Laserfiche WebLink
<br />9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE 2005-032 – AMENDING <br />SECTION 913.10(2) TO ALLOW MAINTENANCE BONDS AS <br />SECURITY FOR THE WARRANTY OF REQUIRED <br />SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS <br />PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE <br />CLERK TO THE BOARD <br /> <br />County Attorney William Collins stated there have been some unintended <br />consequences regarding Section 913.10(2) and clarified that bonds will be accepted to guarantee <br />installed improvements within the three-year warranty period. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wheeler referred to Michael O’Haire’s letter which explained that a <br />developer is not a contractor and therefore not bondable. <br /> <br />Attorney Collins felt in most cases the developers are bondable and in his <br />experience most developers will provide their bonds. He explained that Mr. O’Haires’ issue is <br />more about timing. When the County required construction security be increased to 125% and <br />would only accept a letter of credit or cash, the County gave an effective date of September 20, <br />2005 so that certain developments in process could be completed before the rule changes would <br />affect them. With respect to the maintenance bond provision there was no such grace period. As <br />a consequence, any development that came in with their Certificate of Completion (CC) was now <br />presented with a request for a three-year maintenance bond. <br /> <br />County Administrator Joseph Baird commented that staff is hearing from the <br />development community that, if the developer is not a contractor, he cannot get the bond. He <br />suggested adding the language “or contractor” to the ordinance should resolve the problem. <br /> <br />Attorney Collins asserted that companies cannot get the bonds because the do not <br />have the capitalization or the financial strength for a bonding company to stand behind them. <br />September 6, 2005 16 <br /> <br />