HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2005-10-24 #Q •
City of Seal Beach
Agenda Report
Date: October 24, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: John B. Bahorski
City Manager
Subject: Use of Attorney Hours, Services and Costs
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
At the consensus of City Council, staff was requested to review the use of attorney hours,
services and costs. Originally, the focus was on the services provided by Richards,
Watson and Gershon; however, as staff undertook the analysis it became clear a broader
approach was necessary to provide City Council with a complete picture of legal costs.
BACKGROUND:
Staff has worked on this project over the last two months assembling data, creating
worksheets and developing charts that will allow City Council to review the legal costs
involved in operating the City. The approach staff took is similar to previous analytical
efforts for City Council on the Trailer Park, Zoeter School, Trash Franchise, Cable
Television Franchise and the history of the Redevelopment Agency. Staff examined two
years of legal expenditures, contacted other cities regarding their legal expenditures and
analyzed the history of legal costs. Included in this report is information concerning the
use of an in -house City Attorney. This portion of the report provides only the basic
information and does not include a discussion of the merits of the in -house versus
contracted City Attorney services. Along the way, staff also developed several
•
recommendations for reducing the costs of legal services.
The firm Richards, Watson and Gershon has been the City's legal representative since
1972. The City Charter Section 704 (Attachment A) outlines the duties and
responsibilities of the City Attorney. City Council is responsible for the appointment of
the City Attorney per City Charter Section 705. Periodically, the City Attorney and the
City Manager review legal costs to determine whether legal services may be provided in
a more efficient, and cost - effective manner. In 1993, the City entered into an agreement
with Richards, Watson, and Gershon that established a base retainer of $13,500 for 100
hours of service per month. In addition, this agreement capped the general legal services
at the rate of $140 per hour for services over 100 hours and criminal prosecution services
were capped at $125 per hour. As stated in the 1993 staff report included in Attachment
AGENDA ITEM
B with the 1993 agreement with Richards, Watson and Gershon, legal fees for general
services had been averaging $20,000 to $23,000 per month. Other services outside these
categories are billed at the regular hourly rate of the attorney providing the services. It
should be noted that the retainer and hourly rate for general legal services and criminal
prosecution services have not increased since 1993. The hourly rates that are outside the
contracted rate are summarized in Attachment C. City Council should take note that the
retainer and 1993 contract with Richards, Watson and Gershon was a successful effort by
former City Manager Jerry Bankston to reduce legal costs. In 1993 the 100 -hour per
month retainer appeared to be sufficient to meet the needs of the City. Since 1993, staff
can find no analysis or recommendation to modify the 100 -hour per month retainer.
Apparently, Richards, Watson and Gershon offered to cut its rate to $135 an hour from
"existing and traditional" rates that were $145 and above prior to the change.
Based upon a subsequent analysis in the late 1990s, Richards, Watson and Gershon
discounted certain of its rates for additional services by a percentage, typically 10 % -15 %,
but sometimes a greater percentage. For instance, while the contract provides that
litigation services shall be billed at full rates, the firm has provided a significant discount
on some of the lawsuits in which the City has been sued.
Staff's analysis revealed that in fiscal year (FY) 1992 -93 the City of Seal Beach spent
$583,908 for legal services, which provided the impetus for the reduced retainer rate.
This was due in large part to litigation services. Since 2000, the City of Seal Beach has
not exceeded $519,000 for legal services and the five -year average is $433,969. The legal
services budget in FY 2004 -05 represented 2.4% of the total General Fund budget of the
City. In FY 2005 -06 the legal service budget is expected to be 1.55% of the total General
Fund budget.
From a historical perspective this City Council has done an excellent job at controlling
legal services, and certain of its decisions, including switching from Orange County Risk
Management Authority (OCCRMA) to the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority
(CJPIA), have greatly reduced overall attorney costs. Prior to the switch, the City
incurred considerable legal costs in defending "liability cases." Further, most, if not all
of the costs associated with such defense costs were budgeted as "liability account" or
"risk management," and thus did not appear in the City Attorney's budget.
Staff examined legal services budgets for two different five -year periods and the results
of that analysis are displayed below.
History of Legal Services
Year Expenditures
2004 $436,939
2003 519,533
2002 376,524
2001 397,551
2000 439,298
Total $2,169,845
Five Year Average $433,969
Year Expenditures
1995 $434,846
1994 498,873
1993 583,908
1992 390,000
1991 419,038
Total $2,326,665
Five Year Average $465,333
One reason for using an average is that during the review of legal costs, staff discovered
that there is a cyclical pattern to the expenditures. Examining a single year could skew
the data. In addition, during staff's analysis it became clear that the five -year period from
2000 to 2004 would have achieved greater legal savings; however, City Council did
undertake more projects requiring legal services. Those projects include the Municipal
Code rewrite, General Plan Update, Charter Amendments and other special projects. The
current Council is very active and has undertaken projects that will benefit future City
Councils, many of which still require legal services.
As part of the analysis, staff selected two fiscal years for a more detailed study. The years
selected were FY 2003 -04 and FY 2004 -05. Staff reviewed not only the services by
Richards, Watson and Gershon, but also took the extra step to review all other legal
providers used by the City. It should be noted that while the City budgets $390,000
annually for legal services, there are other expenditures charged to the legal services
account such as court reporters, investigators, or expert witnesses. It has been generally
understood that Richards, Watson and Gershon has a $390,000 budget. The analysis
conducted by staff shows this is incorrect. In fact in FY 2003 -04, $53,914 of the total
spent on legal services went to outside services. For FY 2004 -05 the outside costs for
legal services rose to $179,831. Thus, Richards, Watson and Gershon kept within its
budget in 2004 -05. However, the legal budget was exceeded once fees by outside
counsel were factored in.
Attachments D and E of this staff report display the legal expenses, hours and
miscellaneous expenses by attorney firm for fiscal years 2003 -04 and 2004 -05. The tables
also breakdown in great detail the costs by firm and further separate the cost covered
under the retainer and non retainer for Richards, Watson and Gershon. During FY 2004-
05 the outside legal costs rose dramatically over FY 2003 -04. This is due primarily to
legal costs involved with personnel issues. Due to the type of personnel system the City
of Seal Beach has chosen to employ and the nature of public employment law, it became
clear during this analysis that personnel costs consume a large portion of the legal service
budget. In FY 2003 -04 the City used only 11% of the total hours devoted to legal services
to outside Counsel. That number rose to 34% in FY 2004 -05 due in large part to the hours
and costs needed to address personnel issues. The bulk of those personnel issues are
within the Seal Beach Police Department. Over the last two fiscal years, $233,746 has
been spent on outside legal counsel with the bulk of that amount dedicated to addressing
personnel issues. Later in this staff report there are recommendations to reduce the legal
services related to personnel.
Attachments D and E also illustrate that the City has used a total of 2,658 hours worth of
legal services in FY 2003 -04 and 2,525 hours in FY 2004 -05. These numbers are very
important, and are probably more important than the costs, because typically all public
sector attorneys charge very similar rates. If Council is interested in lowering costs for
legal services, then it is more important to control the hours and type of services used.
For example, reforming the personnel system of the City would lower the hours spent on
attorneys. In addition, the hours used on legal services can also be controlled by the
services requested by the Council and staff.
Based on information developed to produce Attachments D and E, staff further refined
the data to determine the type of legal services used, the hours spent on those services
and the costs. The data was then sorted by the departments using the service and by
subject matter. This data refinement was done for fiscal years 2003 -04 and 2004 -05.
Attachments F through K contain the data that was collected and sorted for the two fiscal
years. Attachments G, H, J and K contain the information in a graphical format. These six
attachments explain in detail how legal services are used in Seal Beach. The attachments
do not reflect retainer hours charged by Richards, Watson and Gershon.
Attachment F displays the attorney hours spent in FY 2003 -04 sorted by costs of service.
In FY 2003 -04, the top three highest costs for the City were Police personnel, City
Council projects and non - police personnel. Of the $323,259 spent in FY 2003 -04,
$180,186 was attributed to personnel and City Council projects. In FY 2003 -04 City
prosecutions accounted for 250 hours or $44,409 in costs. The positive news is that these
costs dropped in FY 2004 -05 and were one time costs related to the liability claims that
have now been transferred to California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA).
