Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-04-06 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF(THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the. Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, April 6, 1993, at ..6:30 p.m. in the Council Room of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna; Aldermen Joan Chapman, Heather Daniel, Stephen Miller, Kit Williams, Conrad Odom, Woody Bassett, Fred Vorsanger, and Len Edens; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk Sherry Thomas; City Treasurer Glyndon Bunton; Administrative Services Director Ben Mayes; Planning Management Director Alett Little; members of staff, press, and audience. CALL. TO ORDER Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with eight aldermen present. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of items which may be approved by motion, or contracts and leases which can be approved by resolution, and which may be grouped together and approved simultaneously under a "Consent Agenda": A. Minutes of the March 23, 1993 regular City Council meeting; Alderman Williams stated his name was left out of the "present" listing. Where he was quoted as stating "keep face," it should be "keep the faith". Vorsanger, seconded by Edens, made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance amending the Animal Control Ordinance to more clearly define "fence." The amendment would define "fence" as an enclosure or structure that is both obvious and visible, forming or causing an enclosure suitable to confine a vicious animal and prevent the animal from escaping. The Humane Society supports,this amendment to the animal control ordinance. Mayor Hanna stated the City is willing to table this due of the amount of discussion generated by this change in order to allow time for a workable solution to be developed. Alderman Bassett stated he had received phone calls on this from Virgil Knight and from the people of the Invisible Fence Company. They stated this change would put them -out of business. Their comments were if a dogis viscous, it needs to be handled accordingly, and one of these invisible fences is not the answer. • a April 6, 1993 Lib Horn, Animal Shelter Director, stated the amendment was proposed as a means of protection. In West Fork a child was killed when it crossed one of these invisible fences into a yard with a viscous dog. The ordinance needs a provision that will prevent this from happening. She stated she was willing to talk with anyone interested in making this workable for everyone. Preventing a tragedy is the purpose of this ordinance. Virgin Knight addressed the Council stating the viscous animal is the problem and not the fence. These type animals should be contained behind some structure. He stated the invisible fences work with radio waves between the fence and a collar the animal wears. When properly trained, it is very hard to get a dog to cross the invisible fence. His company has a policy to not sell their invisible fences to people with viscous animals, or if an animal is viscous during training, they do not leave the fence in place. He agreed the invisible fence is not as restraining as a permanent fixture. The intent of the invisible fence is to keep an animal at home. These can be used instead of traditional fences when dogs dig under fences or climb over them. He agreed that kids can come into the yards with invisible fences, but they can climb a fence or go through a gate into any yard. Alderman Williams asked if the invisible fence representatives could meet with Lib Horn to see if they could work out the wording of the ordinance that would be acceptable to both parties. Everyone agreed this was the way to proceed. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. The ordinance was left on its first reading. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance waiving the requirements of competitive bidding for the purchase of water and sewer construction materials. The Water and Sewer Department purchases large quantities of construction materials each year. However, suppliers will not confirm a contract price for a one year period. Allowing the Water and Sewer Department to obtain three quotes and to be able to purchase materials should save the City money on the cost of the materials. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Miller, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Williams, seconded by Edens, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. 7l April 6, 1993 Alderman Williams stated the whole reason for this ordinance is to save the City money. He suggested staff test this theory by finding out what a year's bid would be and keep track of purchases and see if there is.,a,savings. Mayor Hanna stated the City has a building where parts are stored. It is hard to estimate and purchase a year's worth of pipes, elbows, connectors, etc. By approving this waiver, staff can call 2 or 3 parts houses and get the low price and buy several times per year. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 0. Upon roll call, the emergency clause passed by a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3696 APPEARS ON PAGE 70/ OF ORDINANCE BOOK x)? V/ LAND DEDICATION Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution approving the acceptance of a land dedication of approximately fourteen acres for use as a city park as the Green Space requirement of Pinecrest and Pinevalley Additions. Alett Little stated both the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning Commission recommend approving this land dedication. This developer is giving almost 3 times the amount required. Vorsanger; seconded by Edens, made a motion to approve the land dedication. