Builder Backs Out of Housing Plan for School Land

A developer has backed out of a deal to build homes on school district land, blaming bad blood between school and city officials that he says stalled the work.

Avi Brosh, a representative of Agoura Hills-based developer Braemar Homes, said plans to build single-family homes on 15 acres of school property south of the new Walnut Canyon School were caught up in a history of antagonism.

“They say it doesn’t have anything to do with it, but it does,” said Brosh, whose company withdrew from the project two weeks ago. “We tried desperately to stay out of the politics.”

Moorpark Unified officials are now looking for another developer to pursue their plan of building homes on the property, part of a 25-acre rectangle west of Moorpark Avenue. The goal of the school officials is to net about $2 million in profits to offset the $6.8 million construction cost of the new school, scheduled to open in September on a 10-acre site to the north.

While at least one school trustee, Clint Harper, agrees that politics is the problem, City Manager Steve Kueny and schools Supt. Tom Duffy downplay any talk of bad blood.

The two officials acknowledge they have been at odds in the past, that there were disputes over the plans and negotiations had been slow. But delays resulted more from the complexity of the project than anything else, they said.

The city was “positive in working with me and they intended on working with our board members and there was a spirit of goodwill,” Duffy said.

The two agencies tangled over the site in a legal battle that culminated more than seven years ago with a state Supreme Court ruling in favor of the school district.

The city said it had a right to buy part of the property--the former Moorpark Memorial High School football field--at a discount to build a park. The school district contended it was entitled to sell the land for the best price it could get.

In 1991, the state Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision that favored the city. The higher court ruled the district was not obligated to sell to the city because the two agencies had no contract and no formal negotiations over the price.

Since then, relations between the two have often been icy. In recent years, however, the city and school officials said they have been trying to build a better rapport and that working on this project was one way to improve relations.

“There’s a lot more communication than ever before,” trustee Greg Barker said. “Before, there was no communication.”

Yet, some say the city of Moorpark is taking advantage of its power to slow the project.

In this case, Brosh said there were difficult matters that had to be resolved but that the residue of the past lingered over the negotiations. He said Kueny--who lost the battle with the schools years ago--was “an obstructionist” during the process.

“The city manager was very uncooperative,” Brosh said. “There were never any specific demands, but every time we tried to get something going, it would never materialize in any way. It was always like saying ‘No,’ but never with anything specific.”

Braemar had hoped to build single-family homes that could have cost $140,000 to $200,000. The plan was to build 60 to 150 homes, but the exact number was never decided.

Three years after the project was proposed, it remains mired in disagreements between the two agencies over all the basic issues: number of homes, developer fees and improvements required, Brosh said.

“I think ultimately, over the past three years, we made a commitment to the district and tried desperately to get something resolved but with three years getting nowhere, we needed to turn our time and resources to other opportunities,” Brosh said.

Moorpark officials, however, said the main obstacle was that the developer was unwilling to present the city with a statement detailing expenses the company would incur and how much profit the company would make.

City officials contend the school district was asking for special concessions, such as reduced or waived city fees, and therefore the city had a right to know how much the developer was going to make.

The developer and the school district, however, contend statements were provided to the city indicating a 10% profit margin. The developer would have netted $1 million to $2.5 million, depending on the number of homes built.

The deal was difficult to negotiate because the district wanted a higher number of homes than typically would be allowed in order to reap its planned profit of $2 million, city officials said.

“We aren’t in agreement, but it’s not because the city is being an obstructionist,” Kueny said, saying the city’s general plan calls for only 40 to 120 homes on the full 25 acres owned by the school.

The two agencies also did not resolve how much to charge in developer fees. City officials say a fee of $7,000 per lot may be required--the amount frequently charged to other developers. But the developer and school officials balked, saying they were used to paying significantly less and that this would cut significantly into the school district’s planned $2-million profit.

Parties to the deal also were at odds over the number of access roads to be built.