cp06-09-1992 Closed Meetingr1
U
SPECIAL CLOSED CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1992
6:30 P.K.
A closed council meeting will be held for the purpose of
discussing Junker litigation.
•
11
F
F J
DAVID U. ARNOLD
• OART D. MCDOITSII
STNEx A. ANDERSON
O. BARRY ANDERSON'
STa S. ROOF
LAURA a. PRETI.AAD
DAVID A. BRUEOOEMANN
PAUL D. DOVE
JOSEPR M. PAIEMENT
JAMMS DTI.EY
UICRARD O. NcOEE
TINOraY w PAPI]ISaI
MARY a. RORROCES
CATRRYM D.REEER
May 20, 1992
1]
•
A$NOLD & MCDOWELL �S S
ATTORNEYS AT LAW o. w XL
101 PARE PLACE w. ZXM
p rNOMD c. LALUaR
HuTCRINBON, MINNESOTA 55330 - 2363 ��- PAUL N.BEOICR
(612) 587 -7575
PAX (on) 597'4096
REaIDENY ATTORNEY
O. BARRY ANDERSON
Mr. Gary D. Plotz
City Administrator
37 Washington Avenue West
Hutchinson, MN 55350
PERSONAL i CONFIDENTIAL
Material Protected by Attorney - Client Privilege
RE: Junker Sanitation
Our File: 3244 -87 -0005
Dear Gary:
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
I am enclosing herewith a copy of correspondence from attorney John
Cairns. I am unable to attend Wednesday's City Council Meeting as
I am attending long scheduled depositions in the Princeton area.
The proposal that Mr. Cairns makes has some merit, if we can
negotiate the 3M problem out of the mix.
This would leave the interim garbage hauling in the hands of the
present contract holder which would reduce any argument that he
might have at some later date that we were unfairly treating him.
There certainly is no obvious and significant reason to go to a
different hauler for the interim three month period except to "get
even" or to otherwise damage Junker. We would then be in the
position, if the council so chose, to say our decision as a city
to bid the long term contract competitively was motivated solely
by financial considerations rather than the difficulty the city and
Junker have had over ,the last several years.
There is one additional advantage. As it stands now, it is
difficult for many of the haulers to tell exactly what the lay of
the land is; we are subject to an accusation that Aagard Sanitation
has an advantage in negotiating commercial contracts which would
become effective after July 1, and while I recognize there is no
direct relationship between the party who serves on our committee
'CERTnMW AS A CIVIL TRIAL BPZCIAI• BY THE MINNESOTA RATE L ASSOCIAYMN
"CEaTIPIaD As A REAL PROPRRrT LAw s PSCIAmor BY TBE KrImmoOTA STATE BAB AimocuTwK
7 V�
5SA CRU" LASE ROAD
NIAMEAPOIJ3. MINNESOTA 55419
(9m) 545 -9000
NN TOLL PRRE 000 - 343 -4545
PAX(9W)D45 -1793
,..
WUTR P 11 sTRaET
V
PaINCSTOM.NIMNESOTa 553n
(612) 3199-2914
PAX tam) mm_slot
1`
L .o
L
'CERTnMW AS A CIVIL TRIAL BPZCIAI• BY THE MINNESOTA RATE L ASSOCIAYMN
"CEaTIPIaD As A REAL PROPRRrT LAw s PSCIAmor BY TBE KrImmoOTA STATE BAB AimocuTwK
C
Mr. Gary D. Plotz
May 20, 1992
Page 2
and the sanitation business, there is none the less the appearance
of such a relationship and by fixing the date at October 1, we
would "level the playing field" somewhat.
I am not certain the Junker will go along with exempting 3M from
this transaction, but it would be reasonable to have a motion from
the City Council authorizing the City Attorney to investigate an
interim proposal with Junker which would cover the three months
until October 1.
I will be returning later in the afternoon and I will contact you
at that time.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
ARNOLD & MCDOWELL
G. Barry Anderson
GBA:
Enclosure
LI
LJ
•
FOR H iGGS 3 0A YFLS.
(M04) 05.
LAW OMCES
13RIOCTS AND MORGA -V
0
WRITE" DIRECT D ••* XCV3XR
(612) 3348532
May 18, 1992
G. Barry Anderson, Esq.
Hutchinson City Attorney
Arnold & McDowell
101 Park Place
Hutchinson, Minnesota 55350
Dear Barry:
Re: Junker Sanitation, ino, - Hutchinson Contract
1 ii:.53/
2/2
SAT NT 1-AL7. Oynct
2=6 nan 1 TMO L R"7 11O. "I1P0
X4W t►OL. VnWZW& UM
T&L"We" N101 07.6*ee
r�arr.ILE wIa Oe7 •�+ao
From our conversation on Thursday, it is my understanding that the City intends to meet
with you to discuss the combined Issues of the Open litigation which must be appealed
by May 22, 1992 and the proposition we have made regarding the future contract for
services In Hutchinson.
Be advised that our client rejects the proposition you have made rewding Interim
services. As a counter - offer, and in the effort of reaching an accom *daton that wilt give
certainty to the City that services will continue after July 1 (rather than being faced with
litigation oonceming whether or not the City may go forward at all with anyone ottw than
Junker after July 1), we would propose that the Contract in its entirety, commercial and
residential, be continued at the current rates. Additionally, our client would reserve.the
right, and the City would agree to participate In, mediation or arbitration as to whether or
not any cost -of- living enhancement of the fees for services during the Interim period are
due our client.
We assume you will cell us the first thing on Wednesday morning to advise of the
outcome of the meeting Tuesday evening. We wf� hen in a position to know whether
or not our Notice of Appeal need be filed on Frjfier.
YR0 /I0.VA7. AOfOCIATI0.N
0400 1 0 0 CENTER
,[INNEArOL1 IiEXXI4OTA 06404
TELE}EGIrm 10141 004.0400
VAC4TXILE 0141604-0600
JAC/bk
cc: Jim Junker
63MV