My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/16/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
7/16/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:09 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:35:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/16/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Director Pinto advised that before we say yes or no we had <br />better look at that law. <br />Discussion ensued regarding the cost of individual meters. <br />Mr. Bond asked for a legal opinion from Mr. Vitunac in regard <br />to the sixty day notice which was sent to the park owner. Sixty <br />days has long gone by, and he wanted to know if it is still a legal <br />instrument. <br />Attorney Vitunac said it is still a legal notice to connect <br />pursuant to the terms of the contract that was legally entered <br />into; we are enforcing a contractual mandate. It is not a <br />governmental mandate pursuant to state law. <br />Mr. Bond accused the Board of giving Merrill Lynch, the owners <br />of the mobile home park, a license to blackmail every home owner <br />about four thousand dollars. He also pointed out that there are <br />117 widows in that park with no way to come up with this kind of <br />money. <br />Commissioner Scurlock read from a document handed to him by <br />Mr. Bond that the park owner had also sent out notices with payment <br />schedules and interest rates and indicating the home owners would <br />have to pay a pro rata share of construction costs. <br />Director Pinto advised that we cannot get involved in that. <br />He said the park owner is responsible to pay for their entire <br />connection, along with the responsibility and the cost of removing <br />the old plant and restoring that area. <br />Mr. Bond said every home owner also received three pieces of <br />paper with the different options, to be returned by September 1, <br />and indicating that it constitutes a lien against the home. <br />Commissioner Scurlock reiterated that the County has no <br />standing in the rift between the mobile home owner and the mobile <br />home park owner. <br />Mr. Bond placed the County in the middle because of the letter <br />which the park owner is using against the home owners. <br />Chairman Bird explained that the letter was legal notice that <br />it was time to connect. Commissioner Scurlock and Commissioner <br />Wheeler again said the issue should be decided by a Judge. <br />Mr. Bond asked if the only avenue left open to the home <br />owners, then, is to hire expensive lawyers and go to Court to get <br />a Court opinion. Commissioner Scurlock earnestly felt no Judge in <br />this land would allow the owners to pass the cost through to one <br />temporary tenant when the facility will be there for a long time. <br />Commissioner Wheeler asked about the state association of <br />mobile home owners providing funds for a class action suit and Mr. <br />Bond said they would provide matching funds for an individual park <br />17 <br />JUL 16 1991 BOOK F°GE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.