My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/6/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
1/6/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:37 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:50:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/06/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
120
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
As for Company receivables, the Company claims them (for whatever <br />worth) if only because the receiver has a colorable claim to a <br />portionof them. I make no claim to those sums actually received by <br />the County for service the month of May,1981. <br />-.I would e::pect-the County and attorney Collins to remain neutral and <br />silent on all matters involving the receiver. I plan to pursue and <br />defend the D.E.R. case on appeal and, specifically, the receiver's <br />invoice for services; however,I expect to transfer property without <br />lien or enc9-imberence of title. I anticipate the receiver's claim will <br />be settled frith the payment of some monies to him. <br />The County is not to hold back or set-off any monies of whatsoever <br />nature and amount from the settlement sum, whether from any department, <br />taxing division, license and permitting division, etc;,,; nor shall <br />any further future claim be made against the Company or myself. <br />I cannot obtain at this time a voluntary dismissal of the D.E.R. <br />actions inasmuch as they predicated said -dismissal upon the full tran- <br />sfer of property to the County and the resolution of the receiver's <br />claim. However, they have stated that such can take place and, that <br />they have no intention of pursuing the $75,000 "trust fund" claim in <br />the sewage treatment plant case. Their principal concern was to not <br />have to start over and file anew_the notice of citation. <br />If you have any questions concerning this -offer, or if I can be of <br />further assistance,you may reach me in Miami through the offices <br />of -J. Randolph Lipscomb, Esq. (I will be in Miami or Vero Beach the <br />dates of December 30 -January 6) or in Atlanta. <br />Respectful ,� <br />onald Tra Salter <br />The Attorney felt the County should obtain a list <br />of the assets of Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc. to assure <br />what the County would be purchasing. <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by <br />Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board tentatively approve the <br />acceptance of the offer made by Mr. Salter, subject to the <br />conditions the Attorney has raised as to the assets <br />situation; authorize the Administrator to pursue FmHA <br />financing; and to transmit the action of the Board to Mr. <br />Salter. <br />The Board discussed the matter and it was <br />determined that they were taking Mr. .Salter's offer <br />seriously, but particular problems must first be solved. <br />There was no formal acceptance but it should be indicated to <br />Mr. Salter that the County was interested. <br />The Chairman called for the question. It was <br />voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with <br />Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. <br />NOK 8 mu458 <br />40 J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.