CCMIN111792 - Laserfiche WebLink

191 The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Scribner, Tarver and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Item 13b Approval of Ruby Hill Development Aqreement (SR92:462) Mr. Tarver did not believe that the term of 15 years is necessary because the Growth Management allocations are within a six year period. He asked to reduce the term of the agreement to 10 years. Jim McKeehan, Signature Properties, stated that he would agree to reducing the term to 10 years. He explained why this agreement was set with a 15 term. The fees that are being exacted on this project may be challengeable therefore, instead of imposing the fees through a condition of development they are imposed through contract. This eliminates the need for a nexus. The County wanted a longer term agreement so that at any point that a lot is sold to a buyer, that buyer would not be in a position to challenge any of the fees that had been imposed on a nexus basis. Ms. Mohr asked if the 15 year time frame was chosen because it was expected that that would probably include time to collect all of the fees. Mr. McKeehan believed that 10 years was enough time, but the County added 5 years for the extra protection. It was moved by Mr. Butler, and seconded by Ms. Mohr, to approve the Ruby Hill Development Agreement. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Scribner, Tarver and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Item 13c Resolution Amendinq Resolution No. 92-44 for the exchanqe of property tax revenue for the Ruby Hill annexation (SR92:474) Ms. Acosta explained that the County accepted a proposal to do a phased tax sharing agreement. The Mayor's Conference Formula provides to Pleasanton 25% to 28% of the property tax revenue that is collected from a parcel of property which is annexed to the City. (That varies because of the different taxing districts. The maximum that Pleasanton receives would be 28% because of an 11/17/92 17