Laserfiche WebLink
20 <br /> the cities could be in the position of defending the new testing processes as they have had to <br /> defend the MPRS testing process. <br /> I have been discussing with the plaintiffs' attorney the possibility of reaching an agreement for a <br /> complete settlement of this case so no further reporting to the court would be required, the <br /> damages would be paid, and this case would finally be put to rest. We have been able to reduce <br /> the plaintiffs' demand for such a settlement to $15,000 (plus the damages and attorneys fees, <br /> which have already been awarded by the court). The average cost of this settlement per city <br /> would be$417. <br /> The MPRS executive committee has recommended this settlement to its members and to the <br /> other defendant cities and has recommended that the $15,000 be spread among the defendants on <br /> the basis of the formula that has been agreed to for other damages. Attached is a spreadsheet <br /> showing the results of such an allocation of the additional $15,000 among the defendant cities. <br /> Also attached is a draft resolution for consideration by your city council approving the proposed <br /> settlement. We would appreciate it if you could present this to your city council at the earliest <br /> opportunity. <br /> This settlement, if approved by the cities, will be contingent upon final dismissal of the case. It <br /> is possible that the District Court will decline to approve such a settlement, and we will be forced <br /> to proceed with the appeal. However, both the attorney for the plaintiffs and I believe it is highly <br /> likely that, if both parties agree, a dismissal will be approved by the court. <br /> I believe that the cities have a good chance of succeeding in the appeal of this case. However, <br /> success is not certain, and if the appeal is unsuccessful, the cost of further proceedings in District <br /> Court, together with the commitment of city staff resources necessary to submit necessary <br /> reports, would quickly exceed the amount proposed as a settlement. <br /> Plaintiffs' attorney stated that this proposed settlement is acceptable only for the very near term <br /> future. In fact, he originally stated that it would have to be accepted by September 18, 1998. I <br /> informed him that the proposal would be submitted to the cities but that approval by all 36 cities <br /> by that date would not be possible. Nevertheless, I believe that it is important that the cities act <br /> as promptly as possible on this proposed settlement. If you have any questions or comments, <br /> please feel free to give me a call at(612) 337-9215. <br /> Please advise me as soon as possible about your city council's decision. <br /> cc: Mr. Larry Thompson <br /> Mr. Cliff Greene <br /> Ms. Dayle Nolan <br /> Mr. Tom Barrett <br /> Mr. Kevin Rupp <br /> T <br /> CLL-150285 2 <br /> MP 110-2 <br />