6/4/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ais � The remainder of my clients' financial contribution to renovation of the system will be paid on permitting of the balance of construction and the money is actually necessary for upgrading of the system. (In our discussion, I pointed out to you that we cannot control the timing of construction to be performed under the County's auspices and your response was that timing could be controlled by my client's construction schedule --accordingly, payment of the balance on permitting.) The engineers advise me that the sole bid received for work on the system is unacceptable and you have confirmed to me that the County Commission has rejected the bid. Accordingly, rebidding will be necessary. At this point in time, so much time having elapsed, my clients' construction contracts with general contractors are in jeopardy and the work commenced must be terminated until resolution of the matter. Momentum on the project having been lost and construction forces required to terminate as of May 12, I would like this matter and our pro- posal placed on the agenda for the meeting of the Commission on May 21 before all momentum is hopelessly lost. Given the loss of a favorable construction contract, the current money market and the probable need to renegotiate financing because of delay, the owners of the property have just about reached the point where litigation is as good or better an option as continued negotiation. Unless some sort of accord can be reached on the 21st, I have been instructed to file proceedings based on the commitments already made since, by that time, so much has been lost that there is no other feasible alternative. The supervisory and construction per- sonnell being laid off next week are being instructed to report back on the week following the meeting of the 21st in hopes that their work may proceed. ly, ATTORNEY O'HAIRE NOTED THAT IT IS NOW FIVE DAYS SHORT OF A YEAR TOWARDS TRYING TO RESOLVE THIS SITUATION. HE STATED THAT HIS CLIENTS ARE BUSINESSMEN AND HAVE GIVEN HIM AN ULTIMATUM, AND HE CANNOT CHANGE THE $36,000 OFFER. HE FELT THEY ARE PAYING 64% OF THE TOTAL COST, AND THAT HE HAS GONE AS FAR AS HE IS AUTHORIZED TO GO. COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THE TAP -IN FEE FIGURE SHOULD BE BACKED OUT OF THE $36,000 FIGURE. MR. O'HAIRE NOTED THAT THESE FIGURES WERE EVOLVED UNDER THE THEORY OF AN IMPACT FEE, AND IF THEY WERE TO PAY $36,000 PLUS TAP -IN CHARGES AS AN IMPACT FEE, THEY WOULD BE PAYING FOR THEIR IMPACT ON THE IMPACTION SOMEHOW. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT, AS HE SAW IT, THEY HAVE OFFERED SUFFICIENT MONEY TO PAY THEIR IMPACT ON THE SYSTEM. THE METHOD OF PAYMENT MAY OR MAY NOT BE A PROBLEM TO THE ENGINEERS. AS THEY BUILD, THEY PAY, AND THEY ANTICIPATE 40 TAP -INS. IT IS JUN4 190 85 BOB*—' PaGE' )