CCMIN040495 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. McKeehan referred to a citizen' s remark that the City should stick with the deal that was made. He reminded Council that when Ruby Hill was approved, the deal was $500 per home. Another speaker referred to the concept of negotiation. Mr. McKeehan believed there were negotiations in good faith. Many people oppose the concept of private open credits. He indicated that concept was in the ordinance long before the Ruby Hill proposal. With regard to the concern about precedent setting, as he looks around the City there are not much area left for gated communities or private open space. Ms. Michelotti inquired about the timing of the payment of fees. Mr. McKeehan indicated the fees are paid at the time the final maps are recorded. Signature has already paid the City $667,000 in park fees with no credit. If Council approved the 50% credit, they would be entitled to $333,500 of credit. When the next map is recorded, if the fees are less than $333,500, they would pay no fee. That would continue until the fees were equalized and then whenever a final map is recorded, Signature would pay 50% of the fees. The City staff has indicated it does not want to pay out refunds. Ms. Michelotti asked if Signature would agree to continue to pay full fees until the required amount is collected. Mr. McKeehan indicated the fastest way for the City to collect all its money is for Signature to take no credit until it has paid 100% of the fees for 425 lots. That could occur within the next 24 months. Signature will agree to that. Ms. Michelotti posed this situation because of her concern for the shortfall in the CIP program. Ms. Acosta indicated that when the most recent Capital Improvement Program budget was presented to Council, the potential for this credit was raised and funds were allocated to cover any losses. The current CIP is whole; there are no shortfalls. Whether Council granted the credit or not, staff did not want to risk not fulfilling Council commitments to proceed on various projects. Mr. Tarver commented that the $300,000 allocated was not necessary at that time because the credit had not been granted. Ms. Acosta stated that staff felt the allocation was necessary because, staff anticipated the possibility the credit would be granted. Mr. Tarver indicated when the agreement was made that Ruby Hill "may" get the credit, he didn't understand staff was working under the assumption that if the standards are met, Signature would get the credit. In addition, when the CIP was approved, he did not understand that staff took out $1.5 million and that the $300,000 being added to the CIP was to cover the shortfall due to the Signature credit. 04/04/95 -10-