08/2/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

with the developer, not the contractors. Therefore, the County wants the surety bond from the developer. County Administrator Baird recalled that this issue came about as a result of concerns about the Oak Chase Subdivision and that staff had recommended Code changes to prevent similar future problems. He stressed that the County is trying to protect the homeowners and could never recommend chasing the subcontractors. He preferred security by irrevocable letters of credit or cash over performance bonds. Bruce Barkett , a member of the GAC, felt that requiring a letter of credit or cash for maintenance for three years is unreasonable. After completion of the subdivision, the developer should be able to post a 3-year bond for maintenance. That bond should be from a bonding company with an A+15 or higher rating. The developer should not have to leave a letter of credit sitting for 3 years. Chairman Lowther and Commissioner Wheeler agreed that the developers should be responsible; the intent was to protect the consumer. Mr. Paladin thought it unfair to use a bond for the maintenance of landscaping for a 3-year period. Although he would prefer a letter of credit, Commissioner Wheeler stated he could live with a bond. Commissioner Davis believed requiring a letter of credit put an undue hardship on the developer. He could agree to an increased percentage but believed tying up the developer’s cash was not the right thing to do. County Administrator Baird recalled that the GAC recommended a performance bond but the Commission decided at the public hearing to go further and require a letter of credit. He suggested looking at the minutes before making any further decisions. Mr. Paladin recalled how this change came about, but Commissioner Wheeler wanted to look at the minutes. Vice Chairman Neuberger understood the issue to be whether a bond or letter of credit should be used for “warranty” on maintenance. August 2, 2005 26