Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-18 Minutesi MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville June 18, 1996, at 6:30 p.m., Administration Building, 113 W. 249 City Council was held on Tuesday, in the Council Room of the City Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna; Aldermen Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, Woody Bassett, Jimmy Hill, Steve Parker, Len Schaper, Heather Daniel, and Stephen Miller; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; members of staff, press, and audience. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with eight aldermen present. NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT Alderman Daniel, seconded by Schaper, moved to nominate Lorel Hoffman to the Planning Commission, David Lieb to the Historic District Commission, Chester Jones to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, Al Einert (U of A representative) and Jim Wilson to the Tree & Landscape Advisory Board and Chris Corke (Reappointment) and Sherwood Woody Charlton to the Cable Board. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. INCINERATOR LITIGATION REPORT Mayor Hanna stated City Attorney Jerry Rose would like to make a statement first. Rose stated before we start and before Mr. Patton makes his presentation, let me just briefly tell you where we are. Remember that the last time Mr. Patton was here he brought us an offer. He brought to the City Council an offer that was pre -approved by FGIC and Boatman's and the other parties to this action and presented it to you for your approval or disapproval. You turned that down. Tonight he is here, as I understand it, to ask you to make an offer this time. No offer will be forthcoming from the other folks since you turned them down. If you want to, it is your turn to make an offer to the other folks. That is what he wants to do. Two things have occurred that I think are important that have changed since the last time you met on this issue. One is that Scottsdale, which insures the City for $1 million, has tendered its full $1 million to the settlement process. We have approximately $700,000 now that we did not have two weeks ago. 250 June 18, 1996 Secondly, a number of things have occurred in the case where Boatman's is suing us and of which I am the chief counsel. One is that Judge Waters, the Federal judge, has set a trial date in that case of September 9, 1996.. This means we have a window of opportunity to settle here that is going to close rather rapidly. Discovery is over thirty days prior to September 9. I need to go ahead and start discovery if we are not going to settle this case. It is going to be reasonably costly. We are going in incur some expenses in that process. If you do wish to settle, now is a good time to do it. Secondly, the Judge has indicated that it is very likely that before the first of July or on or before the first of July, he will probably rule on our motion for summary judgement. The importance to that is that obviously the reason why you settle is to eliminate risk. Some of that risk will have already taken place by the time the Judge rules on the first of July. It may be good for us and it may be bad for us. Now is the time. If we want to, it is a precipitous time to settle because right now no one knows how the Judge is going to rule and everyone is amenable to that settlement process. • I want to remind you that my recommendation to you is to take the opportunity to settle. I've tried to do a couple of things in that regard and one of them is to attempt to take the decision as to whether or not you can settle or cannot settle out of your hands and place it where it belongs, in a court of law, to determine, as part of your process, whether or not we can or cannot settle. The other thing that I•want'to remind you of is that as attorneys, Mr. Patton, myself, and a number of you on the council, know about all we do is give advice. Mr. Patton has the benefit of experience. He has the benefit of the contacts that he has made over a period of time talking with all of the parties. He is your attorney. He has been hired by you. He is not your enemy. He is attempting to represent you. His purpose is not to lobby you, it's not -to be a politician. It is`simply and straightforwardly to give advice. That is my job as well, and I am&mindful of how I perform the job of advice because there is a tendency among the city to sue their attorneys and accordingly I want to give you very good advice and very conservative advice. Accordingly, it is my advice to you that in my mind we tried to boil the decision down to the simplest way in which we can and I think it is how much risk do you want to take. I think the risk is the: key. I think -what Mr. Patton is going to advocate to you and.advise you is that it is much better to accept that risk at around the $1"900;000 level as opposed to something else. June 18, 1996 251 One other piece of advice, over the last six or eight weeks that I have been involved with all of the third parties and all of the parties to these actions and in talking to the attorneys, it is my opinion that we've gone about as low as we can go and make a good faith offering. It is my opinion that if you get much below what you are talking about through Mr. Patton, it is very unlikely that that offer will be accepted. Alderman Bassett stated I want to ask a question. Can you explain in just a little more detail for the benefit of those who may not know what the decision is that the Federal Court will be making on or before July 1? Rose stated we have submitted a motion for summary judgement. That motion for summary judgement is essentially divided into two parts. The first part advocates to the court that what they have really pled here is actions that are barred by the statute of limitations, that they are stale claims, and that there is no Federal jurisdiction as a result of the stature of limitations having run on those claims. The second part is very much the argument that Mr. Evans and some of the other folks here feel that the Barnhart decision is very determinative of this and we are arguing that the court should take notice of that case. There is a thing in the law called res judicata or collateral estoppel that simply means that we are asking the judge to read that case and decide that it bars this cause of action. That is our advocacy. It might work and we certainly hope it does. I was asked by the accountants to evaluate the claim. I told them I thought a verdict against us was reasonably possible. I did not think it was probable. I did not think it was likely to happen,. but it was reasonable that it might occur and possible that it might occur. We have a good case, it's one that I'm rather proud of but there is always risk and that risk is $16 million to $35 million. We know that because that is the amount that Boatman's asked for a default judgement of against the Authority. If this were a private corporation, I would roll the dice. We are not; and my advice is tempered by my knowledge that this is tax money, that these are dollars that were not intended for settlement of judgements. They are dollars that we intended for roads and for sewers and things that the folks need. I would like to minimize that risk and that is why I give you the advice that I would rather do it at the $1,900,000 level than I would a level of $35 million or $16 million. Alderman Bassett stated before we discuss specific, proposals, I would like to ask another question. We expect a decision from Judge Waters around July 1. Let's just assume for moment that Judge Waters denies the City's motion. He has scheduled this case for trial on September 9. What is your opinion as our City 3 t 252 June 18, 1996 Attorney, if Judge Waters denies the.