Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> if specific information regarding agenda items for special meetings were <br />e required, it would be the City's contention that this requirement had been met <br /> in the meeting announcements. Mr. Sercombe added that the City Attorney's <br /> Office had some question regarding the standing of the plaintiffs in this case. <br /> Mr. Sercombe estimated that it would take five to six weeks to obtain a summary <br /> decision on this case, at a cost to the City of approximately $2,000 to $3,000. <br /> He said that if the case went to trial, it could take up to a year for a decision, <br /> at a cost to the City of approximately $5,000. Mr. Sercombe said he felt the <br /> case had little value to the City in terms of setting a precedent, since the <br /> council rarely holds special meetings. <br /> Mr. Sercombe suggested two options for council action on this matter. He sa i d <br /> that the council could decide to pursue the matter and seek a summary decision, <br /> with the understanding that if the matter did come to trial the costs and time <br /> would be as described above. He said that another alternative available to the <br /> council was to hold a public hearing on the naming of the center and take action <br /> on the matter again. He said it was the opinion of the City Attorney's Office <br /> that this would moot the litigation. <br /> Mayor Keller said he believed that there was a need to arrive at a resolution of <br /> this issue and that the time and expense involved in a court case that could <br /> last as long as a full year was an inappropriate action given the nature of the <br /> matter and its lack of precedential value for the City. He felt that the <br /> council had an obligation to the donors to resolve the issue soon. <br /> Councilor Smith said she would favor the holding of a public hearing, with the <br />- council making a determination as a result of that hearing. She felt that the <br /> intent of the hearing should be made clear to the public, so members of the <br /> public could limit testimony to the issue being considered by the council. <br /> Councilor Miller said that while she believed the process followed in announcing <br /> and conducting the special meeting on September 23 was legal, she felt it was <br /> not the best process and could have been more sensitive to the needs of the <br /> public. She therefore felt it was appropriate to reconsider the matter and <br /> allow members of the public to speak on the issue. <br /> Councilor Wooten said that the people of Eugene have come to expect that they <br /> will be given opportunity to address the council on matters of importance to <br /> them. She therefore agreed that the council should hold a public hearing and <br /> reconsider the naming of the center. <br /> Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the City Council call <br /> a public hearing for Monday, November 22, 1982, to consider the <br /> naming of the Hult Center for the Performing Arts. <br /> Councilors concurred with Mayor Keller's suggestion that thirty minutes be <br /> allotted to those who had petitioned the council and thirty minutes to those <br /> speaking in opposition to the petition. Mayor Keller suggested that staff <br /> provide a clock large enough to be visible to all those in the Council Chamber, <br /> so that those wishing to testify could work to keep their comments within the <br /> time alloted for testimony on the item. He felt that a clock that would show <br />e elapsed time would be most appropriate. <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 1982 Page 2 <br />