Staff also sorted the data on legal services by City department to determine the largest
users of legal services. Attachment G provides both the data sorted from high to low and
also graphically displays the information. In FY 2003 -04 the Police Department
consumed 24% of the legal services expenditures. Community Development used 20% of
the legal services by cost, but actually used the second largest number of hours.
Attachment H takes the same legal services data for FY 2003 -04 and sorts it by subject
matter. The Police Department used 463 hours at the cost of $78,016 in FY 2003 -04. This
is 159 hours more than the next largest category.
Staff analyzed attorney costs for FY 2004 -05 and found that police personnel issues were
the most significant costs and generated the most hours of legal services. In FY 2004 -05,
police personnel costs were $128,983 or in terms of hours consumed, 677 hours.
Approximately one third of the total $336,189 spent was the result of legal services
related to police personnel. Attachment J graphically illustrates that the police department
used 702 hours of legal services at a cost of $134,942. When the legal services data is
sorted by department usage, it results in the police department consuming 44% of the
1,589 total hours in FY 2004 -05. The next highest type of legal services used in the City
is for general personnel legal service at 21% of the total hours. Another way to examine
the legal services data is by subject matter. Attachment K represents the legal services
data for FY 2004 -05 and that information reveals that the top three users of legal services
are police, personnel and land use.
Combining the data from FY 2003 -04 and FY 2004 -05 reveals the following information
related to legal services. Police personnel issues accounted for the highest number of
hours and costs. In terms of hours used, police personnel issues totaled 1,096 for the two
years examined and the combined cost for both fiscal years for police personnel totaled
$197,875. No other legal services cost as much as police personnel matters in either fiscal
year. The total combined hours for non - retainer services for the two -year period is 3,233.
A review of Attachments F and I also reveal that there is a diversity of legal services
provided to the City. Many of the costs are a result of action that is beyond the City's
control. Examples of the type of legal costs beyond the City control are NPDES permit
compliance, Zoeter School lead exposure, and public records requests. Furthermore, City
Council directed legal services projects resulting in the use of 367 hours over the last two
years. Those hours spent made improvements to the City Municipal Code, Charter and
newspaper rack ordinance.
The analysis of legal services also included a review of the retainer portion of the
contract with Richards, Watson and Gershon. As stated earlier in this report, the City
receives specific legal services at a flat rate of $13,500 per month. During staff's
analysis, a review was done on how those hours were used. Attachment L is a breakdown
of the hours used under the retainer in FY 2003 -2004. The predominate types of services
used under the retainer was for land use matters, followed by City Council directed
projects and assistance to the City Clerk. One of the more interesting discoveries of this
review was that the total cost of the services billed under the retainer was $273,881 in FY
2003 -04; due to the cap the City was only charged $162,000 resulting in a savings of
$111,881. Clearly, the retainer negotiated in 1993 accomplished the desires of the City
and provided savings for the City. Attachment M graphically displays the usage for FY
2003 -04 in terms of percentages. Approximately 35% of the retainer is used for land use
matters and 26% for City Council specified projects. Staff completed the same analysis of
the retainer usage for FY 2004 -05. Again, land use issues were the major type of service
utilized in FY 2004 -05 with 298 hours expended by the City Attorney. A review of the
data in FY 2004 -05 reveals that the total cost of services was $281,184; however, due to
the retainer only $162,000 was charged to the City resulting in savings of $119,184.
Attachment 0 illustrates the retainer usage by the type of service in a pie chart format
display.
With the understanding that redevelopment related legal costs are a concern to the
Council and community, staff examined those legal costs separately for FY 2003 -04 and
•
FY 2004 -05. The total costs in FY 2003 -04 related to redevelopment were $58,086. In
FY 2003 -04 the majority of hours and costs were spent on low /moderate housing issues
such as the trailer park. Housing issues consumed 104 hours out of a total 239 hours used
in FY 2003 -04. Redevelopment costs rose significantly in FY 2004 -05 due to complex
issues such as the Rodi litigation, trailer park transfer documents, MPROP funding, West
End Pump Station land acquisition and transferring the Animal Shelter property. In cities
that have an in -house city attorney, these types of issues are typically "farmed out" to a
special redevelopment counsel. In FY 2004 -05 the total legal services related to
redevelopment was $201,603. Attachment Q provides a break down by hours for legal
services related to redevelopment.
The final part of staff's analysis of legal services was to explore how other cities handle
their legal services. Staff obtained a 2004 survey of City Attorney budgets for cities
within Orange County. This survey contains slightly out of date information, but still
provides some useful information. The survey indicates that the majority of cities use
outside legal counsel and that only the cities of Orange, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa,
and Westminster use in -house legal services. In Orange County, most of the cities that are
similar in size to Seal Beach use outside legal counsel. Staff reviewed the budget figures
for the cities in Orange County and found that Seal Beach's legal expenses are similar to
legal expenses incurred by similar cities, and are only a small percentage of the overall
City budget expenditures. Additionally, staff found that it was very hard to compare with
other cities due to the variation in budgeting practices. Seal Beach has a very easy
method of tracking legal costs where other cities spread the legal costs to each
department making it hard to determine the true cost for legal services. Attachment R
contains the 2004 budget survey for City Council review. Staff also did a cursory survey
of cities that included non -Orange County cities. The survey included budgets for legal
services as well as providing information on retainer amounts and number of employees.
One caveat to this survey is that the reporting of legal expenses is not consistent among
the agencies. However, it does provide a simplistic view of legal costs that indicates Seal
Beach is well within the norm of the surveyed cities. Attachment S provides some
information on the costs for in -house attorney services. For example, Manhattan Beach
has an in -house attorney with a budget of $422,193. The City of Solana Beach also
provides legal services in -house at the cost of $250,000. Staff did not perform the
additional research to determine the other costs for outside legal representation these
cities pay beyond their budgets for an in -house city attorney. All of the cities that have
in -house city attorneys "farm out" litigation and other matters beyond the expertise of
their in -house city attorney. Since a small number of community members have
expressed some desire to explore an in -house City Attorney, staff obtained a survey of
City Attorney salaries in southern California. Attachment T provides City Council with a
survey of cities and the salary information for in -house and elected City Attorneys. The
average salary is $14,595 per month or $175,140 per year without benefits. This is
$13,140 more than the annual retainer cost currently paid to Richards, Watson and
Gershon.
Staff did put together a very preliminary budget estimate for an in -house City Attorney.
This is a very basic analysis and should not be construed as the actual costs of having an
in -house City Attorney. If City Council indicates a desire to move in that direction, an
additional analysis would be needed. The table below is a basic budget for an in -house
City Attorney.
Position Salary Pension Insurance Auto Cellphone Total
City Attorney $175,000 $22,050 $12,000 $1,800 $900 $211,750
Exec Secretary $ 42,900 $ 5,405 $ 9,960 $ 58,265
Materials and Supplies $ 85,586
Estimated Budget $355,601
Assumptions:
1. This budget does not assume any costs related to hiring outside
counsel.
2. The budget only provides 1,800 hours of City Attorney time.
Our analysis is that a full service city such as Seal Beach, with
its own police department and beach, typically requires in
excess of 2200 hours per year of attorney time. Thus, these
additional hours would be farmed out to special counsel, at a
much greater billing rate.
3. This budget does not contain any costs associated with having
an assistant city attorney or paralegal.
4. No one time costs for establishing the City Attorneys office is
assumed in this budget.
GENERAL FINDINGS:
> Legal services can vary significantly between years due to unanticipated events.
For example, in 1993 the City expended $583,908 in legal services, and in 2002
the legal costs were only $376,524.
> Not all the legal services budget of the City is spent on attorney services.
Investigation services, expert witnesses and court reporters are just a few
examples of non - attorney costs that have been billed to the legal services budget.
> Richards, Watson and Gershon does not consume the total legal services budget.
Rather, the analysis indicates that there are other legal firms that are billed to the
account that make up the total costs for legal services.
> Seal Beach has significant legal expenditures for personnel issues and land use
matters. The data suggests that police personnel costs have been significant over
the two years reviewed by staff. Reform of the City's Personnel System would
provide immediate relief from these costs. While not all the costs would be
eliminated, staff believes that significant costs savings could be achieved by
eliminating the Civil Service Board and System.
> Council has been very active in updating the City's General Plan, Municipal Code
and Charter. While this has increased legal services costs, these are one -time
projects that in the long run will save the City money. Many of the legal services
costs are related to land use matters.