•motion, what posture does that. leave us in with respect to our ability to settle? Rose stated I don't think that there is any doubt that would diminish your ability to settle. Think about it logically. If the Judge rules against you on your motions.for summary judgement, many of which concern the Barnhart decision, then obviously it is not a good indication to you as'to how well you are going to do in your case. Accordingly, I think'that would:make the defendants.in the case less likely to want.'to settle. It eliminates.soine.risk for them. Risk is what you'are bargaining for. ,r•= Alderman Schaper asked haven't the other folks also requested.•a summary judgement in that case? Rose stated there has been no'cross summary judgeme and his attorneys have.filed a summary judgement case as well asus. nt. in Ji.McCord. the Federal' - Nick Patton stated I have nothing to add at this time. It is my understanding that there'may be another proposal. If there is, I would prefer that it be addressed first. Mayor Hanna stated we do have one proposal from Alderman Williams. Alderman Williams'stated we were invited at our last agenda meeting to bring any proposal forward that we might have apart from what was being suggested. I could not get a proposal done any earlier than this afternoon. I apologize to my.fellow aldermen because they certainly have not had a long time to look at this proposal. Basically this proposal would, if accepted by all of the parties, fully end everything. It is an all encompassing proposal and that is why I am proposing it;tonight. Alderman Williams read his settlement proposal. He stated it is my proposal that we make"this' settlement proposal to FGIC and Boatman's Bank and also to the rest of the defendants so:named and in the meantime we also attempt to get an agreement by the rate payers and rate payers' attorneys that this is indeed acceptable to them and that this litigation would be ended. Alderman Bassett asked are you saying that Mr. Evans and Mr. Hirsch have signed off on this. t 'Alderman"Williams stated I have spoken with Mr. Evans about this this afternoon and he indicated\that he felt this Was a fair situation and that it was not in fact paying the bond indebtedness, that this was in fact a savings of litigation expense and therefore would not be .in violationas he viewed of the Supreme Court's ruling. Obviously, he is one .attorney. He has spoken with Mr. 4 r. 253 June 18, 1996 Hirsch and Mr. Hirsch also indicated that would be okay. Obviously the rate payers is a big group and it would be impossible to speak for every single rate payer, of which there are thousands. Alderman Bassett stated they have their representative, Katherine Barnhart. I would like to know if they are signing off on this. Alderman Williams stated I would like to hear from them also. Mr. Evans said that Ms. Barnhart would be here and would be able to speak for herself. Alderman Young stated for one thing, if we are going to put this behind us that is a key element. The offer that Patton was proposing was going to guarantee more litigation. Now, if they could go for something like this and if it went through then it would end it. But, any other settlement probably wouldn't end it. Alderman Schaper stated one of the benefits to the other side, even though what we are looking at is another $700,000 from FGIC, is they also void further litigation costs. Alderman Williams stated my understanding is that in the initial case they spent upwards to $2 million themselves on attorney fees. Alderman Parker stated I think in this case what you have done is find a route out of what seemed to be an impossible situation and I really commend this because while I felt that the Barnhart decision said that Fayetteville could not pay any of the bond debt, the likelihood of that question ever even being raised against Fayetteville goes almost to nothing, I think, if Mr. Hirsch, Mr. Evans and Ms. Barnhart agree to this. From my conversations with them, I believe that they will support this, that Fayetteville will save that much; and whether or not you construe it as litigation savings or payment, if the class doesn't bring forth a claim to the Arkansas Court, you essentially end the situation. We have put it behind us as everyone wants to. I think it is very clear. It is a good idea to pay Mr. Patton out of Fayetteville funds because it decreases the amount that we have to apply even indirectly towards bond debt. We clearly can pay our own attorney. We clearly are saving more than we would under any other scheme and I think if we get the agreement of the class attorneys, it is great solution. Alderman Schaper stated also trying to look at it from the other side, the FGIC Boatman's combination of $12.8 million, to look at another $700,000 on top of that with a guarantee that there is not going to be any continuance of the class action lawsuit or our suit against them should be very attractive. 5 JI; 1+' June 18, 1996 Alderman Bassett stated I voted for the first settlement. I did not know about this proposal until about 30 seconds before the meeting started. It is no secret how I. feel about this. I think we have to find a way to get Oils over with and to eliminate the risk. Now that I have had some time to digest the proposal and listen to what Kit has had to say, I certainly am going to vote for any offer that this City Council wishes to make. My concern though is what happens if this offer is rejected. Where does that leave us? It is now June 18. .I do agree with our City Attorney.and Mr. Patton that time is of the essence and that if we don't have something finalized by the time the Court rules and in the event the Court denies our motion for summary judgement then we are probably in a posture thaCMakes it:either impossible to settle or we have to pay much larger amounts of money than even we discussed at our meeting two weeks ago. I think in terms of voting on this, we need to have some kind of back up plan. In that regard, there has to be, I think, some.kind.-a of time deadline on whether or not this offer would be accepted and I think we need a back up. plan in the event thattthe.. offei is rejected. I know there are people up here; including me, who have made the point in the past that we did not want to conduct .any • incinerator business at a special -meeting. ,I think there are`good reasons .for that; but quite frankly, if this offer should be rejected, we need to find a way to meet again before Julyk1T sas we.�> can consider at,that time -doing something else. -I don'tkknow•if,) there is enough time left to.dothat but I think we need to try to find it. Alderman Young stated I was. the one that raised the question about the special meeting. I think that would be a legitimate use of a special meeting. . Alderman Schaper agreed., Anyone concerned about this potential settlement knows about it. We have enough press to let them know. Also, the other side is exposed to the same risks we are. We are suing them for a lot more =than they are suing us for. Their lawyers are giving them the same advice our lawyer is giving us, which is it is better to settle than.not to settle, to minimize the. risk. .The fact that they have already put some substantial offers on the table says they want -to settle this, too. -Schaper stated he was encouraged by that kind of movement. This is a good way to move. Alderman Daniel asked about a deadline for accepting this. Alderman Williams stated he,thought they had the same time pressure the City does. We should give it out. If they are interested, okay. If they are not interested, we just go on to trial. They can always give a counteroffer back if they don't like it. 6 June 18, 1996 Alderman Hill was concerned on this suit and negotiate FGIC would no€ go any lower thing is that we don't have $700,000 for sure. With recovering all of our money pocket. 