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 39-93 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SETTLEMENT OFFERS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of resolutions accepting settlementoffers in the Notice of Appeals filed in circuit court regarding Prestige Homes and Development Corp. v. City, CIV 93-258, and in Ben Caston Construction Co. v. City, CIV 93-257. Both of these cases are appealing to the Circuit Court denials of variances by the Board of Adjustment. They are now offering out of court settlements. Alett Little statecrroinfthe Prestige Homes case, the attorney has offered a $500 settlement. There are 4 homes on Yale that have a 4 ft 8 in encroachment. The homes 'are in various stages of construction. The builder measured from the curb rather than from the property line in determining the. setbacks. The Board of Adjustment chose to deny the variance. April 6, 1993 Alderman Miller asked if this was the first time this developer has made this mistake. Little stated it was. Alderman Chapman asked what the fundamental reasons were why the Board of Adjustment denied the variances. Little stated the Board of Adjustment has strict rules and the actions of the applicant did not cause the need for the variance, the Board ruled against it. Alderman Edens asked if any of the adjoining property owners made any comments. Little stated they had made none. Lamar Pettus, attorney for Prestige Homes, stated the $500 settlement offer for the 4 homes may not seem like enough money. However, he feels there are several things to consider. The planning inspector did not go out and find this error, Mr. McKnight realized he did not take into consideration the property lines when he measured the 25 foot setback. Earlier, the inspector had signed a document and concurred that the home was within the setback requirements. His client stopped construction when the error was discovered and came to the Planning Office. The Board of Adjustment voted 2 to 2 on this. Mr. McKnight has already lost about $1,400 in materials because of the weather. He feels the $500 is a reasonable offer. Pettus also stated there should be an ordinance whereby a decision of the Board of Adjustment could be appealed to the City Council without having to go to court. Alderman Chapman stated she was understanding Mr. Pettus to say the Council should be satisfied with a slight tap on the wrist because of the city inspector being involved and that the developer came before the City with the problem. Alderman Williams asked if the Planning Department had any recommendation. Little stated the City inspector did go to the site. It is the property owner who is responsible for knowing where the setbacks are located. In addition, she stated the method of appealing a Board of Adjustment decision is set by state law. She does feel this was an honest mistake, and to correct the encroachment would cost the builder an estimated $1,500 per house which is in the footing stage and about $3,000 per house which are in the later stages of construction. She stated at the agenda session she had recommended about half of the price to correct as the settlement figure. Some people may feel this is too high. Bassett, seconded by Miller, made a motion to accept the $500 settlement offer. 1 • April 6, 1993.. • Upon roll call, the :motion passed by avote of 7 to 1, with Odom voting no. RESOLUTION 40-93 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Little stated the Ben Caston Construction settlement is an offer of $350 for a house on the corner of Salem Road and Yale. On a corner lot, the house has to have a 25 foot setback on both streets. There is a 6 ft. 5 in. violation on the Yale setback. The home is 80% complete, and the estimate to correct the violation is $5,000. Donald Wilson, representing Caston Construction Company, stated Mr. Caston is a new builder in Fayetteville, and he just miscalculated on the setback. The final plat was submitted after construction began. To comply with the setback, he would have to tear out a wall where there is now a bathroom. The city inspector signed off on this project. Alderman Chapman asked how they arrived at the $350 settlement offer. Mr. Wilson stated this was an arbitrary figure. They would like to get this settled so they could complete the house. Alderman Chapman stated litigation is costly, and she asked if Mr. Wilson felt the $350 was in line with the previous offer the Council just accepted. Mr. Wilson stated he felt it was in line because this is only one house where the Prestige case involved four houses. Alderman Miller stated if either of these two builders come back to the Council with violations, the settlement amounts will increase. Alderman Odom stated he voted no on the last settlement because he felt $500 was too low for four houses. Edens, seconded by Chapman, made a motion to approve the $350 settlement offer. