April 16, 2004

Back to the Table of Contents Page

Back to the Weekly Home Page

Classifieds

Publication Date: Friday, April 16, 2004

Funding feud fades hopes for building Neal Elementary School soon

Hopes for building the city's 10th and possibly last elementary school are fading almost as fast as new legal complaints and other issues surface.

As recently as two years ago, the school, Neal Elementary, was scheduled to open this fall, or during the 2004-05 school year at the latest.

Today, in a series of legal actions in Alameda County Superior Court, the school and the city of Pleasanton are sparring with Signature Properties and Standard Pacific Homes over who will pay for the school. Estimated construction costs three years ago were $8.5 million, the amount the developers agreed to advance to the school district to get construction started. Last year, those cost projections rose to $13.5 million, a $5 million difference. Pleasanton and the school district contend that the developers agreed to pay any costs above the $8.5 million budgeted commitment.

But Signature and Standard Pacific said they never signed an open-ended agreement, and filed suit to have the court rule on that clarification. In the meantime, they have refused to start construction. The school district, with no budget surpluses to cover the added construction costs, also won't go ahead on its own. Uncertain about building the school, the district has reappropriated its yearly budget set aside of $600,000 to cover startup costs for Neal to pay for other district needs.

In the latest skirmishes, Standard Pacific has asked Superior Court Judge Ronald Sabraw to delay a trial on the suit for at least 18 more months so that it can conduct "a number of depositions" with individuals who have specific information on the 2001 agreement. City Attorney Michael Roush said that while the court may not allow all the extended time requested, "realistically, this case probably isn't going to get set for trial for over a year from now."

In a related action, the developers served Councilman Steve Brozosky with a court order for a deposition on his public comments last year about the health risks of an asphalt plant that is in operation near the Neal School site. Brozosky said he has turned files of research he conducted on the plant over to the developers' attorneys.

At the same time, the school district has hired a consultant to also look at the asphalt plant concerns. That report, now under review by the state education department, states that while the plant may be a public nuisance, "it is not a health risk," Brozosky said.

"It's pretty much Signature all over the place to find a reason to not build the school," he added.

Still, the claim and the state's review could further delay court action on the Signature lawsuit.

Signature has also indicated that it will not pay its share of the estimated $9 million being spent to build a newly aligned Vineyard Avenue, which is nearing completion and could be opened late this summer. The developer said that the city hired another developer, Greenbriar Homes, to build the road without seeking public bids for the project. According to Roush, Signature contends that decision was made in violation of the law governing public construction projects, which no longer obligates the firm to pay for the road.

"That has nothing to do with Neal School," Brozosky said. "We'll worry about payment after we send them (Signature) the bill."

In the meantime, the 13 acres of prime property on Vineyard that the school district bought for $2 million several years ago for Neal School sits empty, with newly installed underground utility lines in place and cul-de-sacs and roadways around the site under construction.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.