255 4,4 that we have hired an attorney to work this. Mr. Rose just told us he felt than what had been offered. The other any chance of recovering. We are out the other offer we have a chance of and maybe even putting some back in our Alderman Parker stated we got into this trouble by listening to lawyers who gave us what seemed to be sound advice at the time. Alderman Hill stated this was a different council and different attorneys. Alderman Bassett stated Parker's statement was a no -class statement and he was not surprised. Alderman Williams stated we don't need to attack each other. Alderman Bassett stated he was not attacking Parker, he was defending our lawyer, Mr. Patton. He has done a good job. It is not fair to take shots at Mr. Patton. Bassett agreed that in the past the City got bad advice from lawyers. But this lawyer has worked his tail ed off for a long period of time to try to get us out of this mess. To compare Mr. Patton and what he has done to what has happened in the past is completely unfair. Alderman Parker stated he did not mean to take any shots at Mr. Patton or Mr. Hill. We found out that the responsibility in the end is with the Council and to defer to someone else against our better judgement is perhaps an abrogation of our public duty that we take on by sitting up here. Bassett and Parker exchanged comments regarding lecturing each other. Attorney Patton stated he appreciated Alderman Bassett's comments but he does not take any of this personally. He is friendly with Steve Parker. He does not have problems with the Council doing something against his advice, as long as it understands his advice. There is another in this room who has to agree with this. He stated he would have to agree with it and waive a 25% fee contract. He joked it was his turn to get even with the City Council. He stated he will waive the attorney fee and be willing to accept this should it be voted through. He does not want a spirit of animosity between him and the Council. He does not want to be attacked. He has done the best he could do. He does not feel he has been attacked. His purpose is to calm the waters. He would not make any comments about his feelings for the 7 256 ar June 18, 1996 proposal.. It is obvious that the Councilknows he has.adifferent proposal he.wants the Council to pass. Should the Council'"pass this resolution or something else that is not his, he will immediately transfer that to the parties that need to know. He knows how to make people respond. The Council does not need to set a time limit. He knows what the time limits• are. He has no problem saying to anybody to get back to him in 72 hours. He`is a decent lawyer and has done these things before. His interest is that the City be taken care of: If a proposal better than his gets accepted, he is as delighted as anybody. He has no pride of authorship or an ego that needs to be pumped up. He disagreed as to the merits of Alderman Williams' proposal, but he was there to cooperate with the Council: Alderman Parker asked if this settlement which had him receiving $200,000 was suitable compensation. Patton repeated he was willing to accept this. Alderman Williams stated he appreciatedPatton's comments and hoped the Council could maintain the decorum he suggested they should have. : This would take the cooperation of many other people. He said, -to the members of the Council that it is always easy to vote < for something that is not..paying as much money. He did not want a shallow vote on this settlement proposal. A shallow.vote.says nothing. Two weeks ago the majority of the City Council said they ' would not accept and pay the amount of money that was originally offered. The other proposal presented was not a real big change from that. If the Council decides to. vote for his proposal, he warited some conviction behind it. Otherwise,we might as well not even do it. If we are looking to stop all the litigation, that means there is a limit to how much Fayetteville can pay. There is a limit to the amount the rate payers would agree not to go forward. We are at $700,;000; ,but _don't just vote fpr this one because it is an easy vote.' It would be sending a wrong message if we vote for this then wait for the counteroffer because we know no one will accept this. We have to be firm in our convictions. Alderman Schaper stated the critical difference between the offer of a couple of weeksagoand even the one outlined;by_Mr. Patton last week and this proposal is thetotal settlement including the class action lawsuit. That thing would go on. We've heard the lawyers for the class say that;they would object to this kind of settlement at the $1.9 million level.. That would wind up costing FGIC in legal fees, costing.us money in legal fees, and to couch it in these terms which says we are avoiding legal fees by accepting a settlement of this kind is.a new factor in the equation that was perhaps not considered:in the other offers. Avoiding further litigation is what makeseit attractive to both sides.'. 257 June 18, 1996 ti. Alderman Bassett stated he intended to vote for this with the idea that it is an offer he hoped would be accepted. If it is not, we will see what happens from there. Mayor Hanna asked City Attorney Rose to clarify a question for him. If the Council votes for this proposal, the City will technically be out $700,000. Under the proposal from Mr. Patton, we would have the opportunity to recover all or more of what we would be out from the Ingoldsby firm City Attorney Rose agreed. Mayor Hanna stated another thing that bothered him is we hired an attorney that worked on it for months then at the last minute we changed the rules by playing mental gymnastics with numbers. We owe the people more than that. Alderman Williams responded by saying we are not offering just $700,000, we are also saying we are not making claims on Scottsdale's $1 million payment. Plus we are also ponying up to $300,000 that the Ingoldsby firm has offered. He could have left that out as it was left out before, but he wanted to see the end of the litigation. If we leave anyone out, it is possible they will invent legal theories and everyone is back in. That is why he offered to FGIC $1.3 million of non -taxpayer money to go along with our $700,000. This is basically a $2 million offer, only $700,000 from taxpayer money. • Alderman Hill asked City Attorney Rose if we had time for all these offers and counteroffers. Rose replied it is stretched pretty thin. The deadline is the first of July. He asked Attorney Patton if he thought we could get some answers back. Patton replied it would be very close. There are some risks. Sometimes time constraints lead people to say no. Alderman Williams stated this is one reason he did not change the figures from the previous offer two weeks ago. The only change was with FGIC and Boatman's Bank. All the others are identical to what they approved two weeks ago. That does not mean they are bound to it now, but they know one way or another what the facts are and what their exposure is. Attorney Patton stated that in all fairness it needs to be told to the City Council that the entity that will dictate whether this settlement is accepted or not is most likely FGIC and those figures have changed. The Council needs to be told that. 9 (1 25.8 Alderman Williams stated the proposal and noted around $700,000. June 18, 1996 he had. .pointed that .out several times;inf several times that their net change'is. Patton did not agree that this was correct. Alderman Schaper asked why'it would not be correct. Alderman Williams stated Scottsdale Insurance was left out of the last settlement.. They had not settled. They had made a tentative offer of around $400,000, but nothing was settled. FDIC could have recovered from that assuming they settled and we gave up our claim to it.. Mayor Hanna asked for a motion. Alderman Williams stated he would like to hear from the rate payers. Alderman Schaper stated the difference: to FGIC was about a little over 5% from what they've already .offered to pay with this additional $700,000. Attorney Patton said it was $1,100,000 difference, maybe 8%. Alderman Schaper asked what Patton