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 1, with Odom voting no. RESOLUTION 41-93 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE EMPLOYEE INSURANCE • Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution approving a group medical, life, accidental death-& dismemberment, dental, and long term disability contract with Blue Cross Blue Shield and US Able Life for a term of one year plus•four one year options for renewal with the approval of both parties. April 6, 1993 The employee costs will be as follows: MEDICAL Employee only Family plan Employee only Family plan NEW PREMIUM $ 16.46 118.22 NET MONTHLY INCREASE $3.84 9.21 8.85 .37 31.02 1.31 Don Bailey, Personnel Director, stated although only one bid was received, staff recommends approval of the contract. Bid specifications were met, and the City has a good working relationship with Blue Cross Blue Shield. There are no changes in this new policy. There is still the $100 deductible, and the rates are less than the typical employer pays. The increase is 7% to keep the status quo. The industry increase is quite a bit more. The employee picks up 1/2 of the increase with the City picking up the other 1/2. Williams, seconded by Odom, made a motion to approve the Blue Cross Blue Shield contract. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 42-93 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENTS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution awarding to the low bidder a contract for water and sewer adjustments for the North Street Improvements Project. Bids were opened April 2, and Fayette Tree and Trench submitted the low bid of $44,508 plus a 10% contingency. Vorsanger, seconded by Miller, made a motion to approve the bid award. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 43-93 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution changing the number of people on the Library Board from 5 to 7. Alderman Edens stated the Nominating Committee had difficulty selecting people for the Library Board because there were so many 1 • t April 6, 19934 ., } good applicants. State law says we can have up to,7 members on this board. �.. Bobbye Hay, president of the Library Board, stated she conducted a phone survey of the current board members, and they are not unhappy with the small size oe the board.' Thecsmall size tends to make it easier to get things done. They do.not really object to going to 7 members which would make it easier to get a quorum during vacation time, etc. The board currently has 5 members serving 6 year terms. If the size is increased, the terms and expiration dates would have to be amended. The by-laws would also have to be changed to reflect the change. They have had a lot of dedicated people as members of this board. In 1990, there were 3 members who had 100% attendance records. She felt this issue should be studied before jumping quickly into a change. Alderman Miller stated he felt'if there were more people on the board, that would be good, but he does understand the problems. Alderman Edens stated the Council could appoint one person for 6 years, one for 5, and one for 4. Mayor Hanna stated they could appoint 1 person for a 6 year term, and the other 2 terms could be determined later. Ms. Hay stated the Library Board has a meeting next Monday, and they would like to have time to discuss this issue. Alderman Edens stated the Council would appoint 1 person at this time. Edens, seconded by Odom, made a motion to appoint Anne Prichard to the Library Board. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to O. COMMITTEE VACANCY APPOINTMENTS The City Council Nominating Committee will nominate citizens to fill vacancies on the Advertising & Promotion Commission, the Board of Adjustment, the Board of Housing & Construction Appeals, the Civil Service Commission, the Historic District Commission, and the Library Board of Trustees. Edens, seconded by Odom, made a motion to appoint Joe Gaspard to the Civil Service Commission. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to O. Edens, seconded by Odom, made a motion to appoint Marion Orton for a term ending in 1998 and Bob Blackston for a term ending in 1995, to the Board of Adjustment. Upon roll'call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to O. , 4 • • !V April 6, 1993 Edens, seconded by Odom, made a motion to appoint Coy Naylor to the Advertising and Promotion Commission. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to O. Edens, seconded by Odom, made a motion to appoint Sharon Stiles and Betty Blanton to the Historic District Commission. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. Edens, seconded by Odom, made a motion to appoint Dennis Cameron to the Board of Housing and Construction Appeals. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. SALES TAX LAWSUIT Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a settlement offer for the sales tax lawsuit. He stated he and the Council had received a letter from John Lisle, and he turned the discussion over to Alderman Bassett. Alderman Bassett stated everyone on the City Council received the letter. There were references to part of the letter in the newspaper. He stated he wants the letter to become part of the minutes of this meeting. He hopes the letter will be published in the newspapers. Alderman Bassett stated since being elected an alderman, he has discovered there are a lot of really hard decisions to be made on issues that are both complicated and frustrating. He stated this issue affects everyone and could affect future generations. He is glad this is being televised and hopes people in this town try to understand and know where the Council is coming from when trying to make decisions. Alderman Bassett stated at the Council Agenda Meeting, he offered a proposal for settlement that he thought was reasonable and fair. He stated on January 19, 1993, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled the city sales tax constituted an illegal exaction by a 4-3 decision. John Lisle and his clients prevailed in the suit. There has been some suggestion by Lisle that the City has not got to the point where we concede that he won. We all know he won. An event of default has occurred. There is an interest payment due on May 15, and if this is not resolved by then and the payment can't be made, the bond issue would go into default. Alderman Bassett stated the City has three options: 1) Do nothing and allow the default. 