My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1990 12 18
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1990 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1990 12 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:32 PM
Creation date
2/18/2008 1:52:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
12/18/1990
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1990 12 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
Brand: Stated that the improvements that need to be made <br /> are the responsibility of the developer, not the <br /> homeowner. We have contract with developer setting <br /> forth these responsibilities. <br />Griffiths: Because there was no guarantee or no Letter of <br /> Credit provided by the developer, the decision <br /> would be made that no building permits would be <br /> issued to these individual homeowners unless they <br /> contributed to the guarantee. <br />Howard: Since we do not have the same kind of agreement <br /> with the homeowners as we have with Flagstaff, can <br /> we legally keep the money? <br />Griffiths: I concur with the recommendation of the City <br /> Administrator, that the money be refunded to the <br /> individual homeowners upon written request. We <br /> have not conducted an in-depth legal research on <br /> the question of whether the City could keep the <br /> money. We have looked at it and in our judgment <br /> feel that the money should be refunded upon re- <br /> quest from the homeowners. <br />Sackett: All the homeowners in that area paid the $1,613 <br />whether or not they paid it through the developer <br />or themselves. In the event city staff wants to <br />recommend that all those monies be refunded, I <br />agree we should consider that. It would be my <br />recommendation that we do not separate this out, <br />but if we do make the decision that the $1,613 <br />should be refunded that we consider at that time. <br />Brand: We are refunding, in effect, to the developer the <br />51,613 also, because he is pledging that money to <br />us as security for the improvements. As he makes <br />the improvements and draws down on the different <br />forms of security, he will be drawing down on the <br />51,613. <br />Lou Lamoine, 1900 Quail Circle <br />Lamoine: I think there is some confusion on how the $1,613 <br />was paid between the developer and the homeowners. <br />It has been stated that all of the homeowners paid <br />it one way or the other. We really didn't. Those <br />of us that didn't have our house built by Flag- <br />staff, we paid the city. Other homeowners that <br />had their house built by Flagstaff paid Mr. Caran- <br />ci. It was a development fee that Mr. Caranci <br />kept separate from the cost of the house. (At <br />this time Mr. Lamoine presented the Mayor with a <br />written request for his $1,613 that he paid.) I <br />would like to thank the Council for all of the <br />attention they have shown us. <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.