Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> ;QImiimtiirr itrpnr2 - „ p /- - --49� p • <br /> •en At Mammon Qiounril of tip mnng of bouts lima: Personnel and Finance Committee <br /> The January 9, 1984 meeting of the Personnel and Finance Committee <br /> was called to order by its Chairman, Councilman Puzzello at 5 :15 p.m. in the <br /> Council Informal Meeting Room. <br /> Persons in attendance included: Councilmen Serge, Puzzello, Crone, <br /> Voorde, Beck, Brayboy, Zakrzewski and Paszek; Joseph Kernan, Richard Hill, <br /> Members of the News Media and Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand. <br /> Councilman Puzzello noted that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss <br /> Bill Nos. 139-83 and 140-83. She then called upon the City Controller to <br /> review the bills. <br /> Mr. Kernan noted that the bills would authorize the issuance and <br /> sale of a bond issue to provide funds for two judgments against the City. . <br /> He noted that last fall the City Council passed .two bills which totaled <br /> $155,000. However, the Local Governmental Tax Control Board recommended to the <br /> State Board of Tax Commissioners not to approve the bond. The City <br /> Administration had urged the Boards not to delay action beyond October 25th. <br /> However, it was not until November 17, 1983 that the State Board of Tax <br /> , Commissioners approved the bond. As a result the amount was inadequate due to <br /> accumulated interest and the marketability of the bond was in question. <br /> The City decided to go through the procedure again with the bond issue <br /> this time -in the- total amount of $170,000. The bonds would be dated March 1, <br /> 1984. Thus an additional cost to the City of approximately $15,000. Mr. Kernan <br /> noted that a news release was issued by the City on October 6 ,. 1983 regarding <br /> this delay, and Councilman Puzzello noted that she had a copy of this release <br /> in her office for anyone who wished to see it. <br /> Upon questioning by the Committee Members it was noted that the bonds <br /> would satisfy two judgments which broke down as follows : • <br /> The Wilbur Smith judgment $22,245. 00 <br /> Post judgment interest 4,988. 00 <br /> F.O.P. judgement 112, 806. 00 <br /> Post judgment interest 24,811. 00 <br /> The F.O.P. judgment was rendered in June, 1982 and the City filed a Motion to <br /> Correct Errors to delete the $10,000 attorney fee award. Judge Montgomery <br /> agreed with the City on this point and rendered an opinion in December, 1982. <br /> It was further noted that the costs of bond counsel, printing of the bonds, <br /> Speer Financial Services etc would add an additional $6, 000 to the bond. It <br /> was also noted that there was $7,245. 00 of prejudgment interest accrued on the <br /> Wilbur Smith case. Due to the extraordinary circumstance the City Administration <br /> believes that the bond issue is the proper route in order to satisfy these <br /> judgments <br /> Mr. Kernan noted that this would result in approximately 4 cents since <br /> one penny would generate $41,500. Approximately 169 police officers are <br /> affected by the F.O.P. case. . <br /> •••i ►.... .0 IY•t1.H,M• CO. <br />