was counting in. Alderman Williams responded that they had offered $400,000 though we had not accepted it.. You were .going to get attorney fees on top of that so they wouldn't have gotten that full amount. Mayor„Hanna stated Ms. Barnhart and Mr. Evans were present to speak `for the rate payers. Katherine Barnhart agreed .with Alderman Bassett that having an alternate plan. was a good> idea It is ..never a bad . idea. She - stated.she believes this is in the'best interest of the City and is a .very good deal to give up :all our claims to further litigation to _,put.this behind us. She stated she appreciates the work Mr. Patton did. He did a lot of work getting these negotiations going. He's brought it to this point. The Council was•,very wise to turn down the previous offers. The attorney fees are not out of line-. It's okay to pay the $500,000. It's okay to pay the $200,000. She stated her concern was that the Council should listen to all of the citizens. There are many more people who want to voice their concerns over this issue and other issues. The Council is getting better at listening to people. It is important to bring all this out into the open, not meeting behind closed doors, and involving people. Sitting at the table with Mr. Patton and so many 10 259 June 18, 1996 representatives of the public, City, and media was one of the best things that has happened because everyone could be heard. The tone of not having personal animosity but respecting opinions was important. We should work to heal the City and work towards building a better future. Dale Evans stated Katherine spoke for herself as she always has. He was glad to hear her thoughts. It is not up to him; he makes recommendations. They have discussed these things. He would have a strong resistance to an alternative. We have to try to respect what has gone on and what has happened in the last six years. The issue is that the City doesn't owe the money. It is difficult to accept any payment. The people who voted in 1988 not to have an incinerator do not want to pay anything. If all this activity can be put behind us and the only thing we are exposed to as a community is what it would cost us to win, it isn't costing us anything. It is money we would have to spend anyway. What it boils down to is we are spending that money today instead of over the next two years. He can go along with it in this sense as it is not paying bonds. He could not agree to paying bonds. He saw no ideological problem with paying attorneys. What happens to the third party money is the Council's choice. He has no say in that. He and Katherine and Kent, who was not present, understand if it is not payment of bonds, they may not have an interest in it. His understanding of the proposal is that it is what the costs will be and getting it over now. The class can go along with that, though there will be people who will disagree. They should be heard from with ideas and suggestions that might influence the ultimate decision. If they million, than the have an Supreme movement do not accept the offer and say they will accept $1.5 we will have to file suit. If there is payment of more cost of litigation, then that is payment of bonds and we obligation to the class to not have that done since the Court says you don't owe it. There is not a lot of Mayor Hanna stated people are confused about one thing. Evans had made the statement that when the people voted not to build the incinerator, they didn't intend to pay for the bonds. They voted with the knowledge that if they voted to continue the incinerator they would have a fee of "X" dollars a month. If they voted to discontinue, not build the incinerator, they would have a fee of "X" dollars a month. The people who voted did vote to pay the bonds off. That's the way it happened. 11 d 260 June 18, 1996 Mr., Evans stated the way it happened wasthat, the City Board promoted what the ballot would be and what they said was,you can. pay and have it or you can pay and not have it. That's not much of a choice. We gave them a third choice, and that's not to pay. Alderman Miller stated that the City was advised at that time that the $2.02 was legal. It was bad advice. Joe Robson reminded the Council that two weeks ago they said no to an offer. In that two weeks, there has been a net gain of $1.2 million. We are winning to the tune of $600,000 a week here. This Council and the one before it and the directors before that were real willing to spend six years of our time and $2.6 million trying to enforce contracts that were not contracts. You can't contract to break the law. There are people who have liabilities. Judge Waters is going to rule. Is he going to rule whether we are in and it will proceed, or will he rule we are out and they have no cause of action against us? More than twoweeks from now, he still won't have made a decision. You do not need to make a decision now. Collectively, the councilors and directors did not mind spending six years and almost three million dollars. If you add to the kitty even the $700,000, what you will have done is make it $3.3 million of our money because professional legal people gave advice that was all bad. The decision does not have to be made tonight. Table it and let it go. We've gained $1.2 million by not voting yes two weeks ago. We are not in a hurry. We are not back to zero, even if we don't pay anything tonight. We are back to zero when they pay the other $2.6 million that we spent because other lawyers told us these contracts were enforceable.. They were wrong and we have causes of action regarding that. There are people at this table who shouldn't be voting, people who are related to third parties. It is completely inappropriate. Alderman Williams disagreed with some of Mr. Robson's statements. Ingoldsby's report of April 30, 1989, page 18 states, H.,,,.. . in such an event the waste supply agreement could be found •to•b'et void." They say in the next page under Lending of Credit,»"If••the guaranteed provisions of section 401D are held to be void and, unenforceable as constitutionally prohibited . " It isnot ath clear as that. We have not gained any ground. Williams: stated he. '- did not votep, for the settlement because it was not in the best interest of Fayetteville. We have not gained any ground. We are considering a settlement. No one has offered anything -else. Speaking to Alderman Bassett, Robson stated Bassett had agreed on the 13th of March not to vote on this issue because he has relatives that are third parties and his father's law firm represents another one. 12 261 June 18, 1996 Alderman Williams stated this is incorrect. Alderman Bassett does not have relatives that are third parties. She has no liability. There is no conflict of interest. Robson stated the Council's rules say that if any councilperson has any direct or indirect personal or financial interest. Alderman Parker agreed with Williams and Bassett. We've heard this before. We've understood it before and if we had considered it important we would have raised it among ourselves. We do not consider it a factor. Alderman Williams stated if Alderman Bassett had any conflicts of interest, he would too. That is why he talked to her, to make sure. There is no conflict of interest. Robson stated appearance is good enough for him. The fact is he said he wouldn't vote because there is that appearance. If a person says he won't vote, he shouldn't be voting. To get back on track, Robson stated again that nothing had to be done at this time. When Tom Ingoldsby was with Nixon, Hardgrave, Devons and Doyle, that report was very clear that there was a likelihood these contracts were not enforceable and that there was going to be a tax payer lawsuit. He isn't even liable. Robson stated he has asked for under FOI exactly when it was that Ingoldsby gave us advice. There is a lot of unknowns here. You don't need to vote tonight. The tax payers are not back to zero until we pay nothing anymore and we get what we spent of tax payer money trying to enforce illegal contracts. Before the bonds were even issued, people had a clear understanding that this incinerator may not be built and FGIC was one of them. They sold an insurance policy that said we'll take half a million dollars to be the nominal insurance company if you make your tax payers the real insurance company. That is not an insurance policy and we are worried about them suing us! Boatman's is the same thing. This is about doing the right thing. There is no hurry. Get all the information. Be as courageous as you were two weeks ago. The tax payers ought to get back to zero, which means pay nothing and get the $2.6 million that we spent back. We hired a lawyer on a contingency basis. Now I find out there was no contract. He offers on a contingency basis to sue and does file his $93.5 million lawsuit. It should essentially cost the taxpayers nothing to go on with these lawsuits, if you really hired a real contingent fee lawyer and had a contract that said so. You are giving away the farm if you vote for any settlement short of not getting $2.6 million back and paying nothing. 