Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Developer Funds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Franklin Park officials debate splitting $45,500 tied to Carbon/Scarlet Ridge development; easement, access issues remain
Summary
Councilors discussed splitting about $45,500 held from the Carbon/Scarlet Ridge developer between borough fees and the HOA, but legal-description problems, missing access easements and unrecorded dedications for detention basins mean no final transfer was agreed and some funds are proposed to be retained while documents are resolved.
Council members discussed how to allocate roughly $45,500 held from developer-related accounts connected to the Carbon/Scarlet Ridge development and pressed for clearer deeds and easements before turning funds over to the homeowners association (HOA).
Speaker 1 opened the discussion by listing outstanding line items and the sums involved: “We had a, outstanding bill of 17,689” and other invoices including roughly $4,700 for grading permits and inspection and about $12,900 reported for winter maintenance-related charges. The council must decide “how we're gonna split up the $45,500,” Speaker 1 said.
Speaker 2, who disclosed living in Harkon Farm and prior HOA involvement, urged returning the money to the HOA while acknowledging the borough is owed fees. “I'm going to advocate that I think the money should go back to the HOA for a couple of reasons,” Speaker 2 said, citing unfinished work the developer did not complete — sidewalks, trees and fencing — that will leave the HOA with unplanned costs if funds are not transferred.
Legal and recordation problems slowed any immediate transfer. Speaker 3 said borough staff have not yet recorded deed-of-dedication documents for the streets because legal descriptions were flagged in review. Although detention facilities were described as dedicated for public use, the access road to those facilities crosses parcels owned by the HOA and lacks a recorded access easement, which limits the borough’s ability to assume maintenance.
Councilors discussed options including holding back amounts that represent pass-through costs. “I'd say it probably takes 15 and gets the HOA at 30,” Speaker 1 suggested, referring to a roughly $15,000 borough retention and $30,000 to the HOA; other participants noted grading-permit and inspection bills should be treated as pass-through costs the borough recovers to make taxpayers whole.
Staff outlined practical obstacles: parts of the access route are gravel while other stretches have thin asphalt, there are tree and retaining-wall issues near a creek and the detention basins are not visible from the main road, complicating access and maintenance.
No formal motion or vote to transfer funds was recorded in the discussion. Speaker 3 proposed a near-term approach of retaining a modest amount (a few thousand dollars) to close outstanding fees and then distributing the remainder once deed and easement issues are resolved, potentially using joint-maintenance agreements or a dedicated access easement to clarify long-term responsibilities.
The council left the matter open pending final legal descriptions, recordation of required dedication instruments if possible, and further consultation with the HOA about conveying access easements and maintenance arrangements.