2) Defease the bond issue and pay the shortfall. 3) Settle the litigation. If the City does nothing, there is no action required. If a default occurs, the insurance company has the right to accelerate the payments on the bonds. They would pay back the money to the / • April 611993 bondholders without any interest earnings. This could impair the credit rating of the City:` So, this could cost more in the future when this City tries to float a bond issue. A bond issue could even become cost prohibitive. The City is planning on a pay-as-you=go,system with the new sales tax that will be voted on April 17, 1993. With the explosion of growth this city is experiencing, a need for a bond issue may exist somewhere down the :road. He does •not- want to hamstring future mayors and city councils because of this sales tax suit. He stated we owe it to future generations to avoid damaging the City's credit rating. Alderman Bassett stated defeasing the bonds would require directing the trustee, Arvest, to invest the proceeds it now holds and pay the bonds in full to the maturity date or to an earlier call date. This would keep a default from occurring. To defease now, the City would have to pay about $1.5 million in shortfall. He feels this option is not realistic. Alderman Bassett stated the third option is to try and settle. The trustee holds $33 million in bond proceeds. They also hold about $2 million in sales tax revenue. There is another $600,000 to $800,000 to be collected from the collections that ended April 1. The City has $1.2 million in sales tax revenue. So there is about $3.8 to $4 million available in addition to the $33 million held by Arvest. The bondholders would be paid to maturity by the existing funds held by the City and Arvest. The City's credit rating would be protected. The judge will set the attorney fees. Both the City and Lisle could agree not to appeal his decision. After payment of the bonds and the attorney fees, if there are any funds remaining, they could be used for capital improvement projects previously voted on by the citizens. Alderman Bassett stated this settlement would put the matter behind us quickly. It would eliminate any concerns by citizens that they would have any additional charges assessed them to pay for something they did not get. However, time is of the essence. There is a court date set for April 16 and an interest payment due May 15. The more time that goes by, then the fewer options we have as a City. Alderman Bassett stated he felt his earlier proposal was good. Mr. Lisle did not think it was a good one, however, and he made it very clear that he and the people he represents would not consider his earlier proposal. If the offer he is going to propose is adopted by the Council, and if Lisle accepts, it would be a legal, financial, and political .solution, and it would solve a lot of problems that need to be solved. Alderman Bassett stated this is a good faith offer. If Lisle rejects this offer, at least the April 6, 1993 bondholders, the court, the trustee, and the people who sent the aldermen to conduct the business of the City know the Council tried to settle this issue. Alderman Bassett stated he did not feel anyone should go around cussing John Lisle and spreading gloom and doom. He is going to rely on the court to do its job. Alderman Bassett stated the proposal he has been working on would be to take the $3.9 to $4 million in sales tax proceeds through April 1, 1993, and agree to offer up to this amount as a refund to those taxpayers who have provable claims for the period June 20, 1991 through April 1, 1993, minus the amount of attorney fees awarded by the court to Lisle and minus the necessary administration expenses connected with the refund. This could be done several ways. The City could contract with a company to administer the refund, or someone could be appointed by the court. If the provable refund claims exceed the net of the $4 million, the payout to those with provable refund claims would be on a pro -rata basis. It is anticipated the net of the $4 million would be more than sufficient to cover any provable refunds. The refund plan should be considered more than reasonable by John Lisle and his clients. The Supreme Court said, and the general rule is, that funds that have been acquired should be returned pro -rata. The court also stated that it would probably be impossible to determine who paid the taxes. Alderman Bassett stated he is asking John Lisle and his clients to consider this. They wanted some type of refund in order to agree to any settlement. Alderman Bassett stated if there is any money left, the City could defease the bonds and save the credit rating, or the City could plow into the capital improvement projects, or perhaps, both. Alderman Bassett felt a three month claim period would be sufficient time for any taxpayer to claim a provable refund. This should be a reasonable period of time for the money to be returned to the City and for the people to get their money back. He expects to exchange general and full releases with all of the parties involved. The City should ask Lisle and his clients to release any claims on the $33 million bond money that is now held by Arvest and to the sales tax money both spent and not spent. This would end the litigation, and everyone is tired of all of this. It would also end the uncertainties, and allow the City to move