Laserfiche WebLink
<br />back taxes they are receiving from AT&T. Mr. Mulligan said that there was a <br />preliminary hearing June 26 and the final Fairness hearing is schedule for <br />November 2 which will consider the fairness of the entire settlement. There has <br />to be a separate application of attorney fees with separate documents that will <br />be filed with the court and the court will decide the fairness. Mr. Mulligan stated <br />that he was not aware of any objections from any of the other cities. He stated <br />that the Class Counsel could have made application on any of the money the <br />Cities will receive going forward but did not. Mr. Mulligan identified himself as <br />one of the members of the team <br /> <br />CITIZEN COMMENT <br />David Damick, 6933 Cornell <br />Mr. Damick stated that he is an attorney with experience with class action suits. <br />He stated that this Council has a fiduciary duty to get an independent opinion. <br />He stated that you cannot rely on the advice of Mr. Mulligan as he has an <br />interest in this case and therefore has a conflict of interest. There could be <br />statutory violations and other regulatory problems that you would not know, until <br />you hire an independent Counsel for an opinion. Mr. Damick made note of the <br />August 31 deadline, stating that any objections has to be filed by then. He <br />stated that only the class cities can file the objection and University City is one <br /> <br />of the few cities named that could do this. The Fairness hearing does not <br />happen November 2 unless the City files on August 31. <br /> <br />Ms. Ricci noted that the class counsel consisted of three people. She listed the <br />settlements U City received from all the cell phone class action suits: Sprint – <br /> <br />$817,000, AT&T $784,000 and another for $188,000 and another for $416,000. <br />She noted that it is substantial dollars being involved. She noted to Mr. Mulligan <br />that there is no disrespect to him but it does require an independent eye on this <br />and agreed with past speaker that there is indeed a conflict of interest. <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Mulligan stated that the back taxes University City is receiving over the <br />whole is 1.79 percent. He disagreed that the final Fairness hearing is without <br />court review. It is his understanding that court reviews are very specific and the <br />judge does have to have a final fairness hearing and ruling. He said the court is <br />an expert on the issue of what a reasonable fee is. <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Price called for the question. Ms. Ricci restated her motion for Council to <br />hire an outside Counsel to represent University City at the Fairness Hearing in <br />November and to review the issue of attorney fees within this settlement with <br />AT&T, to determine what is right for University City. <br /> <br /> <br />Mayor Adams stated that he heard a lot of different opinions as to whether we <br />should be doing it; not doing it. Ms. Ricci stated that she made the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Price didn’t disagree with Ms. Ricci’s motion to move forward but thought it <br />would be wise for the Council to get prior information. He could not go by four <br />different attorneys’ information. Again he asked the City Manager for a time line <br />and details on a flow chart. He also noted that if the attorney hired states that it <br />would not be worth while to go forward that another legal opinion would not be <br />sought. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />