Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Ricci would make a motion to hire an attorney. She stated her challenges <br />now are that this is the fourth settlement and the information provided her no <br />where stated the attorneys were to get 16 million. She stated University City is <br />getting 1.3 percent and the attorneys are getting 25 percent. She was troubled <br />by the Municipal League saying the attorneys fees are paid by the defendant <br />which is not true. Ms. Ricci moved to hire Counsel to look into this Fairness <br />hearing on the attorney fees, an attorney which the Council can agree on to file <br />the claim on the settlement, severing the attorney fees from the settlement. Ms. <br />Ricci stated that she was not clear when the City received the notice as it was <br />not provided. She stated the City has twenty days to serve a notice and asked <br />the City Manager or the City Attorney for this date. Mr. Mulligan gave her the <br />date of July 16, 2009. Ms Ricci moved to retain independent counsel to <br />navigate the Council through the issue of fair and appropriate compensation in <br />this AT&T settlement for attorney fees. Mr. Wagner seconded her motion. <br />Mr. Price asked the City Manager for the time line showing the deadline dates. <br />Mr. Sharpe was not sure of the factual information he received and wondered if <br />the money spent on hiring an attorney would be negated by any extra money <br />received. <br /> <br /> <br />Mayor Adams also asked where the Council is getting the money from to hire an <br />attorney. <br /> <br />Ms. Ricci stated her first thought was to use the $5,000 originally allocated for a <br /> <br />party but realistically said if you saved one percent of 16 million dollars that <br />would amount to $160,000. She felt this was the prudent thing to do especially <br />since this was the fourth settlement that the City has had. Ms. Ricci stated other <br />things to look at in the City’s budget were Professional Development going from <br />$50,000 to $100,000 and Staff Training going from $44,000 to $80,000. Ms. <br /> <br />Ricci stated that information provided to the Council did not have one dollar <br />amount and there was no way any one of them would know about the 16 million <br />dollar attorney fees. Until she asked for and received the agreement did she <br />find out what the attorneys fees were. She stated this agreement can be viewed <br />in the City Clerk’s office. <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Crow stated that as Council moves forward with this process the review <br />would be guided by the initial retainer agreement, the settlement document and <br />the time frame for an attorney review to be limited by the necessity of getting <br />back as soon as possible, no later than Labor Day. <br /> <br /> <br />Ms. Feier asked Mr. Mulligan if there was anything he would like to outline as to <br />potential risks or things to be considered in light of the Council’s approval of the <br />2004 agreement and subsequent payouts the City has had from the settlement. <br />Ms. Ricci objected to having Mr. Mulligan speak on the legal issues and Ms. <br />Feier stated he can give an opinion if the City can be at risk. <br /> <br />Mr. Mulligan stated that the retainer agreement was signed by 74 other Cities <br />and approved by the City Council which did disclosed to Council and does <br />provide for a twenty-five percent fee, with 16 1/4 going to Class Counsel, who <br />worked on it for a number of years. He stated that U City is paying 25% on the <br /> <br /> <br />