forward. Alderman Bassett stated the attorney fees would be determined by the court with both Lisle and the City agreeing not to appeal the court decision. • April4 6, 1993 Alderman Bassett stated the.City could defease the bond issue. Capital Guaranty would bean no jeopardy. This would give the City a reasonable period of time to avoid default and to protect the City's credit rating. The money would:be available at any time to allow the City to defease at the most advantageous time. By watching the bond market, it might even be possible if interest rates go up that the City could defease the bonds and not have a shortfall to pay or lose any money at all. Alderman Bassett addressed John Lisle's letter. He stated the Lisle letter could have been construed to be inflammatory, but this would not do any good. He disagrees with a lot of the things Lisle has said. However, he does commend Lisle for his aggressiveness and effort and in taking on a case .that was very unpopular. Alderman Bassett stated Lisle said in his letter that if the City defaulted on the special obligation bonds, the credit rating would not be affected. Bassett stated this is not true. He has learned that if the City defaults, the credit rating would be impaired for years to come. Alderman Bassett stated under no circumstances is anyone trying to protect anyone else or any lawyers, and there is no type of cover up involved with this matter. The City Council is trying to protect this City and the taxpayers of this City. Alderman Bassett stated John Lisle represents a group of people who are a class of taxpayers of Fayetteville, and not all of the taxpayers like Lisle states in his letter. Alderman Bassett stated he would like to have City Attorney Jerry Rose's opinion of his suggested settlement offer. City Attorney Rose stated Alderman Bassett's suggestion comes as no incredible surprise. If this case can be settled, it would certainly be in the best interest of the City to do so. There are 2 1/2 pages of Lisle's letter that is devoted 'to demonstrating why past settlement offers have been rejected by the City and critical of the City Attorney not recommending settlement to the City. Lisle also accused the City Attorney of possible conflict of interest and of having a fear of a lawsuit by Capital Guaranty because of his opinion on the bond issue. City Attorney Rose stated the fear of being sued by Capital Guaranty did not bother him. He simply issued a routine opinion regarding the bond issue. The ordinance calling for the bond issue was passed by the City Board, and the official bond opinion was issued by the bond counsel, Brown and Wood. Lisle is correct when he states the City Attorney did not recommend the January, 1992 settlement offer. Rose stated he feels the voters were clear about what they wanted done with their tax dollars. Lisle's settlement offer did not represent what the voters wanted to have done. Lisle was also requesting $1.7 million in attorney fees seven months after the suit had been filed, and Rose did not•feel this was in the best interest of the taxpayers. Lisle is now asking for attorney lees of 20%, which will be over $5 million. A 100 April 6, 1993 City Attorney Rose stated he has personally spoken with 6 of the 8 aldermen about this case. In 1992, he canvassed the entire Board of Directors and spoke with them individually about the settlement offer. The only conflict of interest Rose can think of is that he has consistently fought about trying to not deny the taxpayers the benefits of their money. Rose stated he did not recommend settling the case when he felt the attorney fees being requested were excessive and inconceivable. City Attorney Rose stated John Lisle represents 6 people in this class action suit. Mr. Lisle won this suit. Four members of the supreme court said he was right. Three members and a chancellor felt the City was right. Rose stated he represents the taxpayers and citizens without any fear of suits, conflict of interest, and without regard of offending Lisle. He stated he will continue to work to resolve this issue . He is hopeful Alderman Bassett's proposal will be accepted. If it is rejected, he will advocate the City's position in court. Alderman Miller stated he campaigned for a pay-as-you-go government. He does not like bond issues, and he wants to see this settled and put behind the City. From John Lisle' letter, he sees Lisle wants the City to refund $22 million, and he wants 20% attorney fees. A default will cause issuing a future bond issue very difficult. He does not want to create an albatross for city councils down the road. He wants to see the bond issue paid off at the least expense to the City and for the plaintiff to see that the City Council is trying to do their best for the City. He applauds Alderman Bassett for his work in developing this settlement offer. Alderman Williams thanked Alderman Bassett for his hard work on the settlement offers. He stated Lisle has counter offered with the City giving a reasonable time for people to prove their refunds. He is also asking for a 20% attorney fee on taxes and interest collected to date, and he wants an apology from this City Council to his clients and to himself. Alderman Williams stated he was having trouble understanding John Lisle. Lisle states in his letter he tried this case because of his father. When his father moved to Fayetteville, he asked him to do something about the sales tax for the schools. The schools no longer receive any funds. In Lisle's 1992 settlement offer, the sales tax would have continued until the bonds were paid off, and Lisle would have received $1.7 