CC 04-25-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I ~ I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I. I I Arden Hills Council 6 April 25, 1994 urgency to move forward with the request. Councilmember Malone commented that the original estimate for the oversized pipe was three to four times higher than the actual bid price, and he favored the City purchasing the oversized pipe. MOTION: Malone moved, seconded by Hicks for the City to enter into a three-party agreement with TCAAP, and the City of Mounds View for a sanitary interceptor from the east right of way line of 35W to the Mounds View connection; authorize the payment for the oversized pipe at a cost not to exceed Twenty Two Thousand dollars ($22,000); authorize the Administrator to make payment immediately; and authorize the Treasurer to charge the Sewer Fund for the costs and track it as a separate expenditure. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). Councilmember Hicks commented that staff should pursue reimbursement of these costs as soon as feasible. ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS Person referred to a letter faxed to her prior to the meeting, from Attorney Filla. The letter stated the litigation counsel for the Oak Grove Trust was filing a lawsuit against the non-settling parties for cleanup costs. The City was requested to determine whether it wished to be part of the lawsuit. Attorney Filla advised the City via letter, that if a counterclaim was filed by the non-settling parties against the Trust, the City would be represented by litigation counsel for the Trust and the Trust would finance the first One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) worth of legal fees. Any amounts in excess of $100,000 would be paid out of the proceeds of the lawsuit. Litigation counsel has taken the case on a contingent fee basis, therefore, if there is no recovery, there would be no additional legal fees. The City would not otherwise be obligated to make any additional contributions to the Trust. Attorney Filla further advised the City that if the City opted out of the litigation and a non-settling party would sue the City separately, instead of filing a counterclaim against the City as part of the Trust lawsuit, the City would have to defend itself. The City could assert its contribution protection from the EPA in this particular lawsuit, but would still have to respond.