My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2001-09-26 CC
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
2001
>
2001-09-26 CC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2007 9:43:08 AM
Creation date
1/19/2007 9:41:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
175
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />retainage in the contract as the developer's attorney has indicated they would prefer a <br />110% retainage. <br /> <br />Mr. Hannah indicated he was concerned with the completion date of December 31, 2002 <br />as he is not sure it is realistic to have all the lots sold and all the improvements made by <br />that date. He then indicated they would like the City to consider moving it out as much <br />as a year especially considering they would not be starting to market or sell houses until <br />Spring. <br /> <br />Mr. Hannah indicated that he had received a minor change from Ms. Bender on Page 3 <br />which he read for Council. He noted the language had to do with the builder being <br />allowed to construct model homes without having to have the bituminous in on the <br />roadway. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated the language for that had come from the City Engineer and <br />said he did not have an issue with it. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated there is a new state statute that has come into effect that <br />says that a developer can be required by the City to waive the right to appeal the special <br />assessment. He then indicated that the City needs to set a number for the assessment in <br />the developer's agreement and suggested using the number from the feasibility study. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft ~ndicated that the City Engineer has indicated that an adequate <br />contingency has been built into the feasibility number making it very unlikely that the <br />amount would exceed the feasibility study number. <br /> <br />Mr. Hannah indicated there had been a suggested change to Page 6. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated the suggested language had come from the City Engineer <br />and indicated he had no problem with it. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft questioned whether the developer was being asked to pay a straight <br />park dedication fee and said he did not have numbers for that. <br /> <br />Mr. Hannah indicated that the numbers were 22 lots at $1,800 per lot. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers noted the park dedication fee may be raised at the <br />January meeting and asked if the numbers for the park dedication fee should be <br />determined after the increase. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated that the park dedication fee at the time of approval of the <br />developer's agreement would need to be used. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft inquired as to whether the storm water fee had been calculated. Mr. <br />Palzer indicated that they had. <br /> <br />Page 20 of 29 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.