Laserfiche WebLink
OLD BUSINESS: Fremont .Hills (Cont'd.) <br />the deposit in order to dissolve the Company, and further <br />stated these improvements have been in existence .for seven <br />years and there is no evidence of any damage. In the event a <br />release from this deposit is not possible, Mr. Coldiron <br />would insist hopefully that the Council set a maximum amount for <br />this fund and that their balance be no greater than that portion <br />of the water they contribute to the drainage channel, which was <br />determined to be 55% by an engineering survey. <br />It was the opinion of the Council that since the deposit is <br />refundable in 1968, all that is in dispute is the date. How- <br />ever, there is a contingent liability for the remaining three <br />years 2nd a review of the Town's insurance coverage is an <br />important one. <br />The Mayor instructed the City :attorney to review the insurance <br />contract, with the insurer and that this matter be returned to <br />the e-gendda for action, one way or the other, at the October 18h <br />meeting. <br />Further discussion revealed that Mr. Coldiron's interpretation <br />of the damage agreement entered into with the Town was that it <br />contair_ed a refunding agreement whereby the Town would collect <br />from all upstream divisions of land a pro rata share of the <br />installation cost of the improvements installed by Fremont Hills <br />and that it is their desire to obtain any funds that may be <br />collectible. <br />The City ttorney stated there is no agreement to refund and, <br />even if there were, there is no fundfrom which it could be paid. <br />�E47 BUSINESS: <br />1. Charles R. Garbett - .:appeal of Tlumbing Regulations. <br />Mr. Garbett has requested the use of plastic pipe for water <br />and drainage disposal and for venting purposes. This request <br />was denied by the wilding Department since it does not meet <br />the requirements of the Plumbing Code. <br />",CTION: <br />That the appeal of Charles R. Garbett be denied.. <br />MOTION: Clayton; SECOND: Bowler <br />City Manager presented Mr. Garbett's letter dated September 10! <br />and documents supporting his appeal• however, following dis- <br />cussion, it was the opinion of the 6ouncil to remain steadfast <br />to the Code adopted by the Town. <br />1 The Question was called: VOTE: Passed unanimously..: <br />-3- <br />