HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.4 Secure Legal Services JPA CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 25, 1991
SUBJECT: Joint Powers Agreement to Secure Legal Services:
SB 2557 Fees
(Prepared by: Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Letter dated February 8, 1991 from Chief of Police
City of San Leandro ,
Draft Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor to execute the JPA on behalf of the
City of Dublin. The Final Agreement shall be
substantially in the form of the Draft Agreement
presented.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The City may potentially save one-half of the
estimated $79, 400 booking fees. The actual share
of the City's cost will be affected by the number
of parties entering into the JPA. The estimated
cost is $276 - $600. The expense will be recorded
in the City Attorney's Budget for Litigation.
DESCRIPTION: In January, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors
enacted fees in accordance with SB 2557. This legislation was enacted by
the State of California in an effort to compensate counties for the fact
that full funding was not provided in Fiscal Year 1990-91 for State
mandated programs.
SB 2557 authorized the collection of Property Tax administration fees, as
well as Jail Booking Fees. The City Council has consistently objected to
the collection of these fees and has supported legislation to repeal the
law and provide a replacement revenue source.
The Alameda County Managers Association has discussed the issue and
recognizes that all of the cities have issues related to the legality of
the action taken by the Board of Supervisors. The primary issues are
identified on page one of the cover letter from the San Leandro Police
Chief.
The City of Dublin would only be involved in the first issue since the City
does not book prisoners at a City jail and does not have a Redevelopment
Agency. This issue involves whether it is legal to retroactively charge
booking fees, since SB 2557 was not effective until January 1 , 1991 . Staff
had previously estimated the annual cost at $79, 400. If the City prevails,
there would be a one time savings of $39, 700 for Fiscal Year 1990-91 . The
proposed Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) provides a mechanism for a single
legal action to be filed and the development of a cost sharing formula.
The proposed agreement provides that 20% of the legal costs would be
associated with the "retroactivity" issue, which is of interest to the City
of Dublin. It has been proposed that this cost be shared based on the
agency's assessed valuation (A.V. ) as a percentage of the total A.V. for
all participating agencies. In order to provide for the Administration of
the legal action, the agreement identifies the establishment of an
Administrative Committee. The Committee consists of the City Managers
from: Oakland, Piedmont, and Pleasanton; the Police Chief from San Leandro;
and the Finance Director from Fremont. The Committee was formed to have
representation from agencies which had different interests. The Committee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
Robert J. P. Maginnis
San Leandro Chief of Police
ITEM N0. //7 , & /
will also be responsible for the selection of legal counsel to bring forth
the suit. The Agreement also anticipates that all agencies will deposit
monies, billed by the County for the subject fees, into an escrow account
or similar fund. The monies would be distributed to either the County or
the cities depending on a final judgment or settlement.
Due to the fact that the City of Dublin would only have an interest in a
minor issue, it is anticipated that the City's cost would be $276 as shown
in Exhibit A to the Draft Agreement. The actual cost will be affected by
the number of participants and the extent of the litigation. Based on
preliminary indications of interest from Staff members at other agencies it
does not appear that the costs to the City of Dublin would exceed $600.
The City may terminate its involvement in the case upon 15 days written
notice.
Several legal challenges to SB 2557 actions have been initiated throughout
the State. Senator Boatwright has introduced a bill which would repeal the
legislation and provide replacement funding. The initiation of lawsuits
may also serve to send a message to the State Legislature that there are
significant problems with the law they adopted.
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the
JPA, substantially in the form presented in the Draft Agreement. As a
"Draft" there may be minor changes and a need to clearly identify the
participants. Due to time limits in filing a legal claim, City Council
action is required prior to the development of the final Joint Powers
Agreement. However, it is not anticipated that the changes will be of a
significant nature.
a:ssb2557.doc.agenda#4
City of San Leandro
Civic Center, 835 E.14th Street
San Leandro, California 94577
February 8, 1991 C C C 1 V C a
FEB 19
iy°1
Richard Ambrose, City Manager ."ITY () : DUSUN
City of Dublin
P. 0. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94566
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
The Alameda County Managers Association met on February 4, regarding the
jail booking fees issues as created by the County of Alameda's adoption
of SB 2557. After some discussion the consensus was to seek remedy in the
State Court over three issues:
1. Is the retroactive clause for booking fees back to July 1, 1990,
allowable, or is retroactivity in conflict with existing law.
