Laserfiche WebLink
FF"_ <br />SEP 1 �Nln <br />d00K 6� PAGE226 <br />several weeks ago with five lawyers, Chairman Scurlock, Utilities <br />Director Terry Pinto, and Gerald Chancellor of Bent Pine <br />Utilities, which resulted in an offer being made by the county to <br />purchase the entire utility but to pay no more than the fair <br />market value of the raw land itself (18 acres), which everyone <br />agrees is worth $15-16,000 an acre. Bent Pine's original <br />_requirements to make a settlement were close to 1/2 million cash. <br />Under this settlement, they would be getting $270,000 cash from <br />the county and the difference would have to be made up from <br />contributions from the lot owners in Bent Pine who do not already <br />have utility service but will need it in the future from the <br />plant and lines existing at the site. Bent Pine's accountant is <br />developing an impact fee, which we have agreed in the proposed <br />contract will be between $1,200 - $1,500 a unit. There are <br />approximately 150 lots, and their impact fees add up to $225,000 <br />more to be paid when and if they apply for a building permit on <br />that site. Thus, if Bent Pine is to get any more money than the <br />raw value of the land, they will have to get it as these people <br />hook on over the next 15 years. <br />Attorney Vitunac felt this is a good agreement for the <br />county, and reported that we have received a letter from Blain & <br />Cone, the attorneys who have been representing the county in the <br />DER case, and they strongly recommends accepting the settlement. <br />The only people who are really not affected in a good way by the <br />proposed settlement are Utilities Director Pinto and Chairman <br />Scurlock, who were defamed in a lawsuit. Mr. Pinto has filed a <br />counterclaim against Bent Pine, and Commissioner Scurlock is <br />contemplating the same type action. The proposed settlement. <br />would have both of these people give up their personal rights for <br />a simple letter of apology. Their names were added to the <br />proposed agreement; Attorney Vitunac believed they will sign; and <br />he felt that would be magnanimous on their part. He strongly <br />recommended the Board sign the proposed agreement, but advised <br />that state law requires there be a public hearing before a county <br />38 <br />