OCR Text |
Show Council Flatly Rejects Fire Suit Settlement Offer The City Council last-Thursday last-Thursday rejected out of hand the settlement proposal submitted to them by the Fire District, in its suit against them and the Redevelopment Rede-velopment Agency. Calling the suit a "nuisance" suit, Councilman Bill Coleman went on to say no suit was in the best interests of the City, and this one particularly was not. He further stated he felt the Fire District's arguments were invalid and their allegations "gross perversions." perver-sions." He thought the "settlement was proposed because the suit is weak." Other Councilpersons also expressed their displeasure with the proposed settlement. settle-ment. City Attorney Tom Clyde assessed the offer as a Confession of Judgment, which would mean the City was capitulating to the Fire District and agreeing with their allegations in the suit. Clyde said there were no & v - r ; iit, rii; IW;' .m f - ml If wiihwi . , ; - r- , M-a r tl i i v, v. - . JT"-v - i; i I " " " ' - " J' grounds for settlement in the agreement, since it was all one-sided. He further stated the Council would not make a counter-proposal to the District, Dis-trict, but rather thought it incumbent upon the District to bring them another proposal if they want the suit settled out of court. Attorney Barney Saunders, representing the Fire District, Dis-trict, said he was disappointed disappoint-ed in the Council's attitude. He felt there were several grounds in his proposal which were favorable to the City. Further, he stated he had presented the proposed settlement with the idea the terms would be a point from which to start negotiations and to be turned down summarily would put an end to the possibility of settlement. settle-ment. Clyde stated there are still channels open for settlement negotiations and the City has not precluded that possibility. possibil-ity. He called upon the District to present another proposal to the Council. The proposed settlement as it was presented to the Council included 13 points upon which the District had hoped to conclude the pending litigation. The points were: 1. The Fire District would be reformed to comply to statute and the City and County would enact any needed legislation to see it could be done. 2. The present Board of Commissioners be expanded to five, the additional two members being appointed, one by the City and one by the County, and all fire equipment and property involved in the present suit be quit-claimed to the Fire Commission. 3. The City would retain its authority to inspect and enforce codes within its boundaries, but all building would be subject to the Fire Commission's approval as to whether the proposed build- . ing was up to fire codes. 4. Although the City would still have to maintain all the fire hydrants within its boundaries, the Fire District would have free access to them without fee or cost. 5. The Redevelopment Agency must hold hearings immediately to determine the existence or non-existence of "blight" in Deer Valley and agree to exclude all of such area from the present Redevelopment Agency. 6. Any revenue collected from Deer Valley which would have accrued to the Fire District must be credited credit-ed to them now. 7. As a further credit, Park City would agree to credit the Fire District with 25 percent of the impact fees levied to date from Deer Valley. 8. Deer Valley would agree to construct two fire stations according to the specifications specificat-ions of the Fire District and convey the property on which the stations are constructed! 0 to the District. 5 9. The Fire District woufi- y stipulate to the validity of the irf Redevelopment Agency oj Park City, and agree tfSTci-a dismiss its litigation against it. o o 10. All parties wouIt" stipulate as to the validity djf t the Fire District. o o 1 1 . All parties agree to bear, 2-their 2-their respective costs oJrtri litigation. ft 12. Each of the Commis- sioners of the District wouljjj be compensated for thefr4 grief and anguish concerning the suit in the amount of $5,000. 13. All litigation between the parties would be terminated. termi-nated. The District's letter offering the settlement was ended with the phrase "looking forward to receipt of your counterproposal." The Council, however, turned down that invitation and left any further communication up to the District. Please turn to page 4 A ' This lengthy 1934, twelve cylinder Packard touring car was among 200 antique and vintage automobiles that paused in Park City last Thursday. The fabulous cars were driven here from 37 states en route to a gathering in Salt Lake. Antique and vintage automobile owners join the Glidden Tour each year for a cross country motor to an agreed upon meeting place. The Glidden Tour will not be back to Utah for another 18 years. More pictures page 16-A. More Rejection Continued from Page 1 A The Council then turned their attention to the most recent suit filed against the City and the Redevelopment . Agency, by the Board of Education. That suit was filed last week and was served on the Council at their meeting. It also attacks the Redevelopment Agency's formation and validity. The Council was firm in their continued support of the Redevelopment Agency, and based on the representations represen-tations of their attorneys, feel the Agency to have been properly formed and a viable entity. Councilwoman Helen Alvarez further stated the Council feels the RDA to be a good thing for Park City, in that it will provide for planned growth and will pay off in all respects for the City. Alvarez further stated the residents of Park City are currently supporting the school -'systenr in excess 'of A the City's student concentration. concentra-tion. She pointed out the appropriation per student is . the second highest in the state. Other members of the Council supported Alvarez's position, making the point the Board of Education is actually suing themselves, since both the Council and the Board is representative of the citizenry of Park City. It was on this point the most acrimonious statements were made by the Council, many of whom felt the suit to have been brought injudiciously. No action was taken concerning con-cerning the Board of Education Educat-ion except to refer it to City Attorney Clyde for whatever appropriate legal steps need be taken. Clyde stated this suit was susceptible to the same motions as the one brought by the Fire District and the proper steps would |