2. Is the "remand" fee or partial booking fee, as it applies to
those cities with jails and booking facilities, the true intent
of the law.
3. Redevelopment agency to pay for tax collections--is this the
intention of this Bill .
As one or more of these issues impacts all of us in Alameda County, the
Managers Association has directed me to ask all cities to join together
and carry this matter into the Court for a third-party resolution. In
addition, the Association has appointed a subcommittee of City Managers
from Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton and the Finance Director from Fremont,
of which I chair, to select an attorney to handle this matter. Should you
have any specific attorney or firm in mind for this, please forward your
recommendations to me.
The next important step is to ask each city for commitment. I would seek
your quick action as the matter must be submitted before the Court by
March 15, 1991 .
I have taken the liberty of enclosing a sample draft of a Joint Powers
Agreement, (JPA) , which was prepared by Elizabeth Silver of Meyers, Nave,
Riback and West, City Attorneys for the City of San Leandro, that outlines
the issues in question.
As soon as your City commits, please forward a copy of your Council 's
authorizing action to me. Should not all cities authorize in joining this
suit, the final JPA will be modified and participating cities will be
billed accordingly.
_.. .�. Dave Karp, Mayor _...._�. _..� _.._.. ro� ....._..
City Council: Ellen M. Corbett; John E. Faria; Bob Glaze;
Linda Perry; Julian P. Polvorosa; Anthony B. Santos; Dick Randall, City Manager
February 8, 1991
Page #2
Again, an attorney will be chosen to handle our case and his or her work must
begin prior to the target date of March 15, 1991. Thus your timely response is
appreciated.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 577-3251.
Sincerely,
IA-v ) C - " ,
Robert J. P. Ma in 's
Chief of Police
cc: Chiefs of Police
Alameda County
BARTD
East Bay Regional Parks
D R A F T t A F T
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG SEVERAL
PUBLIC AGENCIES OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
1. Parties. This Joint Powers Agreement, dated
, 1991, for the purpose of reference only, is
entered into pursuant to Government Code section 6502 by and
among the following public agencies:
City of Alameda City of Livermore
Redevelopment Agency of Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Alameda the City of Livermore
City of Albany City of Newark
City of Berkeley City of Oakland
Redevelopment Agency of Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Berkeley the City of Oakland
City of Dublin City of Piedmont
City of Emeryville City of Pleasanton
Redevelopment Agency of City of San Leandro
the City of Emeryville Redevelopment Agency of
City of Fremont the City of San Leandro
Redevelopment Agency of City of Union City
the City of Fremont Redevelopment Agency of
City of Hayward the City of Union City
Redevelopment Agency of Bay Area Rapid Transit District
the City of Hayward East Bay Regional Park District
2 . Recitals. Each party to this Agreement is a municipal
corporation or public district duly authorized and existing under
the laws of the State of California, and situated wholly or
partially within the boundaries of the County of Alameda. Each
party has the power to sue and be sued in its own name.
A dispute has arisen between the Parties and the County
of Alameda regarding booking fees imposed by the County of
Alameda and/or the fee charged by Alameda County for property tax
administration. The Parties believe that Alameda County has
improperly imposed booking fees. Certain of the Parties believe
that Alameda County has improperly imposed property tax
administration fees. The Parties, therefore, desire to pursue
their common goal by filing suit against the County of Alameda.
Page 1 of 15
February 8, 1991
136\agree\jpa.ehs
All of the Parties desire to resolve the legality of
the retroactivity of the property tax administrative fee and the
retroactivity and method of enactment of the booking fees and to
that end all of the Parties will agree to share 20% of the cost
of litigation, the estimated percentage of the litigation costs
attributable to the retroactivity issue and the issue of the
method of enactment of the booking fee. Some of the Parties,
those cities which book prisoners in their own jails or by
contract with the City of Oakland, desire to resolve the legality
of the "partial booking fee" imposed by Alameda County and to
that end those Parties, identified in paragraph 8b below, will
agree to share 60% of the cost of litigation, the estimated
percentage of the litigation costs attributable to the issue of
the legality of the partial booking fee. The Parties hereto
which are redevelopment agencies desire to resolve the legality
of the property tax administration fee and to that end agree to
share 20% of the cost of the litigation, the estimated percentage
of the litigation costs attributable to the issue of the legality
of the property tax administration fee for redevelopment
agencies.
