Lake Havasu City officials have a pair of legal issues to discuss next week.

City attorney representatives are hoping to obtain about $970,000 after a superior court judge granted partial summary judgment in the city’s favor on a 2004 sewer contract for the North Point Subdivision, in which several expected hookups were never paid.

And the City Council will be briefed on a recent Court of Appeals ruling overturning a wrongful termination case decision that was originally in favor of the city.

City Attorney Paul Lenkowsky is expected to speak to the City Council about the North Point case between the city and Fidence and Liance Development companies Tuesday during executive session at City Council chambers in the police facility. Lenkowsky said now that the court has ruled in favor of the city, the next step after a ruling is typically obtaining the sum associated with the ruling.

“In the city’s motion for partial summary judgment, $970,000 was requested,” Lenkowsky said. “Those are figures we were provided by from (the city’s) Finance Department. … I intend to consult with council with what will happen next in litigation and receive their input before moving further in the case.”

In August 2004, the Lake Havasu City Council entered into a wastewater agreement with the North Point Subdivision, despite opposition from some council members, according to News-Herald archives.

Under the agreement, the planned development was to provide about 1,000 single-family homes with sewer service in the Desert Hills area. Fidence Development and Liance Development also agreed to pay for the system’s entire infrastructure in the community — similar to the agreement the city made with The Refuge and Canterbury Estates in 2002 that included a required individual $2,000 hook-up fee per lot, according to archives.

Mohave County Superior Court Judge Charles Gurtler ruled in favor of the city that the contract did not call for payment “upon building permits being issued,” according to the court order.

“The defendants’ interpretation of the contract is inconsistent with the plain language of the contract and it is one that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the defendant,” Gurtler wrote in his order. “Defendents could have negotiated and documented an agreement that called for payment upon building permits being issued. This was simply not done.”

Fidence Development and Liance Development Manager Chris Read said he and his representation disagreed with Judge Charles Gurtler’s interpretation of the contract.

“(City representatives) were insistent we use the standard form (for the contract) and there were areas in it that were ambiguous,” Read said. “When we signed it, it was clear that we’d only be paying hook-up fees for platted (sold) lots. … My argument is those lots don’t actually exist right now and the agreement was ambiguous.”

Read said he is unsure where the case may go from here.

“We could fight it and take it further or work out something with the city. There are probably lots of options,” he said. “It’s not like I can make a decision overnight on what’s going to happen. Obviously I’m disappointed and kind of surprised because it is just an interesting point. We were under one impression and the new people in the city interpret it in a different way and the judge agreed with them.”

Lenkowsky and City Council are also scheduled during an executive session Tuesday to discuss a case between former city prosecutor Joan Uhl, in which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a summary judgment in favor of the city.

Uhl was fired five years ago after she told former City Attorney Maureen George of allegations accusing former City Manager Bruce Williams of sexual harassment and also accusing former City Finance Director Mike Ashley of misappropriating city funds, according to News-Herald and court archives. Tielborg ruled in March 2008 that Uhl’s firing “did not meet the legal threshold for wrongful termination” and upheld the summary judgment because she “did not engage in protected free speech,” according to News-Herald archives.

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision in November and effectively reopened the case, based on “whether the free speech addresses a matter of public concern,” according to the November ruling.

The case is scheduled to be remanded to US District Court for trial April 1, following a mediation session between city representatives and Uhl’s representation on March 31, Uhl said.

You can contact the reporter at nbruttell@havasunews.com