Lebanon — The city will continue to hold the entirety of $250,000 in performance bonds associated with phase one of the Prospect Hill subdivision, the Planning Board voted on Tuesday, much to the chagrin of developers who hoped to use the money to finance the project’s second phase.

Manchester-based developer Brady Sullivan Properties on Tuesday asked the board to reduce the bond to $60,500, arguing the remaining work on the 54-unit development near Lebanon Middle School wouldn’t exceed that amount. City planners disagreed, however, both with the dollar figure and the scope of work that remains.

“We don’t believe it’s enough,” City Engineer Christina Hall said.

City staffers met with Brady Sullivan officials last week to go over the remaining work on the project, which was acquired by the developer in 2009. Among the items still unfinished are curb repairs, speed tables, replacing dead trees, signage and landscaping.

There’s also the task of deeding a turning lane to the city and an easement for the water line that will have to be completed, said Marc Pinard, Brady Sullivan’s attorney.

“We didn’t create that problem, but we have it on the list to fix it,” he said.

Pinard reminded board members that Brady Sullivan acquired the project from M&M Equities, the initial developer, after the company fell on hard times. Not all of the problems at Prospect Hill are Brady Sullivan’s fault, Pinard said, but the company still is committed to finishing the work.

Planning Board members were skeptical of the developer’s arguments, however.

Ever since Brady Sullivan submitted a request to develop another 117 housing units nearby, the city has heard from Prospect Hill residents who complain work on the neighborhood is shoddy and beginning to deteriorate.

“I fully understand that you walked into the project midway,” said board member Carl Porter, who quickly quipped that Brady Sullivan knew what it was getting into when it bought the project.

“… It just strikes me that this project is tainted off the bat,” board member Ken Morley said, adding letters received from current homeowners concern him.

“I’m just unhappy with what the people out there are dealing with in this development,” he said.

Hall, the city’s engineer, told the board she received Brady Sullivan’s proposed list and price a few hours before the meeting, and couldn’t confirm what it would cost to complete the work, while city Planning Director David Brooks said some of the work was mentioned to the company back in 2013, when he performed a site walk.

Striping on the development’s streets and signage both were flagged to Brady Sullivan as necessities at the time, he said.

“For me, that speaks of not being timely since it’s now 2016,” board member Joan Monroe said.

Brady Sullivan officials said its current manager started his work in 2015, and has been trying to finish items on the list. The city has issued several separate lists, Pinard said, which made it difficult to complete the work.

“It’s been a moving target and we would like to have it not being a moving target,” he said.

But Hall said the developer’s proposed list isn’t complete. Issues such as curbing and needed plans for the water pump weren’t there, she said.

That prompted Pinard to ask the board to give city planners the authority to lower the bond amount instead of the fixed $60,500. That way, he said, they could come to an agreement on their own.

“The purpose of site security is to have a fund for the city to pay for the work if we don’t do it,” Pinard said. “What shouldn’t happen is a premium be out on it because that’s not what site security is for.”

Sarah Welsch, the City Council’s representative to the board, disagreed.

The city should hold onto the money until the work is complete, she said, not dish it out in a piecemeal fashion.

“In my frame of reference, I’m holding onto that money until (the work is) done,” she said. “The bottom line is we hold onto it until we are satisfied.”

If the city has to take over a project, it usually refunds the unused portions of the bond, so Brady Sullivan would be paid its fair share regardless, said Porter, a board member.

The Planning Board ultimately decided to reject Brady Sullivan’s request to reduce the bond. The company also has one year to agree on a final checklist with planners or the city will collect on the $250,000, the board ruled.

The board will continue its review of Prospect Hill’s second phase during its Nov. 14 meeting.

Tim Camerato can be reached at tcamerato@vnews.com or 603-727-3223.