Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council October 28, 20Q2 <br />Regular Meeting Page 19 <br />t <br />Chief Zikmund indicated that if this were not done there would be increased costs for a duty crew <br />for 30 hours per week which would amount to $30,000 annually and is not a very efficient use of <br />funds. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5873, a <br />Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of a Used Mini-Pumper. <br />Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. <br />K. Consideration of Innovative Images, LLC Mounds View Community Center <br />Banquet Facility Proposal to Dismiss all Claims Against the City of Mounds <br />View. <br />~~ <br />• <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated he received a letter from Mr. Halva representing Innovative <br />Images and had received instruction from Council to review the information for a <br />recommendation of the appropriate resolution. He then said he had discussed this matter with <br />Mr. Linke who had asked that it be stated that there are no outstanding claims against the City. <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated that after reviewing the case his recommendation would be to <br />counteroffer with the $686.00, as that appears to be the amount the City owes to Innovative <br />Images based on the records that are available. He then noted that records were reconstructed <br />during the MMKR audit of City contracts. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Direct Legal Counsel to Counter Offer $686.00 to <br />Innovative Images, LLC to Dismiss All Claims Against the City. <br />Council Member Stigney asked for clarification of the recommendation. <br />City Attorney Riggs clarified that, based on the records available, he has determined that the City <br />owes Innovative Images $686.00 not the $7,500 requested. <br />Council Member Quick asked how much the first settlement request was. <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated there have been a couple of different ones but one was over <br />$100,000. <br />Council Member Marty commented that it has been brought up that as far as what was owed to <br />whom and why and it seems a logical argument that the company or organization that went out <br />and solicited and booked the events would have some claim. <br />City Administrator Miller indicated the numbers that MMKR put together were based on the <br />contract and their interpretation of it. <br />Council Member Stigney asked whether City Attorney Riggs agreed with MMKR's conclusion. <br />