Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~. .' ... <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />J. William McDonald <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />facilities separate from the land. These fixtures if sepa- <br />rated from the real property would be of little or no secur- <br />ity for the original $600,000 invested by the state. Fur- <br />thermore, the conveyance of the facil ities as personal prop- <br />erty may not protect the state's interest if the land were <br />subsequently conveyed by the tOwn of Rangely without an <br />express exception of the facil ities in the deed. Therefore, <br />I would suggest that consideration be given to revising the <br />deed to include the real property and the facilities. In <br />that case, a description of the property on which the facil i- <br />ties are located should be included in the deed. If it is <br />impossible or too costly to obtain the necessary description, <br />I would suggest that the deed include the following language: <br /> <br />and a right of way across Section <br />___' T ___' R ___, of the land owned <br />by the City of Rangely and which land <br />is necessary to operate the water <br />supply facil ities as described above. <br /> <br />In the alternative, the land underlying the facil ities might <br />be leased to the water board. I would also suggest that <br />inquiry be made concerning 1) whether MSM has filed any <br />liens on the property or facilities and 2) the ownership of <br />the real property upon which the facilities are located. I <br />would also suggest that before the water board accepts title <br />to the facil i ties, the town of Rangel y should agree to con- <br />tinue to defend the suit. <br /> <br />This memorandum expresses the opinion of the author only <br />and is not an opinion of the attorney general. <br />