City Council Minutes 1996 08 20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Griffiths recommended the City approve the settlement that had been proposed: 1.) That Northern would dismiss all claims it has against the City related to this case. 2.) Release the City from all future claims that could have been brought in the pending law suit. 3.) The City would release Northern from any claims the City has or may have in the future regarding the matters at issue in the pending law suit. (Griffiths did not know of any claims that the City has against Northern in this lawsuit.) 4.) There will be no payment made by the City to Northern. 5.) The release would be binding on any successors to Northern, all the parties in the case, Coal Creek Associates, Bellock Construction, Boulder County Trustee, and a number of other parties who own specific parcels of property in the area. All the parties would pay their own respective costs and attorneys fees. Mayer was concerned that if the City got an indemnification provision and it is the developer that made the mistake, why should the City pay in this case. Griffiths stated that Bellock Construction and Coal Creek Associates believe that they made no error in this case. In order to get the case settled against all the parties, they are willing to make a payment to Northern. The amount of the City Attorney's fee in this case for both 1995 and 1996 expenses is approximately $4,500 and there is a potential litigation over the indemnification clause and requirement. There is also the potential of a negative decision. Sisk asked the amount of the claim. Griffiths reported that Northern Natural Gas had not claimed any monetary damages against the City. It had sought relief against the City and all the other defendants as a mandatory injunction. They had sought an order from the court that the City and all other defendants remove the streets and the retaining walls that are atop its easement. Sisk pointed out that these streets were built by Bullock Construction or as part of the Coal Creek Filing No.4. Sisk had a problem with throwing the indemnification out. He felt the City should pursue the indemnification against Coal Creek Associates and Bellock. Howard stated that because of the overall cost, any money received through Bellock would not be any real savings. He supported the City Attorney's recommendation. Davidson stated the chances of losing are detrimental to the City, other than monetarily. Mayer felt this should not have been a public discussion. He would not support doing it in the future. Lathrop did not feel Council was violating a trust or attorney/client privilege. He felt this was a minor issue that was clearly a mistake made by the developer and the City became a party to it. 9