Laserfiche WebLink
NOV 141'9S <br />BOOK 78 FAa 384 <br />Mr. Ramsey wished to address some of the things Mr. Negley <br />said about facing reality. He felt a lot of that can be <br />discovered in the proposed lease agreement that was given to the <br />tenants to sign. For one thing, the park owners were ready to <br />fight the County about hooking up to this sewer system, but they <br />wanted the tenants to foot the bill. However, after the <br />agreement was reached with the County, the owners wanted the <br />tenants to pay the bill that they had generated in their fight <br />against the County. That is their explanation for the cost of <br />the lease going higher than what it normally would just based on <br />the cost of living. With regard to the residents' concerns about <br />a rezoning, the zoning is presently commercial/recreational <br />vehicle, but there are references in the lease agreement that if <br />they give the tenants 6 months notice, they must get out. As far <br />as being realistic is concerned, the last mobile home was <br />installed in that park in 1980, and what other mobile home park <br />would accept homes that old? Mr. Ramsey urged the Commissioners <br />to take a look at the lease agreement because he felt it tells a <br />lot about the people the County are dealing with here. <br />Commissioner Bird asked if Mr. Ramsey had a problem with the <br />agreement that the Board is about to enter into with the park <br />owners, and Mr. Ramsey felt the way it is written is very <br />ambiguous and throws the tenants to the mercy of the park owner. <br />Commissioner Bird and Chairman Wheeler both felt that staff <br />has it worded to serve the best interests of the residents, not <br />the park owners. <br />Mr. Ramsey believed that some unnecessary language in the <br />agreement gives the owners the feeling that they have the legal <br />right to pass the impact fee charges through to the tenants. He <br />felt there was a lot that could be left out of the agreement. <br />Commissioner Eggert felt that with the change that Attorney <br />Vitunac suggested in Item #2, it does make it clear that the park <br />owner has to pay the impact fees and that the only thing that <br />28 <br />