• Many of the legal services costs that staff reviewed cannot be avoided. Based on a
review of the data, the City does not frequently initiate litigation, but rather is
often defending the taxpayers of the City.
> The legal costs of the City are only a small portion of the total General Fund
Budget. Legal service range from 1.55 % to 2.4% of the total General Fund
Budget. Clearly if savings were a primary goal, other areas of the City could be
reviewed to achieve greater savings.
RECOMMENDATION:
After reviewing the data collected as part of this project, there are reforms that can be
implemented to further reduce legal services expenditures. Before making a change to the
current provision of legal services, staff believes the following changes should be made
before considering any changes to the current legal services. The recommended changes
are as follows.
> General Services: Consider directing staff to analyze the general services
provided by Richards, Watson, and Gershon to determine whether more services
can be included within the retainer portion of the contract. While the City has
received considerable savings since 1993 by creating the retainer, it is possible
that more savings can be realized.
> Additional Services: Direct the City Manager and City Attorney to review
additional services to determine whether Richards, Watson and Gershon can
provide a further discount on certain matters.
> Charter Amendment: Reform the Civil Service System and Civil Service Board.
This action would require consent of the City labor associations and a Charter
Amendment approved by City voters. At this point, all but the police associations
have agreed to the change in the Civil Service System. This reform would save
the City significant money over the long term. Of all these suggestions, a Charter
Amendment reforming the Civil Service System would create the greatest
reduction in legal expenses.
> Special Counsel Services: Review the services provided by outside counsel in an
effort to contain those costs.
> Zoning Code and Local Coastal Plan: Although initially it will be a short-term
expenditure, updating the City's zoning code and implementing a Local Coastal
Plan will reduce the legal services needed relating to land use issues.
Implementing these recommendations will have a beneficial impact on legal services
costs.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Seal Beach City Charter
B. 1993 Staff Report — Agreement for Legal Services
C. 2005 Billing Rates for Richards Watson and Gershon
D. Expenses by Firm for FY 2003 -04
E. Expenses by Firm for FY 2004 -05
F. Attorney Audit for FY 2003 -04 (Non Retainer)
G. Attorney Audit for FY 2003 -04 sorted by department (Non Retainer)
H. Attorney Audit for FY 2003 -04 sorted by subject (Non Retainer)
I. Attorney Audit for FY 2004 -05 (Non Retainer)
J. Attorney Audit for FY 2004 -05 sorted by department (Non Retainer)
K. Attorney Audit for FY 2004 -05 sorted by subject (Non Retainer)
L. Analysis of RWG Retainer Services for FY 2003 -04
M. Pie Chart Breakdown of RWG Retainer Services for FY 2003 -04
N. Analysis of RWG Retainer Services for FY 2004 -05
0. Pie Chart Breakdown of RWG Retainer Services for FY 2004 -05
P. Analysis of Redevelopment Legal Service for FY 2003 -04
Q. Analysis of Redevelopment Legal Service for FY 2004 -05
R. 2004 City Attorney Budget Survey
S. Survey Information on City Attorney Budgets
T. City Attorney Salary Survey
ATTACHMENT
A
L
Seal Beach Official Charter
Maintain separate books in which a record shall be made of all
(c) written contracts and fidelity and performance
(d) Be the custodian of the Seal of the City.
Administer oaths or affirmations, take affidavits, a oI si ion of (e) pertaining to the affairs and business
of official records. of has availed itself or
• (f) Be ex- officio assessor, unless the Ci rovisions of the general laws of
does in the future avail itself of the p
the State relative to a and the collection
assessment of property
b county officers, or the City Council by
of City taxes, of any, by
ordinance provides otherwise.
( Be responsible for the conduct ssist in o the duties of the
(h) Deputize other persons to
City Clerk. •
703. T reasurer and Finance Director. As treasurer, the Finance
SECTION
Director shall be required to: .
(a) Collect any license fees or other
and recei of
e all City, or for whose
es or other
() collection the City.is responsible State or Federal
money receivable by the City from the County, S department or
Government, or from any Court or from any
agency of the City.
(b) Have custody of all public funds belonging to or under control of the
government
office, department or agency of the City g
City or any into his /her hands in such depository
as may be designated by
and deposit all funds comig resolution of the City Council or if no such
ed in writing
resolution be adopted, then in such depository designated of
by the City
Manager, and in compliance with all of the p
State Constitution and laws of the State governing the handling,
the public funds.
depositing and securing of P
Disburse moneys on demands audited in the manner provided for
in the Charter. Council monthly written reportsof all
• (d) Prepare and ursementshand i and balances, copies of which reports
receipts, disbursements
shall be filed with the City Manager. (Amended 1978)
•
tY
SECTION 704.
C i Attorney. Powers and Duties. To come eligible for
City Attorney or.Assistant City Attorney the person appointed
Law duly licensed as such under the lad `e of t th State of
years California
Attorney at ed in the and shall have engaged practice of law for at
have the power and be required to:
appointment. The City Attorney Council and all City Officers in
(a) • Represent and advise the office.
matters of law pertaining to their o or all actions and
Represent and appear for the City in any except the
(b) proceedings in which the City is concerned or is a party,
pr
osecution of criminal actions, and represent and appear for any
19
•
Seal Beach Official Charter
City Officer or employee, or former City Officer or employee, in any
or all actions and proceedings in which any such officer or •
employee is concerned or is a party, for any act arising out of the
officer's employment or by reason of his /her official capacity.
(c) Attend all regular meetings of the City Council and give advice and
opinions in writing whenever requested to do so by the City Council
or by any of the boards or officers of the City.
(d) Approve the form of all contracts made by and all bonds iven to
the City, endorsing approval thereon in writing. g
(e) Prepare any and all proposed ordinances or resolutions for the City
and amendments thereto.
(f) Approve, as to legality, all investments of City funds.
The City Council shall have control of all legal business and • _
proceedings and may employ other attorneys to take charge of a
litigation or.matter or to assist the City Attorney therein.
SECTION 705. City Attorney. Deputies and Employees. The City .
Attorney shall, subject to the approval of the City Council, appoint
to assist the City Attorney at such salaries or compensation as the Council may,
by ordinance, prescribe.
SECTION 706. Administering Oaths. Each department head and deputy
shall have the power to administer oaths and affirmations in connection with any
official business pertaining to his /her department.
SECTION 707. Department Heads. Appointment Powers.. Each
department head and appointive officer shall have the power to appoint
and remove such deputies, assistants, subordinates and employees as �are
provided for by the City. Council for his /her department or office, subject to the
provisions of this Charter of any personnel, merit or civil service system
adopted hereunder. .Any such.appo.intrnent or removal by a department head
appointed by the City Manager shall be subject to the approval of the City.
Manager.
SECTION 708. Illegal Contracts. Financial Interest. In accordance with the
provisions of Section 1090 et seq. of the State of California Govemment Code as
such ;provisions now exist or may hereafter be amended, no City officer or
employee shall be financially interested in any contract made by them in their
official capacity. Sections 1090 et seq., in their entirety, are hereby incorporated
by reference into this Section. One true and correct copy of the current Sections
1090 et seq. shall be deposited in the office of the City Clerk and shall be at all
times maintained by said Clerk for use and examination by the public. (Amended
2002)
•
20
ATTACHMENT
B
November 8, 1993
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and gap it Members
FROM: Jerry Bankston, Cit tg4ger
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Approve and authorize execution of Agreement for Legal Services by
and between the City of Seal Beach and the law firm of Richards,
Watson & Gershon, a professional corporation.
DISCUSSION
The law firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon has been the City
Attorney for the City, in accordance with Section 704 of the City's
Charter, since 1972. During this period there have been a series
of contracts and amendments concerning the terms of the
relationship between the City and Richards, Watson & Gershon. It
is recommended that the proposed Agreement for Legal Services
replace all former contracts, agreements and amendments.
The agreement defines the relationship which shall exist between
the City and Richards, Watson & Gershon in the discharge of their
duties as, an independent contractor, City Attorney. The agreement
identifies the legal services which may be provided by Richards,
Watson & Gershon and places those services, for rate purposes, into
defined service categories.