million in attorney fees. The sales tax would have been declared valid. Alderman Williams stated he does not think this case can be settled when Lisle wants to be a millionaire from City tax dollars. The old Board of Directors made an error. Without this suit, the schools would have received every penny they should have. The Board of Directors operated in good faith. The capital improvement projects need to be done, and the people voted on them but not for attorney fees. Alderman Williams stated he is confident the judge will allow Lisle a reasonable fee. 101 April 6, 1993 He hopes John Lisle will consider Alderman Bassett's offer, but he doubts that he will. pr Alderman Odom stated since being on the City Council he has learned the Council works hard to'protect the.interest of this City. There are many complex issues, and he l supports Alderman Bassett's proposal. Alderman Odom stated the integrity of -.Jerry Rose has been directly questioned in the letter from John Lisle. He takes personal offense that Lislec:has questioned this. Regarding the apology Lisle and his people :are requesting, `•he feels this is a little much. He would apologize personally, but not for the council or for actions of previous councils. Alderman Vorsanger stated the sales tax was passed in 1988. He came on the City Council on January 1, 1989, so he has lived with this every day he has been on the Council. He supports the suggestion made by Alderman Bassett. Alderman Vorsanger stated the City won this case in court, it was appealed, and the City lost by a 4 to 3 vote. The Arkansas Supreme Court remanded the case back to the judge that ruled in our favor. Alderman Vorsanger stated he supports Alderman Bassett's suggestion, and if it is not accepted, the judge will do the job the Supreme Court asked him to do. Alderman Vorsanger stated he would not apologize to any citizens because if he did, he would be telling them that he approved•of what has been done to this City. This City has suffered irreparable harm and will never be able to catch up on what was planned to be done. The tax payers have suffered. It is unfair for the people who have sued this City to say that they represent the taxpayer's of this City. He feels there are more taxpayers on the other side. Alderman Edens agreed with Alderman Williams. He also liked what Alderman Odom said because he did not like what he read in the letter about the City Attorney. He feels Alderman Bassett has done a fine job, and he supports him 100%. He feels this would be the easiest way to settle this case and the cheapest way out for the citizens.. Alderman Chapman thanked Alderman Bassett for his work. .They are now addressing an issue that has economic, legal, political, and emotional complications. She has a good deal of sympathy for City Attorney Jerry Rose. She stated no one wants to be falsely accused. She feels it is very important that we recognize in the letter there are some plain mistakes. Lisle's assessment that the City would not lose anything if there is a default is incorrect. The City will, and this stigma stays with a community for a long time. No one knows if the City will be able to pay-as-you-go for April 6, 1993 everything that may be required in years to come. Paying off the bonds is in the best interest of the bondholders and for this City. Alderman Chapman stated the Supreme Court's decision was 4 to 3. Reasonable justices may disagree, and she respects the right to disagree. She also respects the rights of the taxpayers to bring suit now matter how expensive it is to the City. She stated there are temptations to blame others. She feels the previous city administration made a mistake. It was a good faith mistake, and there was no conspiracy. Alderman Chapman stated she questions the ruling that the City refund tax to people with proper proof they paid the sales tax. The court realized how difficult this might be, if not impossible. There are not a lot of people who keep records on small purchases. She stated she is willing and ready to return the tax with proper proof and for a certain period of time. She would prefer the court to decide on the mechanism of the return system. She feels Alderman Bassett's proposal is reasonable and made in good faith. Alderman Daniel stated she agrees with the other Council members and appreciates Alderman Bassett's input. Tom Brown addressed the Council and stated he has kept receipts since 1988. He stated one of the first things a criminal does after committing a crime is to try and cover his tracks. He feels the City has been lying to the citizens all of this time. In 1987 he attended a school board meeting, and that was where the first big lie was where they said they needed more classroom space. He asked and the school superintendent responded to him that the school is not used about 25-30% of the time. He stated Mr. Tyson, Mr. Walton, and Mr. Hunt did not stop production 30% of the time and get where they are. The University of Arkansas operates 12 months per year and so do trade schools in Springdale. He stated the schools should try utilizing the classroom space they already have. He stated this bond issue could have been avoided in the first place. The constitution says sales tax cannot be used for schools. The City received attorney opinions that were negative about using the tax for schools. But, the administration kept trying until they found one attorney that would agree with them. The City went forward based on this one opinion. He stated he did not feel this was good faith. Alderman Bassett stated the citizens passed the bond issue. Brown stated a big lie is that the City's credit rating will be affected. The credit history of the past is irrelevant for a city. Alderman Chapman stated she felt Mr. Brown was sincere in this, but she suggested he talk with security experts and get the facts. 