By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
A settlement agreement ending litigation was approved by the Mona City Council Tuesday with one dissenting vote. Mona Mayor Bill Mills called for an executive session midway through council meeting as the third item of business. That session included Kasey Wright, city attorney. The executive session was held, according to the agenda, to take into consideration approval of an agreement in Stevens V (an abbreviation of the Latin versus) Mona City, et all; Civil No. 160600003. Kert S. Stevens and Emily J. Stevens, Mona City, Mona Irrigation Company, and O’Sullivan Investment LC, a Utah limited liability company, all agreed to enter into the Settlement Agreement and General Release of All Claims “for the purpose of settling and resolving certain claims, controversies and disputes between them.” Once back in general session, Mills called for a motion, and a vote was taken. Jeff Hearty, council member, voted against the agreement. “I still don’t like it,” he said. “There is a dispute between the Parties with respect to various issues arising from the construction and use of improvements on Lot 9 of the High Meadows Subdivision, Plat B, located in Mona City, Utah, which is owned by Stevens, including but not limited to, the obligation to construct a retention basin on the property, a prescriptive easement over the property by the (irrigation) company for irrigation purposes, and obligations of O’Sullivan with respect to the Stevens which resulted in the filing of that certain legal action now pending in the Fourth Judicial District Court for Juab County, State of Utah, captioned Kert S Stevens, et al. v. Mona City, et al., Case No. 160600003 (the “Litigation”),” reads the agreement. “Without waiving or conceding their respective positions in the litigation, it is the intent and purpose of the parties to this agreement to fully and completely settle, compromise and resolve all claims and controversies between them arising out of or in any way referring or relating to the litigation.” The agreement set terms for the “Amended Easement for the Storm Water Retention Facility.” The property currently contains a 30 foot by 30 foot drainage easement for a retention basin. As part of the agreement, Stevens agreed to convey to the city an amended easement and temporary construction easement for the purpose of constructing an underground storm drainage retention basin, including access for maintenance, which includes a release of the prior drainage easement the city held with respect to the property. As part of the agreement, Stevens agreed to allow an underground retention facility to be constructed within the area described by the Amended Easement. “The cost of the new underground retention facility is estimated to be approximately $12,000. O’Sullivan agrees to pay a total of $8,000 towardthat cost, $4,000 for itself, $2,000 on behalf of Stevens, and $2,000 on behalf of the (irrigation) Company,” states the agreement. The city’s insurance carrier has agreed to contribute the remaining $4,000 towards the cost of the underground retention facility as part of the agreement. “The city’s insurance carrier is contributing the $4,000 for the sole purpose of avoiding additional litigation fees,” it reads. “Neither the city nor its carrier believe the city has any legal liability in this matter.” The city will be the party contracting for the construction of the new underground retention facility. It was also stipulated that the underground retention facility would be installed within 120 calendar days from the date of the execution of the agreement by all parties. It is further stipulated that: “The city warrants that the installation of the retention facility satisfies its requirements previously imposed upon the Stevens to provide a drainage basin; and the Stevens acknowledge and accept the design and installation of the underground retention facility as adequate for the purpose of providing drainage from the property. The city shall be solely responsible for any necessary maintenance and/or repair of said retention facility and shall bear the costs of the same.” The Stevens are to provide clear and unimpeded access to the retention facility and not plant any landscaping that would interfere with maintenance and repair of the retention facility by the city. Within three business days of the date the Stevens receive both Subordination Agreements, Stevens are to execute and deliver to the irrigation company a special warranty deed of easement along with the Subordination Agreements, to be recorded by the company, conveying to the company an easement over the property for the construction, reconstruction, operation, and maintenance of its underground irrigation pipeline or a Deeded Easement. Stevens and the company intend the provisions of the agreement regarding the rights and obligations with respect to the easement to be collateral to and survive the grant of the Deeded Easement. “The parties also agree that a stipulation and order shall be executed by counsel for the parties and filed in the Fourth Judicial District Court dismissing the Litigation with Prejudice and upon the merits, and except as otherwise set forth herein to enforce the terms of this Agreement, with all parties to bear their own costs and attorney’s fees.”
| 