HomeMy WebLinkAbout133-89 RESOLUTION•
RESOLUTION NO. 733--89
No resolution was ever drafted.
Attached is . a copy of the Board of Director
minutes where the resolution was adopted.
.-
407
stated there was an hourly rate. However, the maximumfee to be
charged cannot exceed an amount equal to .00175 (the % sign in the
contract is to be removed) of the aggregate face amount of the
bonds issued. Linebaugh stated Staff had requested the hourly rate
which might save money over a flat fee.
407.1 Robert Brandon addressed the Board and asked how the approximately
$10 million designated for the school construction would be handled
in the bond indenture.
407.2 Linebaugh stated the $10 million for schools would be a part of the
total $60 million bond issue. The City will build the school and
lease it to the school system.
407.3 Mayor Martin asked if the $10 million figure for schools would be
specifically identified in the bond prospectus. Linebaugh stated
it would be one of the capital uses, but would probably not be
specifically highlighted as designated for schools.
407.4 Brandon asked specifically about the lease agreement between the
City and the school system. He stated the lease arrangement had
not been made clear and he wondered where the school system was to
come up with the money to pay the lease.
407.5 Mayor Martin stated the lease arrangement had been agreed upon by
both the City and school system, and the lease is really an
economic funding mechanism.
407.6 Linebaugh stated the legal advice the City had received stated the
City could not just give the school system $10 million. The City
had to build the building in order to make it a legal transaction.
407.7 Mayor Martin stated the school would not be paying back the $10
million through the lease arrangement. If there is no economic
development, there is no payment essentially from the schools to
the City.
Upon roll call, the motion to approve the bond counsel contract
passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION 132-89 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND
RESOLUTION BOOK
MUNICIPAL -JUDGE -HEALTH INSURANCE 1
407.8 Mayor Martin introduced consideration of a resolution approving
health insurance benefits for the Municipal Judge with the City's
insurance provider, Blue Cross Blue Shield.
407.9 A survey of other area municipalities showed that most of them
provide health insurance for the municipal judge. Blue Cross Blue
Shield would only allow this if a new group of elected officials
were to be provided coverage, and then all elected officials would
have to be covered; i.e., the City would have to pick up the costs
on single policies for all elected officials. Due to the long-term
1
implications outlinedin the letter from Blue Cross Blue Shield,
Staff does not recommend approval of the benefits at this time.
Linebaugh stated Staff had asked Blue Cross if any arrangement 408.1
could be made to provide coverage for the judge. In this regard,
Staff recommends that the judge be allowed to obtain his own single
coverage and the City pay the judge the amount paid to Blue Cross
for single employee coverage.
Green, seconded by Kelley, made a motion to approve the health care
insurance premiums for the judge equal to the same benefits of the
other city employees.
Lancaster asked if the money was to be used strictly for health
insurance premiums.
Director Green stated this was the intent of his motion.
Vorsanger stated he felt the judge should be treated as any other
employee and be providedeither single or family coverage whatever
he needs. Linebaugh stated the judge had only requested individual
coverage.
408.2
408.3
408.4
Upon roll call, the motion to pay the equivalent of health 408.5
insurance premiums to the Municipal Judge passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION 133-89' APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND
RESOLUTION BOOK
HUNTINGDON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Linebaugh stated the problem in the subdivision is very complex.
The developer is responsible when he puts in a subdivision for the
drainage and street construction. At the same time, the City is
responsible for making sure the proper drainage and streets are
constructed. In this case, the developer had financial problems
and did not complete the work. The City is not legally responsible
to provide drainage or street work if the developer fails to do so.
However, the City is responsible to try and protect the public in
this type of situation. When the developer goes through the
building process, he is allowed to continue on even though he does
not have the drainage or street construction completed and building
permits will be issued. In the final plat review, liens are
required on lots equivalent to the cost of completing the street
and drainage construction before the building permits are issued.
In this subdivision, several problems have occurred: (1) There 408.7
appears to have been an inadequate drainage plan that the City
approved. This is still being investigated. (2) There were liens
that were received on the lots. However, the City failed to sell
the lots to complete the construction. The City has requested an
engineering study into the drainage problems, and the City is
looking into the old engineering study on the drainage plan to see
if it had been done correctly and why the City accepted it. Staff
is also looking into why the protection system failed on the liens.
408.6