7/14/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUL 1419G7 BOOK Mr. Chancellor stated they did not, and they also never got a letter advising them of any deficiency whatsoever in the past seven years until this last week. Attorney Vitunac asked if they have any plans of providing such a sinking fund if the franchise is extended. Mr. Chancellor did not know what the county is really intending to give them since he has not seen a document purporting to be the new proposed Bent Pine franchise other than the recommendations which he just saw this morning. Attorney Vitunac wished to know, if, in fact, the Board extended the exact same franchise they are already operating under, would Bent Pine then be prepared to furnish a $30,000 sinking fund. Attorney Sundstrom stated that he was not sure he would be advising his client to sign the same franchise as that might be construed as giving away $800,000 worth of pipe that they own today, and they are going to Circuit Court because they are in doubt about their rights and obligations and want the court to construe them. He, therefore, felt he would be derelict if he advised his client to sign the same document-, which, in effect, would be a taking. Attorney Vitunac felt Attorney Sundstrom had said at the beginning that there were two options - 1) for the county to buy them out or 2) for the franchise to become permanent. Attorney Sundstrom commented that, as Mr. Scurlock apparently felt earlier, the language is somewhat ambiguous. Obviously he feels the word permanent is "permanent," and the County's action to fail to exercise an option to acquire amounted to a statement to Bent Pine that all the restrictions contained in the old franchise are "bye-bye." Attorney Vitunac wished clarification as to what Attorney Sundstrom is saying. Is he saying they are not going along with the statement of the original two options and they would not take this.franchise if we extended it as they requested? 58