My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/10/1976
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1976
>
3/10/1976
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:28:18 AM
Creation date
6/10/2015 4:45:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/10/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
L I <br />SECURED FOR PARK PURPOSES. THE ATTORNEY AND COMMISSIONER Loy WERE <br />AUTHORIZED TO FURTHER NEGOTIATE WITH THE OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY. SHE <br />ASKED ATTORNEY COLLINS TO PRESENT THE FORMAL CONTRACT THAT THEY ARE <br />RECOMMENDING FOR THE BOARDS APPROVAL TODAY. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT HE HAD DETERMINED THAT THERE <br />ARE SEVERAL OUTSIDE INTERESTS THAT MAY HAVE A CLAIM AS FAR AS THE <br />ASSETS OF THE UTILITY PLANT ARE CONCERNED, THERE IS A CONTRACT WITH <br />INDIAN RIVER UTILITIES THAT PROVIDES FOR A PAYMENT OF $10,000 IN THE <br />EVENT THEIR SERVICES ARE GOING TO BE TERMINATED, AND IF THE PLANT WAS <br />EVER SOLD OR REMOVED, SOME OF THE SHAREHOLDERS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO <br />RECEIVE A PROPORTIONATE PART OF THEIR MONEY BACK. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS CONTINUED THAT HE DID NOT FEEL, HOWEVER, <br />THERE IS ANY REASON THE COUNTY SHOULDN'T GO INTO A DIRECT CONTRACT WITH <br />THE OWNERS RATHER THAN AN OPTION. HE THEN PRESENTED THE PROPOSED <br />CdNTRACT WHICH HE REVIEWED WITH THE COMMISSIONERS. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE SELLER'S ATTORNEY WANTS A <br />SUBSTITUTION OF PARAGRAPH 14 SO THAT IT WILL READ IN THE EVENT THAT <br />"BUYER" INSTEAD OF "SELLER") IS UNABLE TO GIVE SATISFACTORY RELEASES <br />WITHIN 30 DAYS, THEN, IN THAT EVENT, EITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT <br />TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WANT TO THROW THE <br />BALL BACK TO US. THE ATTORNEY CONTINUED THAT HE FELT THE MATTER CAN <br />BE CLEARED UP, AND IF THE COUNTY WANTED TO ASSUME THAT RESPONSIBILITY, <br />HE ESTIMATED IT COULD RUN TO A MAXIMUM OF $30,000.00 AND POSSIBLY <br />CONSIDERABLY LESS, ALSO, THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF SOME DAY SELLING <br />THE PLANT AND GETTING SOME OF THE MONEY BACK, <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT SUGGESTED THAT ANY MONEY NEEDED TO SETTLE <br />THIRD PARTY INTERESTS SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE PURCHASE PRICE. <br />COMMISSIONER Loy STATED SHE DID NOT FEEL IT IS THE COUNTY'S <br />RESPONS$BILITY TO GET THE THIRD PARTY INTERESTS SETTLED, EVEN 'THOUGH <br />SHE REALIZED THE PRICE OF THE LAND HAS BEEN REDUCED CONSIDERABLY BE- <br />CAUSE OF THAT PARTICULAR PROBLEM, AND SHE WOULD PREFER THE COUNTY NOT <br />BE INVOLVED IN NEGOTIATING ALL THESE INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS. <br />4 <br />g <br />MAR 101976 <br />r, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.