My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2004/07/26
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
Agenda Packets - 2004/07/26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:12 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 4:45:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/26/2004
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/26/2004
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
226
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council July 12, 2004 <br />Regular Meeting Page 12 <br /> <br />Mayor Linke left the Council meeting. Mayor Linke excused himself due to the conflict of 1 <br />interest he had with Innovative Images. 2 <br /> 3 <br />1. Report on Innovative Images Contact Issue. 4 <br /> 5 <br />City Clerk/Administrator/Administrator Ulrich stated the City Attorney had had a family 6 <br />emergency so he couldn’t be available to present this issue. He stated Mr. Linke is acting as a 7 <br />vice president of the corporation, and he is making a request to have some compensation for a 8 <br />contract that Innovative Images previously had with the City of Mounds View. 9 <br /> 10 <br />City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated on April 12th the City Council had referred the matter, 11 <br />based on the City Attorney’s advice, to the Minnesota Attorney General, to answer the question 12 <br />of whether a mayor could bring such an action. On June 23rd the City received a response from 13 <br />the Attorney General stating that the mayor could bring such an action because the original 14 <br />contract was signed prior to Mr. Linke taking office and the City can work within the old 15 <br />agreement to settle this difference. 16 <br /> 17 <br />City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated Mr. Linke is seeking compensation for two issues. He 18 <br />stated it would take a significant amount of time to litigate. He stated litigation costs could easily 19 <br />exceed what the claimant would accept as a settlement, but that he did not know what that 20 <br />amount was at this point. He stated the City’s insurance generally does not cover contract 21 <br />claims. He stated an alternative could be binding or nonbinding arbitration to settle the matter. 22 <br /> 23 <br />Council Member Stigney stated he felt they shouldn’t do anything at this point because the City 24 <br />had made an offer in settlement of the contract, and he didn’t know whether that had been 25 <br />rejected by the Linkes or not. 26 <br /> 27 <br />City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated there was an offer pending on the table. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Council Member Gunn asked what they were asking for. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Council Member Marty stated they wanted to be paid a percentage of their future bookings. 32 <br /> 33 <br />There was a discussion over the settlement with Elegant Times. 34 <br /> 35 <br />Council Member Marty discussed his concern over the large legal fees they had incurred with 36 <br />Kennedy & Graven for legal contracts. He stated he would like to see this matter go to 37 <br />arbitration. 38 <br /> 39 <br />City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that people have said that arbitration would be a good way 40 <br />to go in this situation. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Council Member Gunn cited that the Minnesota Attorney General had stated that they knew of 43 <br />no principle of law that would summarily strip a person of otherwise legitimate preexisting legal 44
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.