13 t 262 June 18, 1996 Kenneth Mourton speaking as a member of the class stated he wants this settled and put it to rest. It should be pointed out you can only push so far and thenit breaks. We are gambling with $1 million and possibly lose $15 million. We are making allegations against attorneys about bad advice that need to be put behind us. It is very possible that Mr. Evans and Mr: Hirsch is giving the class bad advice right now. Are they going to pick up the tab if the City loses the entire case? No, there's probably not a cause of action against them. The City will be the big loser in this. No,matter._what we do, let's get it done. He has heard nothing new tonight. Let's settle it and go on. - Serafino Guido, resident, crooks. He,wanted to know Could not be turned over to stated we have lawyers, fudges, and who kept the books on this and why it the proper authorities to investi ate g . Alderman Williams stated City Attorney Rose could help explain 'this Mr. Guido went on to say the City should go after the money that is unaccounted for, $10 million. There are agencies to do this. Alderman Williams stated the Councilhas been a .little loose in talking about. $10 million slipping through. the hands of the trustee. In fact, the trustee has been making payments to bondholders and the money is accounted for and the trustee had to pay his own attorney over $1 million. All of the money that the trustee had has been accounted for. There have been no crimes or thievery going. on. If there was, for any amount, they'd go after it. He did not want to make the impression that someone has stolen the money. Mayor Hanna asked for further comments from the audience. Morty Newmark, citizen, stated the numbers get lower and lower and begin to look reasonable. He would feel bad about settling for $1.9 million, and Alderman Williams proposal as far as settling goes is the best one. In reality, no settlement is appropriate. We have been wronged. He asked the Council to wait until the next meeting to see what else comes up: There is not a big rush. This is the first time the other aldermen have heard the proposal. At the meeting last night the $1.9 million proposal was laid out and one of the things he had mentioned was that everyone is afraid of. the worst case scenario, which is what the City really wanted to do for six years. Another two weeks would be prudent.t. +X Michael Green, resident of Fayetteville and rate payer, stated Mr. Evans does not represent him. i He .strongly urged the Council,to consider a settlement. He stated he had four points to make. 14 • 263 June 18, 1996 First, Fayetteville will have to pay something. We have to accept the fact that the citizens, through the elected representatives, did cancel a contract. We have some obligation there. Second, this settlement offer will limit our exposure to something Fayetteville can live with. The point is we don't know what the limit of our liability exposure is going to be until we go through this entire process. We are always going to have a risk of litigation no matter what we do. Thirdly, a settlement offer would limit the area of the battlefield. Right now we have got some half dozen parties involved in this litigation. We have the Federal District Courts that are involved. We have litigation that can go on in Fayetteville, Little Rock, and the litigation that is going to go on as a result of the Federal Securities Law. We have known for a long time that Fayetteville's Achilles heel in this thing was the Federal Securities Law. We are not going to walk away from that one. That is probably what I have feared most through the entire incinerator litigation process. It is not the State Courts I fear, it is the Federal Courts. Chances are we are going to be fighting those in New York City, not in Fayetteville, Arkansas. If you think out attorney fees have been high up to this point, just wait until you have to start fighting battles in a foreign country like New York City. This settlement will dissolve those issues. It will put that to rest and it will limit the scope of the battlefield to Arkansas Courts. It will limit the scope of the amount that we are dealing with to a more reasonable, manageable amount. Fayetteville is going to have to cut a check, whether you call it lawyer fees or bond rebate. We are going to have to cut a check of some sort to get out of this. The forth point is that this has been going on for over ten years. If we don't get this settled, in another ten years we are still going to be fighting it. We are going to be fighting lawsuits, counter suits, appeals, and retrials at various State Courts and maybe Federal Courts. The whole point is that at this point in time it does not really matter what side the incinerator issue any of us were on. It doesn't even really matter whose fault it is now. The thing we have got to do is get this issue behind us so Fayetteville can move forward. Wanda Peterson stated I have been a citizen of Fayetteville since I was born 59 years ago. I would like to say that this is a sense of deja vu here. We rushed to sign something December 31, 1986. Are we going to do the same thing? We need to put this off. The worst scenario is $16 million which we have been willing to pay by other means. So why the rush to judgement, to sign this tonight? A little time and a little more thought might keep you out of the same situation that we faced ten years ago. I urge you, wait a 15 264 June 18, 1996 little longer. Take a littlemore time. .This isn't going to be the end of the world if it is not done tonight. Marsha Robson stated I would like to urge, you not to vote on this tonight. The State Supreme Court said that we don'thave any liability in this matter seven to nothing. We have nothing to fear from these people at all. It is almost like a bank robber came into a bank, robbed the bank, tripped on the way out, and sued. What is he going to get? They can't force us to pay. They wronged us; we did not wrong them. The State Supreme Court sided with us. Rob Dzur stated Mayor Hanna said there are citizens out in Fayetteville that don't want us to pay anything or.if_we,have,t6 settle we would like to settle for a dollar. I 'guess.I am one of those citizens and I agree with you there. We also heard tonight that the choice before is a choice between paying today orrpaying down the road in the legal costs if we have to fight it to `the Supreme Court. I would like to say that I am in favor of fighting it as far as we can and paying it on the deferment plan ifyweehaver to. • Robert Royce stated I have been watching this closely for ten years now and everybody involved is culpable to some degree. Trying to sort out who is culpable is like trying to unravel a plate of well cooked spaghetti. It is a waste of