Agenda - Council - 05/28/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~onttoring and maintaining the site to prevent toxic releases.) Nor do I think that section llSA.921 was intended to provide money for compensating private citizens for damages, in the fashion of superfund. The intent of section 115A.921 was rather to provide a city unfortunate enough to have a landfill in its bounds with extra funds to pay municipal expenditures related to the landfill, including municipal staff costs, police and fire costs, toad costs, municipal attorneys' fees, municipal water supplies, etc. Conclusion On the basis of my analysis of legislative intent, I would reach the following conclusions on the list of proposed expenditures: The first and second are proper, if the object is municipal water supplies and municipal attorney's fees related to the landfill problem. The first through fourth, insofar as they compensate for damages to private parties by actions of other private parties, are dubious municipal expenditures and beyond the intended scope of section 115A.921. - The fifth is clearly a proper expenditure under section 115A.921. The sixth is obviously a proper municipal expenditure but a questionable use of revenues under section 115A.921. Having said that, however, I return to two broader points made earlier. First, it is a defensible interpretation of the section to say that it has nothing whatever to say about how the money is spent by the city. Second, even if the purpose clause is addressed to eligible expenditures, the words, taken alone, are so broad as to Justify almost any municipal mitigation and compensation expenditure allowed by general law and the city code. TT/fa -3-