Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-90 RESOLUTIONr..... 204 61, June 5, 1990 Mr. Oestrich had done an exceptional job in researching all options and possibilities in the matter. Director Vorsanger asked if any thought had been given to equipping at least one truck with recycling bins to be ready in the likelihood that the City went with curbside recycling later on. Solid Waste Management Administrator Hal Morton addressed the Board in answer to Vorsanger's question. He explained that the trucks brought up in this meeting were part of the routine replacement program for sanitation vehicles. Morton reminded the Board that no replacements were made last year, and some of the vehicles were only marginally safe at this time. He also stated that the curbside recycling option is still open at this time and considered a "luxury item" that would be provided in addition to the drop-off stations now functioning. Upon roll call, the motion to award the bid was passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91-90 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK OTHER BUSINESS LAUTHORITY TO FILE INTERPLEADER J Attorney Walter Niblock addressed the Board with an update on proceedings in the FGIC case. He stated FGIC had filed suit for declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court on May 25, 1990 and had served notice to Niblock on June 4, 1990. He explained that the action was anticipated. FGIC is claiming that the Waste Supply Agreement is valid and enforceable, and they are asking the U.S. District Court to enforce the agreement. Niblock stated that he wished to have the Board's permission to file an interpleader in the District Court asking the Court to decide who gets the money --the ratepayer by refund or pay to the trustee (Union National Bank) so the money can be paid out by the trustee to the bondholders. He mentioned that although the case up to this point has proceeded very slowly, it is really just beginning. He assured the public that, if the interpleader is allowed in the U.S. Court, things will speed up considerably. Niblock explained that the interpleader would require the presence of the funds in the Court's coffers for them to determine who it does go to. He asked for the Board to authorize the City Manager to place the funds in the hands of the Court for their decision. The exact amount is unknown, but he felt the very minimum would be the $540,000 that has been collected thus far on the $2.02 monthly payments being collected on people's water, sewer, and sanitation billing. The City is in arrears to FGIC in the amount of $1.7 million, not including the $540,000, for the payments they have made on the accumulated interest. 2V'v June 5, 1990 Director Lancaster, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to authorize the filing of the interpleader. Director Green asked if authorization would also be needed for the transfer of the funds to the Court. It was explained that the transfer of funds was part of the interpleader. Niblock explained that the Board needed to authorize a range of approximate figures, with the low being $541,000 and the high $1.7 million. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously adopted. Resolution 92-90 appears.on page o Ordinance and Resolution Book LIQUOR ORDINANCE City Manager Linebaugh reported on the situation dealing with the selling of liquor on the last election day. Following a complaint that the liquor stores were open on election day, the police department made the rounds to all liquor stores open in the area, informing them of the ordinance. They went again around 6:00 p.m. and issued citations to establishments still open. The City Manager's office decided not to prosecute those .citations. Linebaugh requested the ordinance be repealed or some action taken. He stated that his office would send out letters to the bars and liquor stores and enforce the ordinance unless the Board otherwise stated. • Mayor Martin stated that there might be some question about the Attorney General's ruling and that the Board's governing in the matter tended to be somewhat ambiguous legally. He further stated that some clarification needed to be done before therun-off election for the citizens as well as the store owners. Martin, seconded by 'Green, made a motion to -stay the enforcement of the ordinance pending legal clarification by the courts. Terry Harper, attorney representing McBride Distributing, addressed the Board concerning the Alcoholic Beverage Law. Harper stated that it was the Attorney General's opinion that the repealed law also repealed the sister statute concerning elections, leaving the City ordinance to be dealt with. He stated that he believed that the ordinance, dating back to the 1930's was probably a reflection of.the state law prior to the 1989 amendment. Harper also stated that in the section of state law governing what affairs municipalities have direct control over and what affairs are governed by state law, affairs dealing with and pertaining to the sale of alcoholic beverages and alcoholic beverages in general are reserved for the state. He stated that as a result, the City ordinance is in direct conflict with the State law and either needs to repealed or, pending some type of declaratory judgment, the City issue a non -enforcement order. Le - RESOLUTION NO. 9a -q& No resolution was ever drafted. Attached is a copy of the Board of Director minutes where the resolution was adopted.