Laserfiche WebLink
In discussing this matter with George Liner, after <br />Dean Luethje had made me aware of it, he indicated to me <br />that you felt that a meeting was not necessary or likely to <br />be productive since neither you nor George Liner had the <br />authority to resolve the question. Somehow I have gotten <br />the idea that the County will withhold approval of my client's <br />DER application until my client agrees to pay $40,000.00. <br />This is grossly unfair and is counter to what the County has <br />agreed to do and what my client has accepted. After we have <br />released the County from its original commitment, fair play <br />would dictate that the County should honor its recommitment <br />on a prorated basis. My client will abide by what he has <br />told the County Commission and I would expect the County <br />Commission to make good on its word. Since there is already <br />a resolution in effect that the cost is to be prorated among <br />the users, I don't feel that it is necessary to go back to <br />the Board, but I will abide by your wishes in the matter. <br />With best regards, I remain <br />ATTORNEY O'HAIRE CONTINUED THAT HE NOW HAS BEEN INFORMED <br />THAT THE ENGINEERS WERE INSTRUCTED TO LEAVE HIS CLIENT S PROJECT OUT <br />OF THE DRAWINGS TO BE SUBMITTED TO DER, HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT <br />HE NOW IS EMBARRASSED THAT HE ADVISED HIS CLIENT TO RELEASE THE COUNTY <br />FROM ITS $15,000 COMMITMENT, AND IF THE BOARD RENEGES ON ITS DEAL <br />ABOUT PRO RATING THE EXPENSES, HE IS LOOKING DOWN THE BARREL AT $40,000 <br />AND MAY HAVE TO GO TO COURT. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED WHERE THE IDEA CAME FROM THAT THEY <br />WERE GOING TO PAY A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE? <br />ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT <br />RIGHT NOW ALL WE NEED IS AN ADDITIONAL PUMP, BUT IF WE PUT ON THEIR <br />SYSTEM, WE WILL NEED A LIFT STATION, AND HE THEREFORE, DID NOT FEEL <br />THIS IS A DISPROPORTIONATE COST. HE CONTINUED THAT THE $15,000 FIGURE <br />STEMMED FROM BAD INFORMATION WE HAD GOTTEN FROM A PREVIOUS UTILITY <br />EMPLOYEE. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT ON JUNE 20, 1979, THE BOARD <br />MADE A POTION UNANIMOUSLY RESCINDING ACTION IN WHICH THEY WERE <br />F] <br />MAR �. 919 0 59 __ - eoc c 3A PAGt 59. <br />