The agreement sets a base retainer for 100 hours of service per
month at a monthly rate of $13,500, which rate, on an hourly basis,
is below existing and traditional rate. With the efforts of City
staff and the City Attorney's Office the City has successfully
reduced the monthly cost for general services to an average of
$13,000 to $15,000 as compared to an average of $20,000 to $23 -000
in prior years. This has been accomplished even though services
have been increased to include attendance at Planning Commission
meetings. The number of hours specified in the retainer are
consistent with the average of the past several months and should
be sufficient to provide for most general services. The use of a
monthly retainer also assists this office in monitor Attorney
ENDA nl11
services and scheduling projects.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the current budget; however, adoption of the
Agreement for Legal Services will produce annual savings in general
legal services.
SUGGESTED ACTION
WITH ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR, COUNCIL APPROVES THE
AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY AND RICHARDS,
WATSON AND GERSHON, a professional corporation.
r
AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES •
FOR THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
This Agreement is made and entered into by and between
the law firm of RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON, a professional
corporation (hereinafter "the Firm "), and the CITY OF SEAL BEACH
(hereinafter "City ").
RECITAL S:
A. The Firm has been discharging the duties of the office
of City Attorney for the City since 1972, in accordance with
Section 704 of the Official Charter of the City.
B. During the period that the Firm has been the City
Attorney for the City, there has been a series of contracts and
amendments concerning the terms of the relationship between the
Firm and the City.
C. The City and the Firm desire to replace all former
contracts, agreements and amendments with this Agreement for
Legal Services which provides that the Firm will discharge the
duties of the office of City Attorney as specifically set forth
herein.
D. The attorneys of the Firm are duly licensed under the
laws of the State of California and are fully qualified to
discharge the duties of the office of City Attorney and to
provide the services contemplated by this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Scope of Services.
Pursuant to the Official Charter of the City of Seal
Beach, the Firm shall discharge the duties of the office of City
Attorney of the City and shall use its best efforts to provide
legal services in a competent and professional manner. The Firm
shall provide all legal services to the City of the kind and
nature typically provided by an in -house City Attorney's office
and the other legal services described herein, upon the request
of the City Council, City Manager, and department heads. The
legal services to be provided by the Firm shall consist of those
set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and shall be billed at
the rates set forth therein.
930921 S7296.00001 !sj A475.QMB 3
2. Designation of City Attorney.
Quinn M. Barrow is designated as City Attorney for the
City. The parties understand and agree that the Firm may, from
time to time, utilize other attorneys within the Firm to assist
Mr. Barrow in the performance of this Agreement.
3. Billing Procedures and Monthly Statements.
A. The Firm shall submit to the City, within
thirty (30) days after the end of each calendar month, an
itemized statement of the legal services provided and the time
expended providing those services in the form customarily
submitted by the Firm to clients which are billed on an hourly
basis. The parties acknowledge that payment of all monthly
statements is expected to be made within thirty -(30) days of the
billing date.
B. The Firm will bill the City for its out -of-
pocket costs and expenses such as, but not limited to, long
distance telephone calls, filing fees, document duplication,
computerized legal research, word - processing, and similar items.
These items will be separately designated on the Firm's monthly
statements as "disbursements," and will be billed in addition to •
the fees for professional services.
C. Time will be charged by the Firm in
increments of 1 /10 of an hour (i.e., six - minute units). The rate
structure in general, or the rates of particular attorneys, may
be increased from time to time, after written notice to the City.
To the extent feasible, such adjustments will be made so as to
coincide with the beginning of the City's fiscal year.
4. Resolution of Fee Disputes.
The City is entitled to require that any fee dispute be
resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to applicable
arbitration rules for legal fee disputes. In the event that the
City chooses not to utilize the Orange County Bar Association's
arbitration procedures, the City agrees that all disputes
regarding the professional services rendered or fees charged by
the Firm shall be submitted to binding arbitration in Los Angeles
to be conducted by the American Arbitration Association in
accordance with its commercial arbitration rules.
5. Term of the Agreement.
This Agreement shall commence as of July 1, 1993 and
shall be and remain in full force and effect until amended by
written agreement between the parties, or unless terminated in
accordance with the provisions of Section 6 hereof.
930921 57296.00001 bj A475.QMB 3 - 2 -
6. Termination of the Agreement.
The City may terminate the Firm's representation at any
time, with or without cause, subject to an obligation to give
notice in writing to the Firm upon such termination. The Firm
may terminate its representation, subject to an obligation to
give to the City written notice at least ninety (90) days prior
to termination. In either circumstance, City agrees to secure
new counsel as quickly as possible and to cooperate fully in the
substitution of the new counsel as counsel of record. The Firm
agrees to cooperate fully in any such transition, including
transferring files promptly. Notwithstanding the termination of
the Firm's representation, the City will remain obligated to pay
to the Firm all fees and costs incurred prior thereto, and to pay
such fees and costs in connection with services which have been
requested following such termination.
7. Files.
All legal files of the Firm pertaining to the City
shall be and remain the property of the City. The Firm will
control the physical location of such legal files during the term
of this Agreement.
8. Modifications to the Agreement.
Unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement,
modifications relating to the nature, extent or duration of the
Firm's professional services to be rendered hereunder shall
require the prior written approval of the City Manager. Any such
written approval shall be deemed to be a supplement to this
Agreement and shall specify any changes in the Scope of Services
and the agreed -upon billing rate to be charged by the Firm and
paid by the City.
9. Independent Contractor.
No employment relationship is created by this
Agreement. The Firm shall, for all purposes, be an independent
contractor to the City.
10. Nondiscrimination.
In the performance of this Agreement, the Firm shall
not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment
because of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, sexual
orientation or medical condition. The Firm shall take
affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed, and
that employees are treated during their employment, without
regard to their race, religion, color, sex, national origin,
sexual orientation or medical condition. Such actions shall
include, but not be limited to, the following: employment,
upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment
930921 S7296.00001 4j A475.QMB 3 - 3 -
advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms
of compensation, and selection for training.
11. Assignment and Delegation.
This Agreement contemplates the personal professional
services of the Firm and this Agreement, or any portion thereof,
shall not be assigned or delegated without the prior written
consent of the City. Delegation to attorneys outside the Firm
shall be limited to those situations in which the Firm is
disqualified by virtue of a conflict of interest, or where the
Firm does not possess the expertise to perform services in a
particular practice area. Delegation shall not be made without
the prior approval of the City Manager. The Firm shall supervise
delegated work, except where precluded from doing so by virtue of
a conflict of interest, and where otherwise agreed to by the
parties hereto.
12. Insurance.
A. The Firm shall obtain and maintain in full
force and effect a professional liability insurance policy which
provides coverage in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per
occurrence and $4,000,000 aggregate. Said insurance policy shall
provide coverage to the City for any damages or losses suffered
by the City as a result of any error or omission or neglect by
the Firm which arises out of the professional services required
by this Agreement. Such insurance may be subject to a self -
insured retention or deductible to be borne entirely by the Firm.
B. The Firm shall obtain and maintain workers'
compensation insurance in accordance with Section 3700 of the
California Labor Code.
C. The Firm shall obtain and maintain in full
force and effect comprehensive general liability insurance in an
amount not less than $2,000,000, which insurance shall cover
owned, hired and non - owned vehicles.
D. All insurance coverages specified above shall
provide for a minimum of thirty (30) days notice of cancellation
by the insurance carrier, and shall be maintained in full force
and effect throughout the term of this Agreement.
13. Indemnification.
The Firm agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless
the City, its officers, agents and employees, from and against
any and all claims or losses arising out of or attributable to
any negligent or willful act, error or omission of the Firm or
any person employed by the Firm in the performance of this
Agreement.
930921 S7296.00001 bj A475.QMB 3 - 4 -
14. Entire Acreement.
This Agreement shall constitute the full and complete
agreement and understanding of the parties and shall be deemed to
supersede all other written or oral statements of either party
relating to the subject matter hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized representatives
of the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of
the dates indicated below.
BST: CITY OF SEAL BEACH
i / By
CIT CLERK GWEN FORSYTHE, MAYOR
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
A Professional Corporation
P AP
iP ed B Y A. MLA
CHAI �'i\ OF THE B t" ' D
930921 57296.00001 Iaj A475.QMB 3 — 5 -
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES AND APPLICABLE BILLING RATES
I. GENERAL LEGAL SERVICES
A. The general legal services to be provided by the Firm
to the City shall include, without limitation, the following:
1. Provide routine legal assistance, advice and
consultation to the City Council and to City staff
relating to land use, CEQA, general municipal law
issues, enforcement of the Municipal Code and
potential tort liability.
