Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Community Development Department staff He did not fault the Attorney's office but <br />thought the Attorney's office and Community Development could look at it together and <br />bring it all back. A few months ago the focus was on ownership, so that was what was being <br />investigated by our Attorney's office. But Mr. Kirrie's issue is much broader than that <br />individual ownership. <br />Commissioner Macht felt the Board owed Mr. Kirrie a fair look but needs full <br />information and staff's recommendation. Then the Board can consider it and vote. <br />Vice Chairman Tippin agreed with Commissioner Macht. He pointed out that it is <br />also an economic development matter which has the potential for expansion. It deserved to <br />be given fair treatment. <br />Commissioner Adams recalled that the Board sent it to the County Attorney the last <br />time, and Vice Chairman Tippin brought out that another property owner (Item 7.S.) was <br />threatening the County with a lawsuit. <br />Attorney Bangel stated that a few alternatives have been proposed with possibilities <br />of cooperation and an alternate route. This is Mr Kirrie's proposal. Just as recently as <br />yesterday Mr Kirrie conveyed something from Mr. Mensing which was copied to the <br />Commissioners. There are several different proposals, several different options, several <br />different routes, and different players. <br />Administrator Chandler got a copy yesterday of what the Board received, but it had <br />not been transmitted to staff; he was unsure whose proposal it was. He was trying to get to <br />the facts in order to assist in reaching a solution. He had sat in on a meeting several months <br />ago concerning what he thought was the ownership of another piece ofproperty. He felt the <br />entire matter needed to be looked at and brought back to the Board. <br />January 15, 2002 <br />91 <br />El/iLi10 <br />• <br />