time. The only thing I really know for sure is that the hard working citizens and families in this town that are living on four and five figures a year have got to stop being taxed to support lawyers who are making six and seven. I commend Alderman Williams for coming up with this plan. It is a good plan and I. support it. I urge all of you to vote on that tonight and approve it. If you do have to have a special m"eeting to make any final decisions on this, I would appreciate a 24 hour notice so we can see it in the paper the day of the meeting. Mayor Hanna asked for further_ public comments. Alderman Miller stated he wanted to thank Nick Patton because he has done lots of ground work on this and it was mentioned before that Kit just came up with this out of the blue but he has done lots of thought on this. He could not come up with this if it were not for Nick Patton. I like Kit's proposal because it satisfies the class and it is not in contempt of the Supreme Court. I agree with Mr. Green. He came here and said that everyone made mistakes. I think that if we continue on.with this, we might really get screwed somewhere down the line. We might win but we might not. i know it is going to hurt to get out of this thing but I would like to get this behind us. It has been.a long time. I was not -one-the major shakers fighting this incinerator at the beginning but.I was there. I would like to say .that everybody thinks this is 16 265 June 18, 1996 a bad situation, whether you agree with me or not, a mass burn unscrubbed incinerator two hundred yards from a grade school would have been far worse. I am going to support Alderman Williams' proposal because it is going to cost us some money but it does not do a contempt of the Supreme Court and I know we are going to have to bite the bullet and somehow get out of this. Alderman Daniel stated I am not a gambler. This $16 million is a big gamble to me and I am not willing to take that chance for the City. I consider the proposal an opportunity for us. I will support one of the proposals for settlement. This whole issue started as a environmental thing. We have gotten so far away from that, it is sad. Look at the situation we are in now with solid waste. Nobody wants a landfill either. We are going to have to come up with something. That incinerator is starting to look pretty good to me. Alderman Miller stated then you still have to treat the ash as a toxic waste and you still have to put it somewhere. Alderman Daniel stated I was just talking to someone who is in the profession of working with solid waste and she is a champion of recycling. She is not even totally against an incinerator that is built to modern standards and safety precautions. Alderman Williams stated I just hope before we ever get involved in any other major project that we put it to a vote of the people at the front end. That is where the City of Fayetteville messed up. We used the Resource Recovery Authority so that we did not have to have a vote of the people. Alderman Daniel stated I am going to propose a settlement because I am tired and the input I have gotten from the public is they are tired of fooling with this. I am not willing to put a big bet on taking it all the way to try to recover the $16 million. As Mr. Green said, everybody is culpable to a certain extent in this thing. There is not going to be a real winner. Alderman Williams, seconded by Parker, made a motion to accept the settlement proposal that he outlined. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. Mayor Hanna stated we have a unanimous vote to pursue the proposal as presented by Alderman Williams and I want to thank Mr. Patton for all the work he has done. I agree with what Alderman Miller said, that Mr. Patton has brought us to this point. Mr. Patton stated I will submit this offer to all of the involved parties by fax from Jerry Rose's office the first thing in the morning. 17 • z 266 .."s A -... 111 June 18, 1996 Mayor Hanna called for a five minute. break. .. OLD BUSINESS R-295-28 Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration an ordinance rezoning 3.49 acres located north of Cato"Springs Road and west of Garland Avenue from I-1, Light Industrial to R-2, Medium Density Residential as requested by Kenneth Mourton. Alderman Miller, seconded by Young, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the third reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed bra - vote of 7 to 0, with Bassett not present for voting.. Alderman Schaper stated the density proposed on the development plan is about 15 apartment units per acre. The density is not suitable for the surrounding area of single family homes. Sixty percent of the dwelling'units in Fayetteville are rental units. That is destabilizing. We could use more affordable -.owner occupied units at reasonable densities. We do not need any more apartment complexes particularly at 15 units per. acre in an area that does not have anything like that kind of density in it -now. Alderman Schaper suggested the Council deny the request and go forsomething else. ti Mayor Hanna stated the petitioners are not requesting alarge„scale. development. They are requesting a rezoning. They made a mistake ., by presenting a development plan at this level. Your concerns should be addressed at the ,Planning level. .6 Alderman Schaper pointed out that they havesubmitted the plan and' he stated he thought it was appropriate to do so. Alderman Schaper also expressed concern that the development would have the backs of buildings facing the street. Alderman Williams stated there are industrial type buildings in the area also. This development would be a good addition to the neighborhood. This would be a mixing of more dense housing along with less dense. housing.. This is a much better use of the land than it might have under,the current zoning. Alderman Miller stated the design and density of the development will be reviewed during the plat process. The City Council should determine if the requested zoning is compatible with the area and the surrounding zonings. Apartments would be a good buffer between the industrial areas and the single family areas. This would be infilling. • 267 June 18, 1996 Alderman Daniel stated the Council might be able to make some suggestions at the large scale development level. This rezoning is a down zoning. Alderman Parker stated one of the important factors for Ward 1 is the need for redevelopment. This request serves in helping redevelopment. This would create a mix of housing. Parker explained that the density of the project should be taken into consideration if the Council discusses any future projects in the area. Mayor Hanna asked for any public comments. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7 to 1, with Schaper voting no. ORDINANCE 3976 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK R25‘- 7 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 4.73 acres located at 3373 N. College Ave. from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as requested by Dennis Moore on behalf of Lewis Ford. Alderman Williams, seconded by Alderman Young, moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Alderman Miller expressed concern that the property in question would just become an auto storage yard. Mayor Hanna asked for any public comments. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7 to 1, with Miller voting no. ORDINANCE 3977 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of ordinances rezoning property located at the northwest corner of Nally Wagnon Rd. and Highway 16E as requested by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Gordon Wilkins. RZ96-9: Rezone 2.73 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-0, Residential -Office RZ96-10: Rezone .39 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential 19 • t 3 268 June 18, 1996 Annexation:. Annex 9.08 acres into the city RZ96-11: Rezone 9.08 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential City Attorney Rose asked if the Council wanted to suspend the rules and place all of the ordinances on the second reading. Alderman Young, seconded by Williams, made a motion to suspend the rules and place all of the ordinances on the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinances for RZ96-9, RZ96-10, an annexation and RZ96-11• for the second time. Alderman Parker, seconded by Miller, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinances on the third and final reading.. