CC Min 1997-07-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- - - - articulating what clauses could be renegotiated. They would have to specify.... (As to the membership of the committee) that raises another legal issue which is somewhat -- problematic because the Facility Fee is in essence a development fee, which is imposed upon the property owner. And there has to be a nexus between the use of the funds that are collected with respect to the development of the property, and the improvement of that property itself. So the notion of broadening the base of representation on the committee, I wouldn't want it to be misunderstood, that were that base to be broadened, even if it were, that the funds could be used elsewhere in GlD 1- 64, than in the areas of development. Because as I say there has to be a nexus between the imposition of the fee and the properties which bear that fee. I want to dispel any notion that broader based representation could be used to allow a more extensive use of the funds than is now used. In response to Mayor Hartnett's assertion that the Committee's decisions could not be implemented without approval of the GID 1-64 Board, City Attorney Schricker said, "That is correct, and that is done through the annual budgetary process, primarily. . .. In addition to the budgetary control, at such time as public improvements are put out to bid, you also have the decisions which relate to expenditures of those funds. You also make those decisions as well." In response to Councilman Leipzig's questions regarding what happens at the end of the five year period for the proposed extension to the Development Agreement, City Attorney Schricker said, "The Agreement terminates or expires, and the Committee is -- dissolved. The Development Agreement does provide for the disposition of remaining funds, and that is outlined in the Report, if there are any funds remaining.... The expertise of the committee is to be directed towards paying the Facility Fees consistent with the rate of development to provide facilities corresponding to that development so there isn't anything left over.... (If there are funds left) The funds remaining are to complete facilities which have been committed, budgeted, or to reimburse Redwood Shores Properties, Inc., the company itself, for monies used to pay for capital improvements within Redwood Shores. Under the Agreement some of the improvements are constructed by Redwood Shores Properties. Historically, quite a few were. They are then reimbursed from the Facilities Fees... Reimbursement is the next priority, and the third priority is to use the remaining balance for retirement of the outstanding debt, which essentially would affect the existing home owners and although both parties have agreed to it, it does provide an extra territorial benefit beyond the properties that have been developed." In response to Councilman Leipzig's question, could the developer ask for the money left over, City Attorney Schricker said, "No, no they couldn't. You would have to use the three steps: First to payoff outstanding, committed projects, second to reimburse the developer for projects which the developer has paid for, and that would be subject to audit and accountability. And then if there is any remaining residual funds, that '---'" must be used to reduce the outstanding debt.... Those are the three options, by agreement." REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 WLY 14, 1997 MINUTES Page No. 463 PAGE 26