The contract must include a legal description of the assets covered by the agreement and the names of its legitimate and fair owners. Any development agreement must also explicitly state its duration. The maximum term of a contract is twenty years And a city or county may choose to enter into a contract of a shorter term. This is one of the few aspects of the statute that has been the subject of active debate during the legislative process. Many members of the planning administration and local government have proposed a shorter maximum duration, for example. B of ten years or fifteen years. The concern was that an extended period increased the likelihood of adverse unforeseen events or changes in physical conditions and that the ability of future local elected officials to apply new rules deemed necessary to meet the changing needs of the public was unduly reduced. The Development Community argued that the construction period should correspond to large, complex and multi-phase projects. The final resolution was to leave the maximum period at 20 years, but to allow each local government to use a shorter period, as they considered appropriate on a case-by-case basis. The statutes do not specify how other remedies concerning a development agreement, such as .
B, a difference of opinion between the parties on its interpretation. In all likelihood, the appropriate process is to follow the standard approach for the zoning. In other words, the local authority administrator responsible for implementing the development agreement would make a formal and binding written interpretation, which could then be challenged before the audit committee, after which judicial review will be exercised before the Supreme Court.  However, the statutes are not explicit on this point, so the question of whether a complaint to the review board is a necessary measure to exhaust administrative resources before judicial review is opened. It would therefore be wise for a local government to adopt a regulation establishing procedures for development agreements in order to deal specifically with the administrative appeal procedure in this regulation.  It is also not uncommon for the terms of any development agreement to deal with the dispute resolution process, such as the inclusion .B a mandated mediation in the event of disagreement over the interpretation of the agreement. If the local government is to provide infrastructure improvements to support development, the agreement must stipulate that the delivery date of public facilities is linked to the successful performance of the developer.  . In nollan v.
California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court found that regulatory requirements are constitutionally limited to those that are reasonably related to the effects of development and are roughly proportional to those effects.