Quote:
Originally Posted by Proof Sheet
Good one...to me, it would have been better if the developer was required to undertake $200 K of actual improvements and not just provide $200 K.
I hope that this $200 K amount is utilized in a more accountable manner than the cash in lieu of parking or cash in lieu of parkland payments that are required.
|
If you look at the motion, it was taken as a security, not as a contribution, which means the city holds the money until the work is done. So what you'd prefer is in fact what's happening. Cheers.