sensitivity. Any type of guaranty that binds a party to fulfill a complex legal financial <br />obligation such as the one under consideration would not typically be as readily accessible <br />via the same route as routine everyday City forms. <br /> <br />2) It is pre-mature at this juncture to produce any form of a signed guaranty or commitment <br />regarding water infrastructure. Does Thomas M. Dreyer and Cynthia A Dreyer, Individually <br />and as Members wners, and Mr. Kloos and Ms. Schirmer intend <br />that this is in complete satisfaction of EC 9.8320 (7) ( c ), and in doing so, <br />replaces the EWEB requirement of a <br />? <br />the public and the Response Committee? <br /> <br />3ommitment to Contribute to Cost of Water <br />woefully inadequate <br />the Owners is in many areas including, but <br />not limited to, the following: <br /> <br />a) . The definition <br />SUBJE <br />Tax Lot 201 <br />. Tax Lot 201 is approximately 6.3 acres in size (in some areas of the tax <br />Regardless, it appears <br />that all of Lots 8 through 19 and portions of Lots 6, 7, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 are not <br />covered by this document. Obviously, neither Mr. Kloos, Ms. Schirmer, the Owners <br />nor Mr. McCullough located this obvious error. <br /> <br />b) This document should contain icommitment, similar to an <br />Owners should not be able to circumvent their <br />legal obligation to provide sufficient water to all lots in the proposed development. <br /> <br />c What is the downside to the Owners if they do <br />walk away from this obligation? <br /> <br />d) This obligation is not secured in any manner, i.e., there is no asset mentioned that <br /> <br />the obligations of this document pass to any future owners of the land, including <br />heirs. <br /> <br />rmine the <br />could lead to future legal challenges. <br /> <br />is the monetary amount they are committing to provide? This is far too open-ended. <br /> <br />g <br /> <br /> <br />