3 . Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide
for the efficient resolution of the Parties ' common legal claim.
Although each Party has the right to bring similar litigation
separately in its own name, the resulting litigation by all the
Parties would be duplicative and, in some cases, prohibitively
costly.. Through this Agreement the Parties desire to set forth
the terms and conditions under which one action may be maintained
on behalf of all Parties; to provide for the management and
direction of such litigation; to provide for the allocation of
litigation expenses; and to set forth various other matters
relating to the prosecution of the Parties ' claims against the
County of Alameda.
4 . No Separate Agency Created. The Parties do not intend
to create a separate public agency through this Agreement, and no
provision of this Agreement should be so constructed.
5 . Authorization to File Suit. By execution of this
Agreement, each party authorizes and directs that a claim be
filed, if appropriate, and thereafter suit be filed and
diligently pursued, in the names of the Parties, against the
County of Alameda, its Board of Supervisors and such administra-
tive officers as may be appropriate, for the general purpose of
insuring the proper imposition of booking fees and property tax
administration fees by the County of Alameda as those fees affect
the respective Parties.
Page 2 of 15
February 8, 1991
136\agree\1Pa.ehs
6. Administration of Agreement. The administration of the
activities called for in this Agreement is delegated to and
vested in an Administrative Committee. The Administrative
Committee shall be comprised of:
The City Manager of the City of Oakland,
The City Manager of the City of Piedmont,
The City Manager of the City of Pleasanton,
The Police Chief of the City of San Leandro, and
The Finance Director of the City of Fremont.
Each member of the Administrative Committee shall be,
at all times, an officer or employee of a Party to this Agree-
ment. If any member ceases to be an officer or employee of a
Party, or if the member' s agency ceases to be a Party to this
Agreement, a new member shall be promptly selected in the same
manner as the original member. The Administrative Committee
shall select a chairperson and shall keep all Parties informed of
the composition of the committee.
The Administrative Committee is authorized and
directed, on behalf of all Parties, to perform all acts necessary
or desirable to execute and administer this Agreement including, ,
but not limited to: selecting and retaining legal counsel;
providing day-to-day management and direction of the litigation,
including the right to determine all matters of tactics and
strategy on which legal counsel requests direction; authorizing,
evaluating and monitoring legal expenses; and conducting
settlement negotiations, if any, provided that any proposed
settlement agreement shall require the unanimous consent of all
agencies then Party to the Agreement.
7 . Accounting Services. The Finance Director of the City
of Fremont shall provide accounting services for all payments and
receipts required by the terms of this Agreement, and shall be
responsible for the safekeeping of all funds paid by or to the
Parties to this Agreement.
8 . Obligations of the Parties. Each Party to this
Agreement shall:
a. Pay, upon demand, its "appropriate share" of all
expenses incurred in the performance of activities called for by
this Agreement.
Page 3 of 15
February 8, 1991
136\agree\JPa•ehs
b. The "appropriate share" of each Party shall be
calculated as follows:
(i) Twenty percent (20%) of all expenses shall be
apportioned among all of the Parties listed below with each Party
bearing the same percentage of those expenses which that Party' s
share of assessed valuation for FY 1990-91 bears to the assessed
valuation of all Parties to the Agreement for FY 1990-91. For
the purpose of apportioning 20% of all expenses incurred under
this Agreement, the Parties agree that the following table
attached as Exhibit A accurately reflects the parties to this
Agreement subject to this subparagraph, the assessed valuation
for FY 1990-91 of each Party, the assessed valuation of all
Parties for FY 1990-91, and the percent of each Party' s assessed
valuation with respect to the assessed valuation of all parties.
The East Bay Regional Park District and the Bay
Area Rapid Transit District shall each pay $800 which shall
reduce the amout to be paid by the cities above if such districts
ratify this Agreement.