2. Prepare and review legal opinions, ordinances,
resolutions, agreements and related documents.
3. Review environmental documents.
4. Provide legal assistance and advice relating to
routine personnel and employment matters.
5. Attend all regular meetings of the City Council
and the Planning Commission, and such other
commission meetings as may from time to time be
specified by the City, excluding meetings of the
Civil Service Commission.
6. Monitor pending state and federal legislation and
regulations, and new case law, as appropriate.
7. Perform such other or additional general legal
services as may be requested by the City, acting
by and through the City Council or the City
Manager.
B. The general legal services specified in paragraph A
above shall be provided pursuant to a retainer in the sum of
$13,500 per month.
C. If the general legal services specified in paragraph A
above require in excess of 100 hours per month, the additional
time will be billed at the rate of $140 per hour.
930921 57296.00001 1ej A475.QMB 3 - 6 -
II. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The additional services to be provided by the Firm on
behalf of the City shall include, without limitation, the
following:
A. Litigation matters currently being handled by the Firm
and litigation matters hereafter assigned by the City
to the Firm;
B. Labor Relations matters, including negotiation of
employment contracts and memoranda of understanding,
and representation at employee discipline proceedings
conducted by the City's Civil Service Commission, and
any appeals therefrom;
C. Redevelopment Agency Legal Services;
D. Bond Counsel Services;
E. Environmental Legal Services (beyond those specified as
general legal services), including but not limited to,
legal services performed in connection with the Bolsa
Chica project, the proposal by Unocal to reactivate its
on -shore facilities, and other matters specifically
approved by the City Manager;
F. Legal Services performed in connection with the
proposed development of the property commonly known as
the Bixby property, including review of environmental
documents prepared in connection therewith;
G. Legal Services performed in connection with any
election;
H. Real Estate Services such as the preparation and review
of leases and purchase and sale agreements and services
performed in connection with the sale or acquisition of
property by purchase, lease, eminent domain or
otherwise;
I. Legal Services performed in connection with federal,
state and local taxation;
J. Legal Services performed in connection with borrowing
money by the issuance of bonds or otherwise;
K. Legal Services performed in connection with special
assessments;
L. Legal Services performed in connection with hazardous
and toxic waste; and
930921 57296.00001 lsj A475.QMB 3 - 7 -
M. Any other matters specifically approved by the City
Council.
The additional services specified above shall be billed
at the regular hourly rate of the attorney or attorneys providing
such services, subject to any "cap" which may be agreed upon
between the Firm and the City. The determination as to whether a
particular matter or assignment is to be considered additional
services, as opposed to general legal services, will be made
jointly by the City Attorney and the City Manager.
III. CITY PROSECUTOR SERVICES
The Firm shall perform criminal prosecutions of City
Code violations at the hourly rate of $125.00.
930921 S7296.00001 4j A475.QMB 3 - 8 -
ATTACHMENT
C
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
2005 STANDARD BILLING RATES
YEARS OF HOURLY
PRACTICE RATE
SHAREHOLDERS:
MARKMAN 25+ $400
DORSEY 25+ $395
STRAUSZ 25+ $395
KAUFMANN 25+ $395
GRAYSON 25+ $395
ABBOTT 25+ $395
BROWNE 25+ $395
STEPANICICH 25+ $395
THORSON 25+ $395
GANS 25+ $450
BARROW 20+ $395
HARRIS, J. 20+ $375
KUNERT 20+ $375
LYNCH 20+ $375
JIMBO 20+ $375
CECCON 20+ $375
CURLEY 15+ $350
ENNIS 15+ $350
ESTRADA 15+ $350
HARRIS, R. 15+ $350
WIENER 15+ $350
DANNER 15+ $350
ORR 15+ $350
KIM 10+ $325
ASAMURA 10+ $325
SUME 10+ $325
COLESON 10+ $325
PIERCE 10+ $325
STEELE 10+ $325
BOGA 10+ $325
BOND 10+ $325
CLARKE 10+ $325
DIAZ 7+ $295
YOSHIBA 7+ $295
2/1/2005 1
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
2005 STANDARD BILLING RATES
YEARS OF HOURLY
PRACTICE RATE
SR ATTORNEYS
LAMKEN 25+ $395
KRAMER 25+ $395
RUDELL 25+ $395
PIEPER 25+ $395
GREYS ON 20+ $350
FOX 20+ $350
BA rihRSBY 20+ $375
WEAVER 15+ $350
GALLOWAY 15+ $400
HAKMAN 15+ $250
KARPIAK 10+ $295
PITTMAN 10+ $295
GROSS 7+ $275
MCGINLEY 7+ $275
HO -URANO 7+ $275
2/1/2005 2
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
2005 STANDARD BILLING RATES
YEARS OF HOURLY
PRACTICE RATE
ASSOCIATES
GUTIERREZ -BAEZA 6+ $250
REINSTE N 6+ $250
ABBE 5+ $250
AHN 5+ $250
CHUANG 5+ $250
COYNE 5+ $250
BOBKO 4+ $225
COX 4+ $225
GARCIA 4+ $225
RAMIREZ 4+ $225
JANDIAL 3+ $225
SNOW 3+ $225
KHALSA 2+ $225
MCCARTHY 2+ $225
FINNIGAN 1+ $195
GIOVINCO 1+ $195
LEE 1+ $195
ORTIZ 1+ $195
MARROQUIN 1- $185
2/1/2005 3
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
2005 STANDARD BILLING RATES
YEARS OF HOURLY
PRACTICE RATE
LAW CLERKS
MABEE $160
SUMMER CLERKS $150
SR. PARALEGALS:
LIBERTY $160
PARALEGALS:
KRANE $145
2/1/2005 4
ATTACHMENT
D
Expenses per Firm 1 of 1
FY 2003 -2004 10/24/2005
(Firm 'Hours IFees 'Disbursements Costs I
Richards, Watson, & Gershon 1,336.50 265,700.04 3,644.81 268,944.85
Richards, Watson, & Gershon (General) 1,020.50 162,000.00 n/a 162,000.00
Richard Jones 216.95 31,966.00 1,936.34 33,902.34
Blaylock & Associates 79.70 7,970.00 2,431.47 10,401.47
Ivan K. Stevenson 0.00 8,735.00 0.00 8,735.00
Liebert, Cassidy, & Whitmore 2.60 520.00 4.00 524.00
Brunick, McElhaney, & Beckett 2.20_ 352.00 0.00 352.00
(Totals 1 2,658.45 477,243.041 8,016.621 484,859.661
, Type Hours Fees !Disbursements Costs I
Outside Counsel 301.45 49,543.00 4,371.81 53,914.81