103 April 6, 1993 Brown stated he has done this. The credit history of a governmental entity is not looked at,, rather only the revenue source for paying off the, bonds ispconsidered. .o r Mr. Brown started attacking the integrity of the City Attorney. At this point, Mr. Brown was 'asked to'refrain from making any more comments to the City Council. Chris Lisle, son of John Lisle, addressed the Council. He stated his dad is a trial.. attorney, and he,understands the emotional impact of these things. He feels the City Council may be having misperceptions abouttthis letter. He stated his dad never asked for a personal apology to himself... At the class action meeting held by John Lisle and his clients, they told him they were hurt by things said about them. They felt they had the right to petition the government about this issue. Chris Lisle stated the petitioners care about this City. He stated he could not convince anyone of his dad's intentions when he took the case. He stated the main principle is what is important to the taxpayers. They want the opportunity to present their claims for getting sales tax returned to them. Chris Lisle stated there is an opportunity to work this case out. A former press release by the City said these people were rabblerouses and caused trouble. That was not their intent. They knew they would be misjudged. His dad tried to settle this case last January, and if that had been accepted, none of these problems would be existing now. He stated that he hoped a year from now, we are not all looking back saying we should have done something. He stated his dad represents the taxpayers. He stated if the Council had represented the best interest of the taxpayers, they would not have been here. Chris Lisle stated his dad is having a hard time accepting that there is $33 million that the insurance company is trying to make the City liable for when on the face of each bond it says the City is not liable. The bond issue is still the biggest impediment to settling this case. Alderman Chapman stated she spoke with John Lisle today and asked for clarification on 2 or 3 points. He explained why he would not be at this Council meeting. She stated the past is part of the present. We have to concentrate on the here and now. The Council wants the taxpayer's money to go for the services they voted on. It is. difficult for the City Council to understand Lisle's position. She hopes Lisle and his clients will take a dispassionate view and believe the City's motive is pure. In a different form than that of Lisle, the Council also represents the voters.. The Council wants to settle this case. • Alderman Williams stated Chris Lisle said the bond issue probably is the major issue in settling this case. Alderman Williams feels April 6, 1993 the hard part for the City is his father's large legal fees. He stated the Council could not tell the taxpayers they will be paying an attorney rather than using their money for capital projects. He feels the attorney fees should be closer to the realm of reasonableness. Alderman Odom commended Chris Lisle for attending the meeting. He agreed the disagreement about the bonds is what is holding up the settlement. He would apologize to each member of the class if they received bashing in the past. However, he feels it would be inappropriate for this Council to apologize for things done in the past. Chris Lisle thanked him for his apology. Alderman Daniel stated she was not sure about the bond thing. She asked how to find out anything more definite about this. Alderman Bassett stated he respectfully disagrees with Chris Lisle and his dad about this. Alderman Miller stated he appreciated Chris Lisle coming to this meeting. If his dad wants to be a hero to the taxpayers, he could waive his attorney fee. Chris Lisle stated the attorney fees should not be the biggest stumbling block. The default on the bonds should be the first issue. Everyone does something for a living. He stated the Lisle Law Firm has read over 10,000 pages of City documents. He knows the Brown and Wood Law Firm is also actively involved in this case. The Lisle firm has worked their tails off on this case. They are willing to go to court and let the court decide on the attorney fee. Alderman Bassett stated he is trying to end this case now. He stated there is no doubt in his mind that Lisle is entitled to an attorney fee. There is disagreement about the amount. He stated the City will be happy to let the court decide that issue and not appeal its decision. Alderman Chapman stated everyone was beginning to come to a point of agreement. The City wants the Court to settle the amount of the attorney fees. She asked Chris Lisle if he believed his father would be willing to accept the court's decision. Chris Lisle stated they are not willing to agree to anything until everything is settled. He stated a refund method, releases, and attorney fees all have to be worked out. The amount of the fund from which to award attorney fees has to be established. He stated the City has never countered with an attorney fee amount. " April 6, 1993. Odom, seconded by vorsanger, made a motion to approve Alderman Bassett's .settlement offer and for City Attorney Rose to make the offer to John Lisle. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 7-0-1, with Miller abstaining. ✓ S ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m. • • • • •