My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1990 10 16
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1990 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1990 10 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:32 PM
Creation date
2/18/2008 1:44:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
10/16/1990
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1990 10 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ever make in our lives, our homes and we need our <br />neighborhood development and we need the <br />improvements done that we are entitled too. We do <br />want to work with the city and Council to get <br />these things done. <br />Sackett: It is not clear what staff recommends that we do. <br />Brand: We do not have a specific recommendation for this <br />matter. We could come up with a recommendation; <br />we would, however, like to hear from Council <br />first. <br />Howard: In the list of alternatives that the staff gave <br />us, I didn't see an alternative for releasing <br />part of the funds with guarantee for doing work on <br />those funds and then further release of being <br />contingent upon the work being done previously. <br />Franklin: No we did not specify that. The core of that <br />would be an agreement with deadlines and phases. <br />It could be a mid-ground underscored by an <br />agreement. <br />Howard: What I see is a basic lack of trust between the <br />homeowners and lack of good faith in many ways by <br />the builder and yet the builder has certain rights <br />because they are in the city and they are a <br />contractor. What I am trying to find is some <br />grounds that both parties can agree on and get <br />what they both want. To get the improvements done <br />and to ensure that the city does not have further <br />liability. If we continue down a course of strict <br />litigation or the city trying to take over the <br />funds it may in fact tie up the funds longer. <br />Carnival: It seems what we are looking for is the best and <br />quickest way to solve this problem. Has <br />alternative one been discussed with Flagstaff and <br />is it legal? Lets get this project dealt with for <br />these people. <br />Franklin: We have discussed with Flagstaff Enterprises to <br />allow him to proceed, get a development schedule <br />going, releasing funds, releasing permits and what <br />if the city needed to use the funds that we have. <br />We did talk about the possiblity that if we did <br />settle that he would assign over his rights to <br />receive those monies and we could agree to cause <br />the improvements to be installed with them. All <br />the details have not been worked out. It would <br />still take an agreement with regard to performance <br />and whose responsbilty it is. <br />Carnival: It seems that from the statements from Caranci's <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.