Richards, Watson, & Gershon 1,336.50 265,700.04 3,644.81 268,944.85
RWG General 1,020.50 162,000.00 0.00 162,000.00
Totals 2,658.45 477,243.04 8,016.62 484,859.66
Type of Counsel by Costs
11 %
33%
56%
DOutside Counsel
D Richards, Watson, &
Gershon
•RWG General
ATTACHMENT
E
Expenses per Firm 1 of 1
FY 2004 -2005 1 0/24/2005
(Firm Hours 'Fees 'Disbursements [Costs I
Richards, Watson, & Gershon (General) 935.85 162,000.00 n/a 162,000.00
Richards, Watson, & Gershon 718.90 153,458.17 2,899.07 156,357.24
Richard Jones 313.78 48,654.60 1,211.34 49,865.94
Blaylock & Associates 195.20 21,320.00 3,930.99 25,250.99
Brunick, McElhaney, & Beckett 154.70 24,752.00 309.97 25,061.97
Liebert, Cassidy, & Whitmore 92.60 20,079.00 4,013.96 24,092.96
California Deposition Reporters 0.00 0.00 17,499.05 17,499.05
Jerry T. Jimenez 0.00 13,773.65 0.00 13,773.65
Bowie, Arneson, Wiles, Giannone 32.91 6,426.90 0.00 6,426.90
L. Douglas Pipes 6.00 3,125.00 1,528.41 4,653.41
Code 4 International 58.25 4,077.50 487.50 4,565.00
Hahn & Bowersock, Inc. 0.00 0.00 4,052.00 4,052.00
Filarsky & Watt 10.75 2,580.00 0.00 2,580.00
James A. Black 6.50 1,950.00 60.08 2,010.08
(Totals I 2,525.441 462,196.821 35,992.371 498,189.191
I lType Hours Fees 'Disbursements 'Costs I
Outside Counsel 870.69 146,738.65 33,093.30 179,831.95
Richards, Watson, & Gershon 718.90 153,458.17 2,899.07 156,357.24
RWG General 935.85 162,000.00 0.00 162,000.00
Totals 2,525.44 462,196.82 35,992.37 498,189.19
Type of Counsel by Hours
38% 34%
--411MM
28%
❑ Outside Counsel
® Richards, Watson, & Gershon
II RWG General
ATTACHMENT
F
10
0
0
N
mt 03 0 0 CJ W O LL) U N O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O m
N 03 03 0 100 a 0 0 100 O N 00 N r 000 co
O co CD 6 W CDtAc. a 1A N 01 BOO m 03000 01
0 0 ova. 41 co N CO CO CO CO a CO 0 f0 c0 111
minx an 0 1- n a 1- rnm a r r:oco N
OS V m 1 O0 6' 0 n 4oio N , �r Cif
N
01
w
0
0
0
0 0 0 v) m 0 100 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
CO 0 0 0 10 0 10 O 0 O O N O O O 0000 m
O) O m o N O N O N- O O O O 0 a 0 0 0 m
N CO M .- 0
a a N OS
c
E
0
e
.0
0
C,
00 0 0
�� 0
0 00 00 0000 O 0 o00 0
0030 LOCO x100 00 0 o0 an c0000 0
m m 0 0 C) m N CO N 10 N Op a g co '4 0 0 0 m
! CO V' N N W m 10 el m co m co a a 0 co C]
m or W na 0) n a q mm a r.l�0m N
O u5 V V m ando N m n a NN N .-.-,-
1') vi
( O a-
0
0
C)
11
000 0 0 000 10 0 0000 0 000 op n
o m r. r O) CO ID C') LO 0 n a CO 0 Ill LO CO C') in N
_ m O N 1 C CO N R 1 10 0 V o 1� N n m . N m N O O
'O NI V c+) N N ' y
7 0
Q N 1
0 0 0
C 0 S
O
—
N
CO y
Q U- 0 U
_ 0
O 0 C)
2 O. 3 O o CO d
TO , cy_) W X O 0 0 v N
on a y T~ o v ¢ E
C T y .- 0
a o m O 0 Q a m ¢ c E w
0 o. Uo u 0 U 0
E a _ C) > a 0 o eV. I' c y o O. o N Z >` O N y m v v N m 0 N C) –
c cD C m •a m Q'E C 7 d C t u y c c
o . 0 m coo
CO 20 c i � ociac?a �o . 2 v en
N 0 0< rci m O
C
y CD U o L C W. C N 0 C) 01 C Q O N U C 2 U C
.
W c LD J o 0 d cC c c >r L D N N o 2 Q c • 0
f )2 min 7 O Su.Ni 0
at To c 0 0 0 y
d E CO Z o_ C.) 5 '0 rn a) c 0
CO 0 C D n c CO 2 o. co CO d 0
d 00 o a r » coM cu o6 o f
ow r o 01 C C Cl -N C ' C T 0 U C L
1-0_00. 0O) J JJ dd 1L000 Ou_O d
ATTACHMENT
G
In
0
0
N
4
N
O
c
a)
E
CZ
_O �,
Tv c
> a)
o u) o a)
>, i C7) Q)
E N 0O co u) D C > c CO CD 06
U —
C N 0_ __CO
❑ • ❑ ❑ • ❑ • ❑ •
CO CO O CD O O - O 0 CD
M LO in N O 0 0 In CD
CD I•-: - Ln 0) 10 10 N Cb oi O
.-- O ti ti 0) CO CO u') 0
O CO CO CO Cv") C, d' 71 N 7r
0�0 C C -- co I` N N N CO 71- C) O
H N
N
0 4-+
•
I0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lc) Q
in O N- 7t CO O 1` 10 N G)
C) 4c6 - ricNi6 1N-
C.O Cn Lo d.• r` 00 Lip ,- et 0
C`7 c0 N CD
O r
Q N C
> O
c0 1
0
N O
o } .~ N
If U
Q LL .- 1
o M
0
0
0
0 N
c
o _c LL
O c m o
U o - N
a) - D L c
a) c5
o a) c CL
W o U cn ca _ 0
U a) } - - , 76 c o
U c .� a)
re U o O m E m M
f/) _-- c U U Y o 0
O a ""' g '- O CO u) O a E a p o c6 CD
O L U , ct)
o > c ca ro O iii Ha_ U o0Ua_ �t1 iL N
c
a)
Q
0 0
c CO
F- > a)
Z a) E 3 AEI/
2 a o ai
CL = ,_(1) > 0 o O o
Q (1) L E o ,0 •0
Q. .° m E c� (1) 0 L ) o
if )
i (n C r
W O O a) D 4
0 a_ OU acl� c Li:
�
ATTACHMENT
H
In
0
0
N
CN
O
(1)
C
O
c0
O)
N
CC
U m
E Q
O
a) C 1—
Z O E N
' a) 0)
o E HL
a c cn C1:3 (/) off$ cn
O a) O C ca O . c ca E
CL 2 o_ fa_ _J u) U O LL m 5. ti
`—' w o a cr) a co to d- a a a 6 z15 ❑ • • 0•000•••0
co 00 N Lf) O O O O LCD O CO
(.6 CO in O O Lf) O in N 00 O Oi
r- 00 ti O N r- •t CO O O IL1)
O LO CO Cr in f-- f` O I d t` N
00 CO CO CD QO c) O) 00 f-- N M
f-- (c) 4 4 N ,- ,- N
M
I)
I
O V o
U _
1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO •� N
LO CO ,- d 0') LO O O f-- Q JO N 12
(--) 4 O O CO N CO O Lf) f-- :9 4 =
ilL.
CO O 4 LO ":1 CO LO
m O L T Q N = -0
>, M Q
Nr
8 ° — 0
O N 0
Q N
e
0 0 0
co
N ,
o
a) LL
cC
z
U Q
12 H
cn
O o 0
N C I- N Li)
Z O C Q)
- c) a) E E 2 a) --- --
2 U C
U_ o P O cc J a) v7
U a) "' a) u) w cn
W c- C U D 2 o 2 ° _ = J M
'7 a) U O a) O L U Q pli
v 0. 2 li a_ _1 u) v O cr m .� 1-
e
0
M
.
M /
I(
\o
0
CI,
0
ATTACHMENT
I
O
0
0
N C 7 OD O O O O V O C) LC) CD O 0 .-- C) O CD O 3)
Nr C7 CO O CD t C) C`') CO O O O 10 O N. 0 0 0 a-
N C7 OO CC) CO CM Cfl N N CO M CC) 6 CD M Ni N N :J1
O O o .—' M N •' O C") N N O O O N N V) DO
0 O 1 - M CO O CO CD CD CD N a- a-
CO O a- N. Nr ,- CA 00 O N CO co CO Cn N :O
N C` Ch r .— ' M
W M
a+
u)
O
V
C•) C) O 0 O O 0 Cr) co co O O.— C) 0 D) O N.
N- N - 0 0 N O C0 0 0 D) 10 0 0. NY O N O CI
ui ti O O N O 00 O Ch co 0 0' O O.— O CV
CO I4) C C) 0) N a N CT)
co
a 00 Nf' N O
E N M
co
1_
7
A
co
c
O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 N- O N
CD 7 11) CD N 0) 0 0 0 0 0 O O CD 0 0 t` 0 DD
C: 0 O CO ,- ,- 00 N CA O O M �' Ni. O N :6
O ,- N N N O C) 0 ti 0 O N 0) N OD 0)
'1 CA O a a- CA C- Nr I-- co co O N .- e-
O O cri Ch .- CA 00 O h O CO CD O N O
O
M
CA
d
a)
CL
co CD N O O CO N N O M N M 0 0 co CD C3 OD M!
. . . Ni . . . .
N a- 0 M C 0 C` O N CO N.— (0 C'�) ,.- O 0 O)
�
co Nr r- CO 10 C') C°) CV O CV CO Cr N .- CO
1
7
0
2
O To
"C7 O o.
