4/1/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK . 0i PAGE 5 that there was a mutual mistake- of fact. Attorney Melville did not believe a court would accept that theory in view of the fact that everything being discussed- is recorded in the public records and he believed a court action would be a waste of time and money. Attorney Melville further believed that even should the County be successful in a rescission suit, there would be no real benefit to the County as the County would still need the land for the road but would then be forced to pay today's prices. Commissioner Ginn questioned whether the traffic impact fee credits run with the land, and Attorney Melville responded in the affirmative. Public Works Director Davis stressed that the right-of-way to the County does not exist as the State has jurisdiction over 27th Avenue. In 1990 it was not disclosed to the County that the State had a road right-of-way reservation. The County cannot occupy the land along 27th Avenue without going through extensive DOT permitting. The statement was made that it was a part of the public record and that any reasonable party could search the public records; however, at that time the developer did not know that the Murphy Act right-of-way was there or, if he did, he did not disclose that information. The County required title insurance at that time and the title company representing the County missed it also. It would not be common sense for the County to purchase something it already had an interest in or the State had an interest in. Oslo Plaza Associates did not deliver clear title to the County. If the shopping center does not pay its impact fees, other property owners who are building homes and developing land will have to subsidize this road widening that will have to be done. In 1990 staff believed development of this parcel was eminent and the County, in good faith, paid $77,000 and issued the credit believing the development would happen right away. It is very difficult for staff to meet transportation needs when we think development may happen quickly. Deputy County Attorney Collins believed the County does have a contract which was never reduced to writing. The arrangement was worked out through correspondence and modified through the Board's actions at a regular meeting. Legal staff's position is that there never was a contract and there was a mutual mistake of material fact in that the seller gave the County a warranty deed and title insurance saying that the property was free and clear. APRIL 19 1997 50