(ii) Sixty percent (60%) of all expenses shall be
apportioned among all of the following Parties with each such
Party bearing the same percentage of those expenses which that
Party' s bookings for 1990 bears to the bookings of all parties to
the Agreement for 1990. For the purpose of apportioning 60% of
all expenses incurred under this Agreement, the Parties agree
that the following table accurately reflects the Parties to this
Agreement who are sharing the cost of 60% of all expenses, the
bookings of each Party for 1990, the total bookings of all such
Parties for 1990, and the percent of each such Party' s bookings
with respect to the bookings of all Parties:
Bookings
city 1990 Percent of Total
Alameda
Berkeley
Emeryville
Fremont
Hayward
Piedmont
Oakland
San Leandro
Totals 100. 0
Page 4 of 15
February 8, 1991
136\agree\JPa.ehs
(iii) Twenty percent (20%) of all expenses shall
be apportioned among he following Parties with each such Party
bearing the same percentage of those expenses which that Party' s
estimate of property tax administration costs for FY 1990-91
bears to the total property tax administration costs for FY 1990-
91 for all redevelopment agencies. For the purpose of appor-
tioning 20% of all expenses incurred under this Agreement, the
following Parties agree that the table attached as Exhibit B
accurately reflects the Parties to this Agreement subject to this
subparagraph who are sharing the cost of 20% of all expenses, the
estimate of property tax administration costs for FY 1990-91 of
each such Party, the total property tax administration costs for
FY 1990-91, and the percent of each such Party' s tax
administration costs with respect to the total of all parties.
In the event of termination by any Party to this
Agreement, the Fremont Finance Director shall recalculate the
appropriate share of each Party to the Agreement based upon the
figures set forth above and shall notify each Party of the
results of that recalculation.
C. Upon execution of this Agreement, pay to the
finance director serving on the Administrative Committee the
total sum listed after the name of each Party, which sum
represents each Party' s appropriate share of the first year' s
estimated legal expenses:
City/Agency Total
City of Alameda $
Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Alameda
City of Albany
City of Berkeley
Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Berkeley
City of Dublin
City of Emeryville
Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Emeryville
City of Fremont
Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Fremont
City of Hayward
Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Hayward
City of Livermore
Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Livermore
Page 5 of 15
February 8, 1991
136\agree\1Pa.ehs
City of Newark
City of Oakland
Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Oakland
City of Piedmont
City of Pleasanton
City of San Leandro
Redevelopment Agency of
the City of San Leandro
City of Union City
Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Union City
Bay Area Rapid Transit District 800
East Bay Regional Park District 800_
GRAND TOTAL $60, 000
d. Pay, upon demand, its appropriate share of
litigation expenses which exceed the first year' s estimated
expenses set forth under subparagraph c, above, or which are
incurred after January 1, 1992 .
All bills and invoices for expenses incurred
pursuant to this Agreement shall be directed to the finance
director serving on the Administrative Committee, who shall
calculate the amount owed by each Party under the formula set
forthin subsection b, above, and bill each Party accordingly.
Bills .shall be prepared for each calendar quarter in which
activity occurs and shall be payable immediately upon demand to
the City employing the finance director serving on the
Administrative Committee.
Any funds remaining upon termination of this
Agreement shall be returned to the Parties in proportion to each
Party' s contribution to the total.
9 . Escrow of Fees. Each Party to this Agreement agrees to
pay the amount of booking fees in dispute into a separate trust
or escrow account or similar fund or account during the pendency
of litigation on condition that the monies so paid will be
disbursed to the County or returned to the Parties, as the case
may be, upon final judgment or settlement.
10. Termination of Agreement. This Agreement shall
terminate as to any Party upon occurrence of any of the following
conditions:
Page 6 of 15
February 8, 1991
136\agree\JPa.ehs
a. Fifteen (15) days ' prior written notice of
termination by any Party given to the then chairperson of the
Administrative Committee; provided, however, that the terminating
Party shall be liable for its appropriate share of any expenses
incurred up to the date notice of termination is received which
exceed the terminating Party's contribution under paragraph 7 .c. ;
and provided further, that in no event shall a terminating Party
be entitled to a refund of all or any part of its contribution
made under paragraph 7 .c.
b. Automatically, upon the failure of any Party to
pay its appropriate share of litigation expenses within sixty
(60) days of date of invoice.
11. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended at any time
upon the written approval of all parties to the Agreement.
12 . Notices. Except where this Agreement specifically
provides otherwise, any notices to be sent to any Party shall be
directed to the office of the city manager of the Party, with
copies to the city managers of all Parties.
