? Mr. Roush felt there was a contemplation that there would be significant funds expended between the summer of 2001 and the summer of 2003. If that had occurred and construction of the school had started, then the interest on that money would not have started to accrue until June of 2003. As it turned out, about $600,000 has been spent on architects and design costs. Mr. Campbell asked if the agreement was null and void if the parties do not adhere to the timeline? Mr. Roush said it is not null and void, but there is an obligation to see that the intent is accomplished. In meetings with School District representatives, the City indicated its desire to see that aspects of the agreement, such as the quarterly reports of expenditures, be fulfilled and not put on the back burner. Ms. Hosterman referred to Section 3.1.3, Timing of Design and Conslxuction, and asked what was the meaning of "best efforts"? Mr. Roush said that is a legal term open to interpretation. He believed the intent was for the developers to continue their efforts to have the school designed. That was accomplished because the design did go through a review process. Where some might question their best efforts might refer to the further agreement that was to be negotiated between the District and the developers. Mr. Roush believed that the District did send a document to the developers as a starting point in the further negotiations. That negotiation has not gone very far. He believed the developers did not feel they could get bids for school construction because construction could not start without utilities to the site. In 2001, it was assumed the Vineyard Avenue developers would build the infrastructure that summer. However, due to the economy the developers did not commence construction. The District and the City then had to advance funds for the infrastructure which would have come from the developers. Mayor Pico declared the public hearing open. Pleasanton City Council 13 12/03/02 Minutes