11/14/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attorney Vitunac explained that the agreement says that each site has to pay an impact fee, but Commissioner Eggert asked why it can't say "the owner of each site" or "the owner of the land under the mobile home". Attorney Vitunac emphasized that this is between the owner of the park and the County. It is not between the tenants of the mobile home park, and it is up to the owner to pay for each site. How the owner does that is really up to him, his law and his Leases. Commissioner Eggert asked why it doesn't say that the impact fee for each site must be paid, instead of "each site will pay", because she felt that makes a difference. Attorney Vitunac stated that we could do that, but it is a matter of semantics. It doesn't change what we really are saying, which is that the site has to pay. Commissioners Bird and Eggert understood then that the County wants an impact fee for each site and it goes with the land, not the mobile home. Attorney Vitunac suggested taking out the word "pay" in the first whereas clause on page 2 and inserting "shall have a current impact fee paid to the county." Commissioner Bowman noted that the agreement goes on to say that the park is the customer, and Director Pinto explained that it is a matter of collection. Commissioner Eggert believed that what the owner chooses to put in his rent or whatever is his business and is between him and the tenants. As far as she could see in our contract, the agreement is between the County and the owner of the park. However, she could see where the owner of the park perhaps could feel that we have opened up something that allows a pass through, and she didn't feel it was any of our business to talk about that. Commissioner Bird felt that the word "site" is very self- explanatory. NOV 1 17 �3 .ter, BOOK 78FM E 7