Loading...
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.