HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11271990 - 1.35 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 1990
SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR PROCESSING AGREEMENTS DEALING WITH DEVELOPMENT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) &BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. Recommended Action:
ADOPT the following guidelines for the processing of agreements dealing with development:
1. All development agreements shall be executed in the name of the County and shall
contain wording to explicitly advise all parties that the terms of the agreement apply solely
to the County and to County - levied fees.
2. All agreements affecting infrastructure or impact fees shall be presented to the
appropriate department heads(s) responsible for the administration of said fees for their
signature.
3. All agreements affecting infrastructure or impact fees shall contain wording that states the
sole terms of the agreement are contained in the text and any verbal understandings
between the parties that are not written in the agreement are considered to be not a part
of the agreement and the parties to the agreement are only those entities indicated in the
text.
4. All agreements submitted for execution by the Board that involve more than one entity
governed by the Board shall have a separate signature line for the administrator for each
entity recommending the agreement and the names of all of the Board-governed entities
that are a party to the agreement shall be so noted above the Chairperson's signature.
II. Financial Impact:
Strict adherence to the above guidelines will avoid the loss of considerable staff time in
interpretation of agreements.
Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE:
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
_ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON 110V 2 7 19ju APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ✓ OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
✓ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT )
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1 hereby certify that this Is a tris and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
MFK:Iv Board of Sups date shown.
a:Bo\27.t11 ATTEST! : 2 l 1990
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
Orig. Div: Public Works (AD) ofSupervisors and County Administrator
cc: CAO &
County Counsel By
Community Development
GUIDELINES FOR PROCESSING AGREEMENTS
DEALING WITH DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE
November 27, 1990
Page Two
III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background:
Recently an agreement was executed where the conditions of the agreement were inconsistent
with an adopted engineering report establishing the nexus between the fee and the stated
purpose. The validity of our infrastructure impact fees is very much dependent on consistent
interpretation and application of rules. Credits and disbursements of fees must be consistent
with adopted policies and the engineering reports justifying the fee.
There is also potential confusion and misunderstandings as to which Board governed agencies
are a party to various agreements. This confusion could be eliminated by adopting a strict
policy specifying: 1) all of the terms of the agreement are contained in the agreement and any
verbal representations not in writing are not a part of the agreement, and (2) each entity that is
a party to the agreement must be noted therein.
IV. Consequences of Negative Action:
Without guidelines, the confusion, misunderstanding, and in correction exercise of authority will
continue resulting in future problems similar to the Sea Breeze Development agreement and the
Blackhawk Commercial Center Development agreement.