HomeMy WebLinkAbout136-89 RESOLUTION•
RESOLUTION NO. / 3 -P 7
No resolution was ever drafted.
Attached is a copy of the Board of Director
minutes where the resolution was adopted.
moral precedent set, and the City may get requests in the .future
based on the fact that "you did it for them, now do it for us."
Vorsanger, made a motion for the City to undertake the drainage
repairs and the funding come from the CIP budget. This motion was
seconded by Kelley.
Lancaster stated that the issue before the Board tonight was
drainage for the PUD. What type of problems will be brought before
the Board in the future when the developer has defaulted.
Linebaugh stated that the regulations for drainage and streets in
the PUD were not different than any other development. The streets
do have problems, but their repair was already budgeted into the
CIP budget.
Kelley asked that thenecessary changes to City ordinances and
policies that would eliminate these types of deficiencies be
brought back to the Board as early as possible in the first quarter
of 1990.
410
410.1
410.2
410.3
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
Eric Malstrom addressed the Board and thanked the Board for their 410.4
support and willingness to address the problem. He wondered if the
Staff was prepared to address specific solutions to the drainage
problems. Linebaugh stated that the City has received no plans
from the engineer at this point. The engineer has looked at the
location and stated there was a considerable amount of work that
needed to be done.
Malstrom stated that several members of the neighborhood had 410.5
suggestions on how to solve the drainage problems that they would
like to share with City Staff. Mayor Martin stated Staff would
welcome the suggestions and cooperation with the subdivision
members.
RESOLUTION 134-89 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND
RESOLUTION BOOK
OTHER BUSINESS
PR'THWEST ARKANSAS ESOURE. RECOVERY. AUTHORITY /
Linebaugh announced that the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery
Authority would hold a meeting at 8.00 a.m. on Thursday, December
21 at City Hall to discuss filing lawsuits against the third
parties that have not signed the tolling agreements.
Linebaugh has also asked Walter Niblock to present the Board with 410.7-
a report tonight. Niblock is requesting two actions from the
Board: (1) approval of the signatures onthe tolling agreements
and (2) approval to enter into a lawsuit against the third parties
who refuse to sign the tolling agreements.
410.6
411
411.1
Steve Pflaum addressed the Board on the progress of the litigation.
The case is still pending regarding the freedom of information act.
A suit has been filed requesting declaratory relief. There are two
defendants who have moved to have the case dismissed from chancery
court, and an opposition has been filed against these and are
currently waiting on a decision to the motions.
411.2 With respect to the main lawsuit, their basic strategy is still the
same --to bring all interested parties into one lawsuit. A motion
has been filed to force the plaintiff to bring into the suit the
additional parties they excluded from the case. A hearing is
expected on this motion in January. Union Bank, the trustee for
the bondholders, has filed a motion for summary judgment wanting
a determination that the waste supply agreement is enforceable and
that the City has a legal obligation to pay the short fall. Pflaum
intends to file a similar motion but will wait until all interested
parties are in the case.
411.3 Most of the activity over the past several weeks has involved the
third party claims that both the City and Authority have against
other parties that were involved with this transaction. Both the
City and Authority have two types of claims that can be asserted
against the third parties: (1) the theory that the remarketing was
premature because the site had not firmly been decided upon as of
December 30, 1986 when the remarketing took place. Various
approvals from state,,federal, and local governments had not been
approved, and these were necessary before the remarketing took
place. (2) Some of the third party defendants also bear
responsibility, that if in the main action the waste supply
agreement is determined to be unenforceable, then there are other
parties that bear responsibility for that document and should be
held responsible for the damages suffered. Basically, these
parties had an obligation to put together a deal that worked, and
the waste supply agreement was an integral part of this
transaction. If that document is ultimately determined not to be
enforceable, then those other parties did not put together a deal
that worked and should be held responsible for any losses the City
would obtain.
411.4 Only the former city attorney has agreed to sign the tolling
agreement at this point. Pflaum is requesting that the Board
ratify the tolling agreement signed by Mr. McCord. Also, the Board
is being requested to authorize lawsuits to be filed against the
third party defendants who do not sign the tolling agreements. If
these claims are successful, they offer a possible means to recover
the $7 million short fall of the bonds so the City would not be
left footing the bill. Countersuits are possible from the third
party defendants, but he does not believe there are any valid
claims that could be brought against the City. Currently, some of
the third party defendants are upset that they have been accused
of possible wrongdoing, and say they are being slandered and/or
libeled. He wants the Board to understand that the City could be
sued, and some of the third party defendants have threatened to
seek sanctions from the City if they are sued. This is common is
high stakes litigation such as this.
1
413
413.1 Pflaum stated there were no people involved in the transaction that
are not known at this time. There should be no concern then that
all third parties have been included in the tolling agreements.
Also, the claims being discussed would recover the entire damages
involved, and you cannot recover more than once.
413.2 Mayor Martin stated one of the duties of the attorneys is to be
sure all potential third parties have been included in the tolling
agreements, and the attorneys are being held responsible for
letting the City know whom they should be seeking tolling
agreements from.
•
Upon roll call, the motion to approve the tolling agreements passed
by a vote of 7-0.
RESOLUTION 135-89 APPEARS ON PAGE
RESOLUTION BOOK
OF ORDINANCE AND
413.3 Mayor Martin stated that Mr. Pflaum had also asked the Board for
authority to file suit against the any of the remaining third
parties who do not execute tolling agreements before Thursday.
413.4 Vorsanger, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to authorize the
attorneys for the City to file suit against those who do not
execute tolling agreements.
Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION 136-89 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND
RESOLUTION BOOK
413.5 Mr. Niblock stated that Judge Adams has set all motions for hearing
on January 18, 1990. The hearings will be in Bentonville.
PHYLLIS RICE
413.6 Mayor Martin stated that the City enjoys excellent and thorough
coverage if its affairs. He stated that Phyllis Rice will be
changing her duties with the paper and he thanked her for the job
she has done in the past covering the City affairs. He wished her
well in her new assignment.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m.