5/14/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Scurlock continued to express his unhappiness with statements that have been made regarding his character. Attorney Vitunac questioned Mr. Nelson about the letter he wrote to our State Representative saying that "So, once again, the County Officials are untruthful." He wished to know who specifically Mr. Nelson meant since in that report his name was mentioned along with that of Mr. Chandler, Mr. Pinto and Mr. Scurlock. Mr. Nelson contended that "untruthful" does not say that someone is a liar. 'He stressed that he did not want to get into personalities, but noted that there was a statement made by both Commissioner Scurlock and Attorney Vitunac, which was quoted in the newspaper, that "never has the County accepted a check made out to the Utilities Department for the residents," and that statement is not in accord with the facts. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that statement was corrected at the March 19th meeting. He further commented that Mr. Nelson stated at that meeting there is no way you could have hooked us up for $227. Mr. Nelson agreed he said that $227 was not feasible, but he stressed that had the proper amounts been picked up, then it would have been feasible. He further noted that if these payments had been -made Ln 1980, maybe it would have been feasible at that time, but no, -payments were made until November of 1983. Mr. Nelson next contended that as to him having all the informa- tion back when they had all those meetings, they did not have copies of Ordinances 80-81 and 80-82 then, and, in fact, when he was supplied with them one year ago, that was all new to him. Argument continued between Mr. Nelson and Commissioner Scurlock as to just what he knew in 1985, and Mr. Nelson continued to contend that he never called anybody a liar but just said that what was stated was not a fact. Mr. Nelson did not wish anyone to bear a grudge because this problem is too big and stressed that he would just ask that we do,some more study on this thing and see if there is any way to iron it out. Chairman Bird asked if anyone else wished to speak. Commissioner Eggert was unclear as to what Mr. Chandler's thoughts on going forward are, and Administrator Chandler advised that what he has included in his report are his recommendations. He felt it is clear the impact fees were escalated but that was not passed along, the reason being staff capabilities at that time. What may have missed to a certain extent in today's discussion is the fact that the County in 1985 was taking the position with the developer that at the time of connection he was to pay the then current impact fees. The County Attorney came to 19 MAY 14 1991