Laserfiche WebLink
N O J 1.4: `m` a 9 <br />BOOK .78 PAGE 386 <br />Mrs. Chuhaloff understood then that if the park owners are <br />legally allowed to pass it through to the tenants, it is a matter <br />between the tenants, the landlord, State law and the judges. <br />Attorney Vitunac suggested the following language for the <br />added paragraph, which would be Item #10: "Whether any <br />obligation on the part of the Park can be passed to the park <br />tenants or not is a matter between the Park and the park <br />tenants." He asked Mr. Negley if he would have any problem in <br />initialling a change like that, and Mr. Negley said he would have <br />a problem in initialling the change because they have spent two <br />years working out this agreement with the County. He stated he <br />would not sign off on anything before it goes through to the park <br />owners and their attorneys. <br />Chairman Wheeler felt the Board could approve it as amended, <br />and then wait for the park owners' attorneys to approve it. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that the County Administrator is <br />suggesting a change in the language in the third whereas clause <br />on page two where it says "upon the mobile home park owners who <br />are required to pay such governmentally -mandated fees and <br />charges" to "who may be required to pay". <br />After some brief discussion, Attorney Vitunac suggested <br />deleting the entire third whereas clause on page 2 of the <br />agreement. The Board indicated that they would approve the <br />agreement with the following three changes: <br />1) The change in the last part of the first whereas on page 2 of <br />the contract, stating that "each mobile home site and each <br />recreational vehicle site located within the Park shall have <br />the current impact fee paid to the County,; and" <br />2) The deletion of the entire third whereas on page 2 of the <br />contract. <br />30 <br />