Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forfeiture Hearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
South Russell tables decision on $1,087.50 construction deposit after homeowner, contractor testify
Summary
Council heard competing accounts from homeowner Benjamin Stewart and contractor identified in the transcript as "Mr. Satchel" over a basement renovation at 88 Hawkeye Lake Drive; after testimony and an inspector's report that roughly 70% of work had passed rough inspection, council voted to table the deposit decision until Feb. 17.
South Russell Village Council on Feb. 5 heard a forfeiture hearing over a $1,087.50 construction deposit tied to renovation work at 88 Hawkeye Lake Drive and voted to table a decision to allow council members more time to review paperwork.
Homeowner Benjamin Stewart told the council he and his wife paid about $75,000 for a basement and master-bath remodel and said the contractor "walked off the job after 3 months," leaving work the family estimates required another $20,000–$25,000 to finish. "We wrote him 30 or $40,000 worth of checks," Stewart said, adding he believed the contractor had pocketed roughly $30,000.
The contractor, identified in the transcript as "Mr. Satchel," disputed that account and said he provided receipts to village staff and had completed work consistent with the contract. "I gave receipts," he told the council, and later said he had put a $1,000 deposit down and believed he had done a satisfactory job.
The building inspector, identified in the meeting by his first name, Dave, said he completed the roughing inspection and that electrical, plumbing and framing had passed, but that the permit remained open because final inspection had not occurred. He estimated the project was about 70% complete at the roughing-inspection stage.
Council members and village counsel discussed whether the dispute was principally a civil matter for the courts or an administrative question about releasing the construction deposit. Counsel and staff explained that a deposit generally is refundable upon completion and that the available construction deposit on record was $1,087.50.
Council made a motion to table the forfeiture decision so members could review receipts and paperwork; the motion passed by voice vote. The council scheduled follow-up consideration at its next regular meeting on Feb. 17 at 7 p.m.
No formal judgment was recorded at the meeting and several council members noted that, depending on what the paperwork shows, the homeowner may have civil remedies in court separate from the village's administrative authority over permits and deposits.
