Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />after a recent amendment it is unclear whether or not a security bond is acceptable for landscaping <br />maintenance. <br />County Attorney Collins explained that it is the developer, not the subcontractor, <br />who puts up the bond. In the past we have accepted three forms of security for subdivision <br />improvements and the warranty of those improvements: cash, letter of credit, or performance <br />bond. In the ordinance adopted last April, the Board eliminated performance bonds as a form of <br />security that would be accepted. He specified that the maintenance security provisions talk about <br />maintenance security; guaranteeing the required road, drainage and sidewalk improvements. <br />Landscaping is not mentioned. There is no security required for landscaping buffers. As the <br />minutes on backup page 300 reflect, when the ordinance was adopted, buffering improvements <br />would be handled through Code Enforcement. If the landscaping were allowed to die, the <br />responsible party would be cited. If the developer were still in control, then the developer would <br />be responsible; if it occurred after the turnover to the association, then the association would be <br />responsible for the continued maintenance. He was not sure what Commissioner Davis felt needed <br />to be fixed. <br />Joseph Paladin, <br /> Growth Awareness Committee (GAC), was opposed to requiring a <br />letter of credit for maintenance of landscaping. He mentioned this point had been discussed with <br />Commissioner Wheeler but Commissioner Wheeler did not recall this specific issue. <br />County Attorney Collins recalled there were 13 pending ordinance items developed <br />by the GAC but this was not one of them. An ordinance was already adopted concerning <br />maintenance, after a public hearing; it was never a pending ordinance. It was a County-initiated <br />change because the Commission had been concerned, prior to the development of the GAC, about <br />construction of subdivisions, i.e., the quality and how they were going to be maintained. It was at <br />that time decided to extend the period of the warranty from one to three years. If the Board thinks <br />it is a good idea to allow performance bonds for these maintenance warranties, he had no <br />objection, but it is not what the ordinance says right now and it would have to come back at a <br />public hearing to implement that modification. He later specified that the County’s relationship is <br />August 2, 2005 25 <br /> <br />