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinances for RZ96-9, RZ96-10, an annexation and RZ96-11 for the third time. In answerto a question from Alderman Parker regarding improvements to Ma11y,Wagnon Road,., Planning Director Alett Little stated the way the annexations,work is when the land is annexed into the city, that half of the street which is next to the part being annexed comes into the city. This case is unusual because the portion to the east is already within the city. The City will end up gaining more control of the road. The City can require improvements at the development stage. Alderman Parker stated there are folks in the area concerned about the development of Mally Wagnon Road. Alderman Schaper expressed concern about the notion that frontage along a major road has to be something other than residentially zoned. The original request of C-1 was down graded to R -O. Alderman Schaper suggested more people should be taking advantage of the Neighborhood Commercial_ Ordinance. Alderman Schaper suggested keeping RZ96-9 at an R-1 zoning. Alderman Miller agreed that Commercial buildings and businesses should be located at nodes. There is C-1 across the street from the property in question and to the west of it. Those C-1 areas may have been a mistake. It does fit in with the surrounding zoning but should we compound a mistake? Iri answer to a question from Alderman Young, Little stated under the Neighborhood Commercial Ordinance, the City may accept conditional use applications for small scale commercial activities 20 269 June 18, 1996 which are integrated into neighborhoods. One of the conditions is that any commercial or office use integrated into a neighborhood looks like a residence. It would have very small amounts of parking, no lighting, and no signage. This parcel is 2.73 acres so it would not qualify. It would be too large for the neighborhood commercial. A majority of that would have to be single family homes with only a very small portion dedicated to the commercial use. Little stated it could be subdivided. Little pointed out that staff did recommend against the requested C-1 zoning. Little stated the reason for doing that was to discourage strip commercial and because there was not a need for additional commercial. This parcel does qualify as a node and it was designated for commercial in the Regional Plan. Alderman Schaper stated it would be better if we used the Neighborhood Commercial Ordinance. Mayor Hanna asked for any public comments. Dave Jorgensen stated the original request was for commercial on this property in keeping with the 2001 Plan. After noticing the commercial areas next door and across the street that were not being used, the petitioner decided R -O would be a good use. The type of structures that will be built on this will be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Jorgensen explained that he was not prepared to speak in favor of using the Neighborhood Commercial Ordinance on behalf of the owner. Jorgensen reminded the Council that there is not any real opposition to the request and asked the Council leave the request at R -O. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Jorgensen stated he had not looked at the allowable uses under the Neighborhood Commercial Ordinance. Alderman Schaper requested that people who do development work should become familiar with the Neighborhood Commercial Ordinance. Schaper stated there is actually more flexibility under that ordinance than there is under R -O. Jorgensen explained that he was not familiar with it. He stated becoming familiar with the ordinance is a good suggestion. Jorgensen stated the property on the highway is currently zoned A- 1. Jorgensen asked if the property remains A-1 if the R -O request is denied. Members of the Council stated that is correct. Mayor Hanna stated unless we have a motion to rezone it something else. 21 270 June 18, 1996 Upon roll call, the ordinance for RZ96-9 passed on a vote,of 5 to 4, with Young, Hill, Schaper, and Miller voting no and Mayor Hanna breaking the tie with a yes vote. ORDINANCE 3978 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK Upon roll call, the ordinance for RZ96-10 passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE Upon roll of 8 to O. 3979 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK call, the ordinance for the annexation passed on a vote ORDINANCE 3980 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK Upon roll call, the ordinance for RZ96-11 passed on a vote of 8 to ,0. ORDINANCE 3981 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK Mayor Hanna explained his reason for voting in favor of RZ96-9 was because the'Planning Commission voted 7-0-0. F21b11\1G :lc c -ES eL Si 'Ws L. Mayor Hanna intro.uced consideration of an ordinance amending Section 73.05 of the Code of Fayetteville to allow the riding of bicycles upon sidewalks running along collector streets and minor and major arterial streets. Alderman Miller stated the Council bicycle riding on all sidewalks arterial streets. That was never purpose. The Committee would designated. discussed the issue of allowing along all commercial and all the Trails Advisory Committees like to see some sidewalks Alderman Miller explained he and Assistant City Attorney LaGayle McCarty have been working on amending the proposed amendment. We want to mark routes and lanes. Alderman Miller asked the Council to place the ordinance on the second reading. He stated he would have the amendment ready for the next meeting. Alderman Young, seconded by Miller, made a motion to.suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 t 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Miller explained that he did not contact Assistant. City 22 • 271 June 18, 1996 Attorney McCarty in time to have the amendment ready for the meeting. In answer to a question from Alderman Hill regarding the status of the map, Miller stated Chuck Rutherford will have it available in one or two days. 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 June 4 regular City Council meeting. B. A resolution accepting a purchase offer of $19,101 for a dozer from Williams Ford Tractor and awarding Bid 96-30 to the lowest qualified bidder, Arktrac, Inc., for the purchase of a tractor/dozer in the amount of $137,371. RESOLUTION 73-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE C. A resolution awarding Bid 96-35 and approving a contract with Xerox Corporation for the lease of two copy machines. RESOLUTION 74-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Alderman Schaper moved to approve the consent agenda. Hill seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. SEWER CONNECTION FEE REDUCTION REQUEST Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a request for reduction of sewer connection fees related to Ordinance 3379, an ordinance regarding sewer connection fees on East Shadowridge Dr. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Schaper stated the reduced fee was offered to the homeowners at the time and the owner of the house at that time did not want to connect to the sewer and the present owner does want to connect to the sewer. Public Works Director Kevin Crosson stated that is correct. Alderman Schaper stated the proposal is to extend to the current owner the same courtesy we extended to the original owners in 1988. 