7 O •V
Q N E O
ac) E 2 Q
N O
C O y O
c N vi
o } N C w+ co
Q LL N 0) m N
C co L J W O`
O CD To a
hi U Y C a) @ J a ) @
E a)
@ • u) O
O Cn • > O co a) E N C u
a) n Z �' CO y 7 " 7 a E
X C L V
o C U
N O O C C C@@ vi
c @ o
0 U c, o- o o,_ g a)
ova > c :;-.. r) c c c 7
a) a @ U 7 0 0 0 a) rn
a) N v)o Q a n" a) a) ) a L w
o w , Q E - o
(a a` 0 a) ° a) � a _a a) 5
L T ° O c unsao�ao ma
w .C a a — c @ a) c CI n c .0 c c c °) a`) —>, a`>
2 a `az <Oco
w
U
N
a) a) a) O rn C a)
U C E co C .@_. Q to a)
N C @ : % O
CO 0 O m .0 @ O w .O m V - E O C
a) C C c 0 7 N •D 0 0 o 0 CD CO CO O. 0
O a C _@ O :Q a L O 6 0 @ O U
0 . c .._• y o ) - >. ' 7 v c >. -0 C = V c
>i CD :? �' =' 7 0_j m cos 7 c o =@ o
1- a a _J a U Cn U uL fn LL _.I U a LL a a U U U
ATTACHMENT
J
c)
O
0
N
V
N
0 C
E
Q
O
c
a) >
E Q)
Q) C) 0
L
N c >O c C p C6 > O (ll
N p L 2 U E C
U L an _ _ E co
• c
0_ D_ O 0_ U iL
0 • 0 0 • 0 • 1 1 1 1
— N O N d d O a)
O (NI a) (.o O O O r
N 1!) ti (D (9 (i O M 0)
- co CO ,- LO LC) Lf) CO
0) (77 't' ,- LO N "I' r
d N Lf) L() (.. KG C
U)
0
U
— 0o b ,- o O O o o a)
in co M ti' co M Lt') L
N 00 O M (6 (b (p O)
O C CV 0) O I- CO N- 7r CO
Et 0
O 2
o
1
In Q
n O Q
Q "
N O
O O
U
cc) -CI
L N C
O
0 Ln
Q o O
0
c • (n 'Cr
C° -a 0
• 0 O
() N
U Q a)
U U (13 Q)
o
_z_.
C -C7 y »'
W O O 0 () Q) CC3
✓ �_1 , t U 0 E� o L
W CD c .6 c Q) (p -5 r
U U O C� N
W O co LL 0 0
• c c E - as o m c.) t
W 6 o o a) Y • d. C
c
E °
Q LO
O
C
O o 0
W (v cm � 0 (0 N
L >
E Ca pp :.-,
~ C p (t3 > D a) Q O p L 2 U E U
Cl- U E Ca
c
i CT L - T
c
CI oar 0 c Q 0 i=
ATTACHMENT
K
L()
O
0
N
d ,
N
0
T
\
0
LC)
d (n
a)
c
cn
a) c
• .... a)
CD 0
— 71 co Lf) O O O O -zt' O CO co O 5j " -p J
O co 7r O O) O co LC) c) 0 0 W C
N Cd N CO M CO CO N N (e) 7 O) U) 0 (6 v7
O •zt co N N T- C t.C) CO (N LC) CO • D -c 2 V7
O) ,- CO O O CO d' e -
C
• O c ti '� O ,- O 6 Co (O :O cD 'c C
`t c
1_ ,- () J U) C!) CO
• ❑ ❑ •
0
U ^
N
CO O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) L
i) N O O CO ,- N N c0 :`7 In .
N CO r6 () O t` ti 6() N N JO 0) = `i
0 0) C) N O 10 7' CO CO N N 'sr- co 0 U)
CC Z o
0
1 V o Cr)
-p O Y
l 0
< N
> r (1)
C O �+ o \ Z
O N r-
Q C .. o
c p % U a o
o N o o c a Q 0
co
a) O a 2 _ CL
N A • • • •
o
U O
2 N
n LL
a)
Z a)
cn c N
o a)
U
i
o
V) a CL J CC 2 cn O LL_ u) LL O. Yl
o \ 0
c
CO r- E
a)
1 0)
u)
cu LC) a) v
Y a) C
O v7
a Cr O LL
0 • • 0
ATTACHMENT
L
O
o
N
Tr
N
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O
O O O Lo 0 0 to O to 0 to 0 0 o to to 0 0 0 0 O
Cp C O M O o N of r O 1-
M co o CO CO I- o o N co CO to CON co o) CO ao 0 CO
N e- Lo CA •t N CO Ln M CD M 0 of M N CO 0 CO
CO O (O O 0 Ln Ln N N e- M
O) F- N N e-- e- ti co
N r r
N O
C N d
O N
O �
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N
0) ti CO to CO a L N (O a- r N 0 LO •
u- Oe—ti (flOONOOMNOLotoe -e-e -O Lfj
co O CO to co N N N e- e- CO
M N O
E
0
O
O
0
O
an
M
d r
E
(o
Z
.r
to
N >
O L
"
O C �.
O to
- N
d E
o O to H C 4- O
0 O Q •O O O d E O
y V Y N C O O O O) O -O E O • ro
_ Q N CO
N 7 O N + O «S C C O ( w O C CO N
°Do (0 - C O r+
m
C >+ � C L N C U f0 >' a- ` t )- L co N L O r 0 D O E �J_U_ Ua a(o_e acnWOc H < o <
ATTACHMENT
M
0
0
N
N
0
.1—
o
O O
0
O
a)
o° L 0
o 0 c� c
c
� (6
U O
‘11 • ❑ •
L
L
a) O
a) ots
c a) U
MS r it a
--' ❑ ❑ ❑
a oo 0
c N ›' O
0 _0 O
ON N a
Q C O a) E
N O a N cv Q
r (V N N Y C O
�.J _� co
>% o (7) w 2 c
!LL
a)
X
cu
in y--.
e a)
cy LP
c o
U 45 0-
O U -0
U U U) O
• ❑ • •
0
0
cn
c c
D U oc O
O O L a)
a) J LL W W
`.' • • • •
ATTACHMENT
N
0
/
4
0
in o 00000000000000000 in 0 10
C 0 00000 n@0m00m�0 P.. 0 F-
6 ' 6kedao4�m��akwwa o 4
VI G 2 0__ N N CO o- -�. CO 0 03
4 n 4oN1.-- onco o ¥ (N0 n ¥n 0
N. / �k����������� 7 a 6
a- a-
N
co
0
u-
n o 00000000000000000 to to
CN — NI' 00gq ¥ m1Ct)N. gn� o .0
m 4 ¥ ¥occi6,awceio&4aa,,6 u c
q 0 .-oonnn__— — 2 o
E
csi
E
0
_
0
co e 0
E
a) S c
cN 0)
0 f 2 %
to $ 2
E O
ce • �
a E 2
R 0 c .