Executed on , 1991, at , California by:
CITY OF ALAMEDA ATTEST:
By: BY:
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
(Signatures continued on next page. )
Page 7 of 15
February 8, 1991
136\agree\1pa.ehs
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ATTEST:
By: By:
Chairperson Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Agency Attorney
CITY OF ALBANY ATTEST:
By: BY'
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
CITY OF BERKELEY ATTEST:
By: BY=
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
(Signatures continued on next page)
Page 8 of 15
February 8, 1991
136\agreeU pa.ehs
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF BERKELEY ATTEST:
By: By:
Chairperson Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Agency Attorney
CITY OF DUBLIN ATTEST:
By: By:
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
f
By:
City Attorney
CITY OF EMERYVILLE ATTEST:
By: By:
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
(Signatures continued on next page)
Page 9 of 15
February 8, 1991
136\agree\jpa.ehs
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE ATTEST:
By: By:
Chairperson Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Agency Attorney
CITY OF FREMONT ATTEST:
By: By:
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
'i
By:
City Attorney
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF FREMONT ATTEST:
By: By:
Chairperson Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Agency Attorney
(Signatures continued on next page)
Page 10 of 15
February 8, 1991
136\agree\jpa.ehs
CITY OF HAYWARD ATTEST:
By: BY:
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD ATTEST:
By: BY=
Chairperson Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Agency Attorney
CITY OF LIVERMORE ATTEST:
By: BY=
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
(Signatures continued on next page)
Page 11 of 15
February 8, 1991
136\agree\JPa.ehs
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE ATTEST:
By: BY=
Chairperson Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Agency Attorney
CITY OF NEWARK ATTEST:
By: BY:
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
CITY OF OAKLAND ATTEST:
By: BY:
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City -Attorney
(Signatures continued on next page)
Page 12 of 15
February 8, 1991
136\agree\1Pa.ehs
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND ATTEST:
By: BY:
Chairperson Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Agency Attorney
CITY OF PIEDMONT ATTEST:
By; By:
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Y' O
y
By:
City Attorney
CITY OF PLEASANTON ATTEST:
By: BY:
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
(Signatures continued on next page)
Page 13 of 15
February 8, 1991
136\agree\jpe.ehs
CITY OF SAN LEANDRO ATTEST:
By: BY:
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY _
OF THE CITY OF SAN LEANDRO ATTEST:
By: BY:
Chairperson Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
r
By:
Agency Attorney
CITY OF UNION CITY ATTEST:
By: BY:
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
(Signatures continued on next page)
Page 14 of 15
February 8, 1991
136\agree\1pa.ehs
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY ATTEST:
By: BY=
Chairperson Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Agency Attorney
BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT ATTEST:
By: By:
Chairperson Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
r
By:
Agency Attorney
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT ATTEST:
By: BY:
Chairperson Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Agency Attorney
Page 15 of 15
February 8, 1991
136\agree\jpa.ehs
Exhibit A
I . ALLOCATION BASED ON ASSESSED VALUATION
ASSESSED
VALUATION COST
CITY ( IN THOUSANDS) % ALLOCATION
------------ -------------- ---------- -------------
ALAMEDA x,343,917 5.62% 699
ALBANY 614,341 1.07% 128
BERKELEY 4 ,089,887 7. 127. 855
DUBLIN 1 ,5iB,227 2.30% L.
EMERYVILLE 992,944 1.7:;% 206
FREMONT 11 , 142,382 19.41% 7,329
HAYWARD 5,406,796 9.42% 1,131
LIVERMORE 3,066,353 5.34% 641
NEWARK 2,010,885 3.50% 420
OAKLAND 13,621,060 23.72% 2,847
PIEDMONT 9073614 1.58% 190
PLEASANTON, 4,624 ,204 8.05% 967
SAN LEANDRO 3,900,488 6.79% : - 815
UNION CITY', 2,371 , 534 4.13% 496
57,412,632 100.00% 12,000
Exhibit B
II. ALLOCATION BASED ON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COSTSI
COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION COST
AGENCY FEES % ALLOCATION
ALAMEDA 40,986 _ 6.03% 964
BERKELEY 6.700 - 1..70% 205
EMERYVILLE 74,715 14.64%. . 11757
FREMONT 56,653 11.10% 1,332
HAYWARD 2-71096 5.31'%. . 637
LIVERMORE 11,964 2.34'%. , 281
OAKLAND 263,285 , 51.58% 6,190
SAN LEANDRO 19,977 3.91'J. 470
UNION CITY 7,049 1.387. 166
-i-
5101425 100.00 12,000