23 272 June 18, 1996 Crosson stated that is Mr. Christian's request. Alderman Schaper asked for staff recommendation. Crosson stated the problem with the proposal is in the interest of fairness to other parties. There have not been any connections with the new fee. All of the connections that were made were under the original deal. Alderman Williams asked if the new fee closely matches what the City's actual costs are. Crosson stated at the time, it probably was. All you are doing is recouping the cost for the original project to a certain extent. It does not cover the cost of the project at all. Alderman Parker stated the original fee was 25%. _.The current fee isnot even the full cost then. The. City is only asking half of what the full cost was then. Citizens are still getting a good buy. Crosson stated the idea behind it was to get all .the residents signed up as -•quickly as possible. It was an incentive to get everyone signed up at once. Alderman Williams expressed concern that approving the ordinance would make -it more difficult for the Council in the future to have a•similar project. Mr. Christian should probably go with whatever -the'City requires now. Alderman Parker agreed with Alderman Williams. Alderman Hill stated there are still other people who have ' not connected. If the Council does this, they would have to do it for Charles Christian stated when he first contacted the Engineering Department he was told it was $330 for a tie in. After the address was mentioned, the fee went up to $1,730. - With plumbers' costs, the cost went from $1,600 to $3,000. Any other place in the city the fee is $330. Christian explained that he understands folks had to pay $700 to start with. .There has been no other; tie-ins since the original, perhaps thatis the reason. .Christian stated the previous owner said it would be $330. Christian stated he did not have the opportunity to tie in in the first 120 days but would be more than happy to pay what those folks did in the first 120.days. The City might get more tie-ins if the price was less. 24 i June 18, 1996 273 Crosson stated the City is allowing people to go ahead and stay on septic as long as they want to but they do have the option to tie onto the line if they so choose. Mayor Hanna stated it is to the City's advantage to have people hook on to the sewer system rather than continue to use septic systems. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Crosson stated the City has done some improvement districts and a few things that are cost shares. Alderman Williams asked if the reason the City does not do this sort of project anymore is because of the current development codes. Crosson stated the City has only done this in areas where we have been approached to add sewer. Most new subdivisions are required to have sewer line hook-up. Alderman Williams expressed concern about consistency. The City cannot give a single person a special advantage without offering it to everyone. If the Council gives Mr. Christian this opportunity, it has to be extended to everyone else. Alderman Miller suggested contacting other people in the area to communicate that the opportunity is being extended again. Alderman Miller expressed his concerns about the use of septic tanks. Alderman Williams suggested offering some relief. Alderman Williams suggested offering Mr. Christian and everyone else involved a fee of $1,000 instead of $1,400 or $700. The City is coming more than half way. Alderman Bassett stated it has to be consistent and there needs to be a cutoff point. Christian agreed with the Council and suggested only extending the offer to subsequent owners. Alderman Williams made a motion to amend the ordinance to apply not only to Mr. Christian but anyone on Shadowridge. The extension fee would be $1,000 rather than $1,400. Alderman Parker seconded the motion and suggested putting a time limit on the offer of 120 days. City Attorney Rose stated the Council wants to change the original ordinance to have it reflect paying an extension fee of $1,000 within 120 days. 25 4'. r. Y 274. June 18, 1996 In answer to a question from Alderman Daniel, Alderman Williams stated the Council would consider similar situations in the same way. For clarification, Rose stated the Council is giving everyone on Shadowridge an opportunity to buy into this thing if they want to connect for $1,000 within the next 120 days. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. Alderman Williams, seconded by Miller, made a motion to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Young, seconded by Schaper, made a motion to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. Alderman Young asked that Kevin Crosson send a notice to all of the property owners on Shadowridge if the ordinance passes. Crosson stated yes. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0.. ORDINANCE 3982 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK CONDEMNATION Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance approving the condemnation of a portioniof property located onthe northeast corner of the intersection of Leverett and Sycamoretsfor' the k installation of a traffic light control box. , City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. In answer to:a question from Alderman Young, Rose stated it is'an ordinance authorizing eminent domain. Traffic Superintendent Perry Franklin stated the primary objection is the traffic controller being on that corner. It can be located somewhere else. A pole is still needed on .that corner. That location was chosen because we had to condemn anyway. A pole must go there. Today we are under the impression that Mr. Mayes had use of all that property we have there until he gets out of that building. We can use that parking lot. The concern with that 26 275 June 18, 1996 corner is the protection of it. Mayes sometimes has vehicles crammed on that lot to the edge of the street. Franklin suggested putting a controller cabinet on that corner if we build a concrete curb and some things to protect it. The City could save some money be using the cabinet from Rolling Hills at this intersection. Another alternative is to buy a pole mount cabinet. Mayor Hanna suggested approaching the owner for an easement rather than condemning his property. Alderman Hill stated he would prefer to see it placed on the southeast corner due to possible widening of Sycamore. Crosson and Franklin stated they would look into the situation. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Franklin explained pole mounted cabinets can be used up to a point. They limit future use. Franklin thanked the Council for making a settlement offer in the incinerator case. RAZE AND REMOVAL Mayor Hanna stated the Inspection Division has requested that these items be tabled for two weeks because so much progress has been made at each site. They want the opportunity to continue to work with the property owners to get properties razed and cleaned up. Alderman Miller thanked the Inspection Division for the work they have done. He stated he was in favor of giving the property owners two more weeks. Alderman Williams, seconded by Parker, made a motion to table items #5, #6, #7 and #8 for two weeks. Alderman Schaper pointed out that the resolution would not take effect for 30 days. If the Council votes tonight to raze and remove, the property owners still have 30 days. Alderman Parker stated two weeks is not an unreasonable time since progress has already been shown. Alderman Parker asked staff to update their recommendation. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 1, with Schaper voting no. 27 • 276 OTHER BUSINESS 1r June 18., 199.6 Ward 4 Meeting Alderman Daniel announced that there will be a Ward 4 meeting on Thursday, June 27, at 7:00 p.m. at the Ozarks Electric Cooperative located at. 3641 Wellington Drive: The purpose of the meeting is to di.scues traffic and streets in the Salem Rd., Mt. Comfort, and Wedington Dr. area. 'The meeting adjourned at 9:38.p.m.