-' Q o�
c a
c - x
Q c c 2. 03
,
/f ° c
, / § o 0
E o 0 f g J O
2 7 m ° £
a. #' ���
@�
I c
a)
V. 17; E ° 2 2 �
200<0c
0
0
0
>'
x
as /
£ 2
1— E
Q Q
$ 2 & . § K / 0 2 43 1 0 a ( 0 k\ k§ 0 / 2 0 0 c k
o 0 0 N E - \$\ c /\ £ f C
■ -o O c: 00 O M R a) c o c o■ 0 2 c o c
CL c CD _ > = f c t om co of 0
co O a a 5 k a < L Q U/ 3 q c 1 E - a
A TACHMENT
O
L()
O
O
N
N
O
0
O O
0
O
a)
\o
O c
L
(I) 6
a) co O
o U E U
N
o- Q W
• ❑ •
ih
ry
Ne
O (U
o F-
"a u) a
o 2
LL
U _ U
c .Q 1 it U
CL CL CO CC
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
0
a)O >, I-
a) N O
0 O N o c CO
N c p o° - a) 'p
N '`?1") a) 0 o 0
C L U
L M N C w O (6
O v CI ❑ • •
2
co
N
} C
a)
o a) p
C (0
= C C C
(0
O 2 2 o
U E a_
U
• ❑ • •
0
c L _ v 0
o
co c Z a5 m
O �i O
• • • •
ATTACHMENT
P
Redevelopment 10/24/2005
FY 2003 -04
'Category 'Type of Service 'Subtotal Hours (Subtotal Costs I
Low /Mod Low /Mod Housing 104.20 25,822.96
General General 60.80 15,215.58
Bay City Partners LLC - Acquisition (DWP Property),
Zoeter, Dept. of Water & Power, West End Pump
Other Station Project 47.10 9,821.41
Rodi City Council - Rodi Litigation 19.30 4,830.65
Dissolution City Council - Dissolution of RDA 6.40 1,920.71
Animal Shelter Animal Shelter 2.00 474.95
1 239.80' 58,086.261
Redevelopment FY 2003 -2004 (Hours)
3% \
8% 10 /0 -4 2O% 43%
25%
• Low /Mod
• General
❑ Other
❑ Rodi
• Dissolution
CI Animal Shelter
ATTACHMENT
4
Redevelopment 10/24/2005
FY 2004 -05
(Category !Type of Service Subtotal Hours Subtotal Costs I
Rodi Rodi Litigation, Rodi Sale, Zoeter /Rodi Litigation 175.70 43,800.45
Low /Mod Low /Mod Housing 129.10 37,831.01
Bay City Partners LLC - Acquisition (DWP
Property), Conflict of Interest, Day Care, Public
Other Records, West End Pump Station Project 119.70 36,933.52
Outside Counsel
(Rodi) Rodi Legal Analysis, Rodi Litigation, Rodi Appraisal 39.10 31,606.69
General General 106.50 27,235.60
Animal Shelter Animal Shelter 80.90 19,363.78
Dissolution City Council - Dissolution of RDA 18.20 4,832.45
669.201 201,603.501
Redevelopment FY 2004 -2005 (Costs)
10% 2%
21%
14%
16% 19%
18%
❑ Rodi
• Low /Mod
❑ Other
❑Outside Counsel (Rodi)
• General
❑ Animal Shelter
• Dissolution
ATTACHMENT
R
0
a
E
a)
a)
0
0
0
` L
m a) C
0 c 1-
e Lt_
C
0 CO c 0 CO CO CO 0
v O - CO E O O E E E O
I. E O Cr) N c6 a) N E otf 06 ° E N
p Q) Q J E C pa N N 0 c c C O N
C) a`) c o o° cas E Y Y - O CO° `m ` m C Y
LL '3 _c L Q O .0 0. E u. a c_ a 1 LC_
CD 7 t o �C =fn Es OO Nfn co 7U7 7'r
W hi -0 ~ or S U -, x° n v 1- I- N
y Coo - .0 'O°5 7O u 7 7 °o `co to co
= L> c o C2 U L O O Y 1-,•; O O O co O Cs .c ....L.- cn i =, I L O O U j O.6 z N O O 7 O =, N
c'mW=wkrf -mmm c cc �m
w r `
0 v 0 0
N D CO O O O O O O O O O T.: m c7 O CO
O
wD r et" (i} O tAEAO* * Ea Oa N tf� 0 0 Ef3* O N
Z -) Q - r N C!, E. r N to
C- m E tf} 69. Eft O r CO
Q O as E
>- r — )
— O
U m rn co och�ao0o0 p, co c , 00 v tfr
--a) ON 0 0 000O00M0 0 ��0 �0 O LI
c co co O co co LO O U") 0, O N N 0 0 C..)01,_-NO >, 0 C
I- O) O N CO O O N 1 0 0 r-.. N O a) Co ,� COO :L' C
O NLo N Nd'rN N N E
Q to t!} t!}tf3 tf?6469VI H4te C.) 69. tote L - O
L N CO
L
V c a)
O O
C 0 O O O) -ct C I- r 0 CO N 0 CO N- 03 0 Cf) CO CO CO ' O
0 0 O r I` uo Co N r 0 CO CO O fs- CA CO O r o 0 co -
z ,O V'r C3)O? r1�0o1- 01U")L000r NNCDCD ,
to Co) co In CO .- Cr) CO) IC) CO ti N CD CA CO In CO 0 N —) -0
r e O t V) 0) CD N CO CD d• I` C) r (0 C+) (0 0) CD a) _ - C
0. r r r cn as
a c Z .=
O fU a) N
L
ca 2 O 0
0 2 N Ca O 0
>
>, N -c a) O Q Eo
ima) MS CD t 0 7 O .� to C C /1., ' C O O
+� t0 C a) CA O Cn Ca a) U a 3 N t CO
(1) a) c> O cpfn =Z� 0 a) (/) E c�c c 0-
: y °_m a)' 0 0 cs L m c - -o a
. N CO C + O 7 7 7 7 N Q C V V a E J C v
0> C 0 7 0 0 CON co O (0 O N co rn C . , 0 C V **
00pu_ = -I JJJJJJOdCC fnfn � � >•- � a a
,
ATTAC : .-''-
A
e6
S
ME=
City Attorney 10/24/2005
2003 -04 - 2004 -05 2005 -06
City Contract # of Emp. Actual Budget Adopted
Department (in-
Dana Point house)?
Legal Code Updates 1,875 1,200 2,200
Retainer Account 94,380
O.C. Muni code violation
custody fees 11,000
Muni code
violations /prosecution 200,000
Gen. Legal services (non -
litigation) 224,400
GRAND TOTAL
EXPENDITURES 521,517 593,100 531,980
Manhattan City Attorney (1),
Beach FT in -house Legal Secretary (1)
Regular Salaries 216,995 218,600 240,165
Total Salaries & Benefits 254,165 274,120 312,830
Contract Services 59,123 65,700 65,700
Total Materials & Services 76,183 83,747 85,586
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 351,997 380,341, 422,193
6000 /month (up to
Laguna Contract w/ Rutan & 60 hours), plus
Beach Tucker 185 /hour
Maintenance &
Operations 395,777 440,000 450,000
Contract w/
Richards, Watson,
Mission Viejo & Gershon
TOTAL LEGAL 400,000
SERVICES 491,049 658,000 (proposed)
San Juan
Capistrano
Legal and Professional 456,000 525,000
Services 355,673 (projected) (proposed)
DEPARTMENT 503,582 568,251
ACTIVITY TOTAL 389,320 (projected) (proposed)
Contract w/ Best,
Aliso Viejo Best, & Krieger
144,000
Legal Services 166,267 (projected) 145,000
1,500
Total Other Services 20,433 (projected) 41,500
145,500
TOTAL CITY ATTORNEY 186,699 (projected) 186,500
Villa Park
CITY ATTORNEY 41,000
EXPENDITURES 36,222 41,000 (proposed)
City Attorney 10/24/2005
2003 -04 2004 -05 2005 -06
City Contract # of Emp. Actual Budget Adopted
Solana Beach
101,300 147,500
Regular Salaries (adopted) (adopted)
Total for Salaries & Fringe 132,800 189,900
Benefits (adopted) (adopted)
Total for Materials, 58,900 54,800
Supplies, & Services (adopted) (adopted)
191,700 250,500
TOTALS (adopted) (adopted)
ATTACH ENT
T
Agency AgencyTitle Salary;
Anaheim City Attorney 18,406
Burbank City Attorney 13,762
Chula Vista City Attorney 17,333
County of San Diego County Counsel 19,240
Downey City Attorney 14,375
Escondido City Attorney 17,208
Glendale City Attomey 14,398
Hawthorne City Attorney 13,048
Huntington Beach City Attorney 12,976
Inglewood City Attorney 11,777
Lemon Grove City Attorney 5,000
Long Beach City Attorney 15,468
Manhattan Beach City Attorney 14,091
Moreno Valley City Attorney 14,781
National City City Attorney 15,584
Newport Beach City Attorney 14,583
Oceanside City Attorney 13,335
Orange City Attorney 14,354
Pasadena City Attorney /City Prosecutor 15,000
Poway City Attorney 10,755
Redlands City Attorney 14,698
Redondo Beach City Attorney - Elected 12,816
Riverside City Attorney 14,851
San Bernardino City Attorney 13,666
San Diego City Attorney 24,383
Santa Ana City Attorney 13,783
Santa Monica City Attorney 15,185
Solana Beach City Attorney 10,112
Test Town City Attorney 14,829
Torrance City Attorney 17,437
Vista City Attorney 15,215
Average 14,595
Weighted Average 14,595
Median 14,583