Laserfiche WebLink
M M M <br />MEMO= AND ANALYSIS <br />The revised agreement is similar to the agreement that the Board approved <br />in the Fall of 1985, with the exception that the dates have been changed <br />and a reciprocal indemnification clause (paragraph 10) has been added. The <br />County Attorney does not recommend this clause be included. <br />The Public Works staff recognizes that a SJRPZID Permit and DER Water Quality <br />permit is required. Applications for these permits will be processed at <br />the end of May, 1986. <br />RECOM� ATIONS AND FUNDING <br />It is recommended that the Developer's Agreement be revised by deleting <br />paragraph 10 and be approved. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted that the track record of the <br />developer, which in this particular case may be a new developer, <br />is not particularly good. The County has received some <br />criticism, as if somehow we have impeded the opening of the <br />shopping center, and that has not been the case. He wished to <br />have some assurance that the new entity we are going to be <br />dealing with is going to be able to perform and that we don't end <br />up with a lot of occupied units creating a significant traffic <br />problem with no solution. The Chairman understood that the <br />monies for the road improvements will be escrowed, but felt that <br />some kind of performance bond should be required for the actual <br />traffic control that is going to be necessary in the interim. <br />Commissioner Bowman noted that although the agreement states <br />that the developer will arrange to have patrol officers at the <br />intersection, it does not specify the hours of the day they will <br />be controlling traffic. <br />Chairman Scurlock did not want the -County to assume a lot of <br />liability because this intersection is not the safest of <br />situations even now. He felt that if we start impacting it with <br />an additional volume of traffic without the proper safeguards, we <br />will be facing even greater problems. <br />Public Works Director Jim Davis noted that, because of what <br />has transpired, staff was reluctant to indicate to the developer <br />that the agreement could be extended without again being reviewed <br />by the Board of County Commissioners. <br />5 <br />MAV <br />He advised that Joseph <br />BOOK 6 4 F,m.r 549 <br />