HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12011987 - 2.4 a. y
TD*.' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Phil Batchelor, Cmtrd
County Administrator ir4p,0MA, CJlJ.7lCi
Di TE: November 20, 1987 Cry *
SUBJECT: � t`
AGREEMENT WITH SAN RAMON ON ANNEXATION OF BISHOP RANCH
SPECIFIC .REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND .JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION• RESOLUTION NO . 87/715
Approve the attachedagreement related to/he sharing of property taxes in
the Bishop Ranch area, and authorize the Chair to sign the agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
If this agreement is approved, the County will transfer 21. 8% ( rather than
29 .8%) of its share of the growth in property taxes in a sizeable share of
the Bishop Ranch Development while already planned development is
proceeding.
BACKGROUND: *
In June, 1986, the County and the City of San Ramon agreed on the exchange
of -property tax revenues for annexations to the City. For the Bishop Ranch
area, the agreement called for the County to 'share 13 .8% of its base value
taxes ( those "on the books" when annexation took place) and 29.8% of its
increment ( those taxes resulting from growth after annexation) . The
agreement also called for a phased annexation over a period of years, which
would result ' in the County capturing more of the increased value from
development than an early annexation would.
In September, the County received notice that the City was applying to
annex all of Bishop Ranch in 1987 . This was viewed by the County as being
in direct conflict with the 1986 agreement. The City. felt that since all
the property owners subject to annexation were amenable to the annexation,
that the issue of timing was moot. LAFCO approved the annexation in
October, but the County filed a notice of reconsideration so the annexation
could not be completed without further negotiations with the City.
The Board directed staff and a Committee made up of Supervisors McPeak and
Schroder to meet with San Ramon officials to resolve the issue. The Board
Committee met with San Ramon officials on November 6 and 16; staff met on
the 6th, 10th, 16th and had numerous telephone conferences. On the 17th,
an agreement reflective of the Committees agreement with San Ramon was
reached. The City Council adopted the agreement on the 17th on the proviso
that the County withdraw its request to LAFCO to reconsider their approval
of the annexation. This was done by County staff
//.�o�n� November 18 .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: 1 YES SIGNATURE: �{l/yN>L AAAO 4
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATIONS OPS BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE S :
ACTION OF BOARD ON 1987 APPROVED AS RECrSMMENDED X OTHER X
This order is adopted as RESOLUTION NO , 87//7.15
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ,) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT; ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: CountyCountyAdministrator ATTESTED DEC 1 1987_
Auditor-Controller --
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
City Of San Ramon SUPE VISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
LAFCO
BY DEPUTY
M382/7-83 -
.a ..
The amended agreement calls for the County to share 21. 80 of the growth in
Value instead of 29. 80, for all development contemplated in the original
property tax exchange agreement. This was seen by both City and County
officials as a mid-point between the understanding both parties had about
how the original agreement was to work.