Laserfiche WebLink
property owner on the value. The property owner wanted to gain financially from the parcel and if the City <br />could determine what was reasonable, he thought the property owner would accept it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman was willing to defer to the councilors who served the area. However, she was troubled by the <br />open-ended nature of the issue. There did not appear to be a plan on the part of staff for moving forward <br />and she thought if the City took a definitive stand some of the outstanding issues might galvanize. She did <br />not see any resolution in sight. <br /> <br />Mr. Medlin emphasized the division’s interest in acquiring the properties but he believed any precipitous <br />move would cost the City more rather than less. <br /> <br />Speaking to the councilors from the area, Ms. Bettman suggested that they ask for the item to be brought <br />back forward on a time-certain basis. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark reiterated his interest in a progress report in July 2007 and suggested another work session could <br />follow, perhaps in July or August. He determined from Mr. Medlin that there were no City resources <br />available from the last bond measure to develop the park in the near-term. Mr. Medlin said that minor <br />development such as grading and turf could occur before five years, but the structural features contem- <br />plated, such as a pool, would likely require funding through a future bond measure. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor recalled that the council discussed a bond measure in 2008-2010 to address some of <br />the recommendations from the Tier 1 and Tier II recommendations. He said that staff was pursuing the <br />property as part of the City’s acquisition strategy to get a 40-acre footprint somewhere in the Santa Clara <br />area. <br /> <br /> <br />C. WORK SESSION: Who is the City Attorney’s Client? Obtaining Second Opinions on Legal <br />Matters <br /> <br /> <br />City Attorney Klein was present for the item. He provided an overview of the topic, noting that the rules <br />governing the question of who the lawyer’s client was were to be found in the Oregon Rules of Professional <br />Conduct. The rules do not differentiate between in-house counsel and outside counsel and they do not <br />differentiate between agencies or level of government. The rules were the same for both private and public <br />entities. The rule stated that the lawyer’s client was the entity itself, not the president of the entity, the board <br />of directors, the city manager, or the elected officials. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein said the duty of the attorney was to represent the client as a whole in two roles, one as a legal <br />advisor and one as a legal advocate. In the attorney’s role as legal advisor, it was the attorney’s duty to <br />inform a client as to what the attorney believed the law was and what it required, what the risks were, and <br />how the client could lawfully comply with those requirements and achieve an objective consistent with the <br />law. As legal advisor, the attorney did not get direction as to what its advice should be from the client. City <br />Attorney Klein said as legal advocate, the attorney’s role was different; at that time, it was to take the <br />position articulated by the client and represent it or defend it in whatever venue necessary. <br /> <br />Speaking to the issue of securing a second opinion, City Attorney Klein said that the council merely had to <br />request a second opinion to receive one. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein distributed a list of the clients his firm represented with potential legal conflicts with the City and <br />a list of the conflict waivers the City Manager had signed going back to January 2004. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br />