Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 - Joint Powers Agreement ./ . AGENDA ITEM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: HERITAGE 1891 COMMUNITY 1991 '!{X!:5fJ-. . V 2C}g/ 10 DAVID J. UNMACHT, CITY MANAGER CONSIDER DRAFT OF PROSECUTION SERVICE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT JUNE 17, 1991 Attached is a draft of a Joint Powers Prosecution Service Agreement between the cities of Prior Lake, Savage, Belle Plaine, Elko and New Market. Also enclosed is a proposed bud~et for the prosecution services between the cit1es partr to this agreement. The documents orig1nated from the City of Savage. The City of Prior Lake has been in negotiations with the City of Savage and Shakopee over the past few months on the sharing of prosecution services. The City Council was briefed at their April 20, 1991 workshop on the status of the negotiations. The original intent of staff from Savage, Shakopee and Prior Lake was to work out an agreement between the three cities. Discussions broke down, principally between the cities of Savage and Shakopee, over details relating to the responsible supervisory authority for the staff retained to perform the prosecution services. A fundamental difference was created which could not be resolved, thus, the City of Shakopee (who currently has in-house civil and criminal prosecution counsel) has ceased to be a party to this agreement. The concept of this agreement creates a joint powers board which will oversee the administrative and policy matters of the prosecution services between the cities. The Board will be responsible for the hiring, supervision and possible firing of the prosecuting attorney(s) and clerical assistance. For accounting and bookkeeping purposes only, one of the cities party to the agreement would be assigned the bookkeeping and payroll function 4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 ALTERNATIVES: for the staff and Board. The cit~ responsible for this work is yet to be determ1ned. Please see a copy of City of Savage memorandum dated June 7, 1991 from Mark McNeill, city Administrator, for other details related to the Joint Powers Prosecution Service Agreement. The majority of Board details will be determined u~on adoption of the Joint Powers A~reement. C1ty staff is requestin9 that Police Ch1ef, Dick Powell, serve as C1ty of Prior Lake's representative on the Joint Powers Board. City Councils entering into joint powers agreements with other cities is common and will continue to be an idea pursued by staff for economies in scale and efficiencies of service delivery. Prior Lake recently entered into a joint ~owers agreement with the Scott county Econom1C Development Coalition and we are members of several joint power agreements includin~ provision for Fire and Rescue services for Spr1ng Lake and Credit River. More importantly, this would be the second time that the City would be involved in a joint powers agreement for legal services. The first a~reement was with the County for gross m1sdemeanor and felony prosecutions. The benefits to Prior Lake may be a savings of between $10,000 to $15,000 a year in prosecution costs. This represents a potential savings of up to 23% of current budget expenditures of $63,000. In uncertain economic times, and with budgets becoming more fiscally conservative, it is im~ortant that the City of Prior Lake examine var10US cost saving avenues. However, it is equallr important that the level of service and profic1ency of prosecution not be changed as well. This has been a goal of City staff and all the respective cities throughout the discussions. Maintaining this priority would be the responsibility of the proposed Joint Powers Board. The alternatives are as follows: I. Approve the draft Joint Powers A~reement and direct staff to continue work1ng with the cities to implement the prosecution services. 2. Make recommended changes, Adopt the Joint Powers Agreement and direct staff to work with the cities to formalize the agreement and begin implementation. 2 3. Table this draft for a specific reason or do not adopt the draft Joint Powers Prosecution Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council adopt alternative #1 or #2. Staff believes that sharing in a prosecution services can result in a direct savings of property tax dollars without a loss in service. Staff further recommends that the City Council appoint Police Chief, Dick Powell, as the City of Prior Lake's representative on the Joint Powers Board. This agreement can be terminated by any party as s~elled out in the document. In discussions w1th Attorney Glenn Kessel, his firm has requested that they be provided at least 30 days written notice. Should Council direct staff to implement the agreement, we will submit that notice as requested. Staff estimates our savings based on information provided. Any savings which can be realized whether less than, or up to, the amount anticipated without a loss of service is a benefit to the property tax payers. Staff envisions that costs can be reduced, however, we caution Council that experience will dictate the actual savings the City will realize. ACTION REQUIRED: Will vary, based on Council discussion. 3 _~'_>"_~*'"""___"'",~__"'O"_'____~__""_~~O'_'_'~'O"~"'_"~"""'."".~.~~.;~."~.~.,,"-,,..,"~~ _ "'_<....A."."~*.~..."";.._.~~;_.,,..'_~...._.,,_._..."~....,_ . ,_ _", . . """""~",~",,,,,"~.""'"_~ City of Savage MmrortIIUlum June 7, 1991 (6/13/91 Council Agenda) TO: Mayor and Council COMMENT: RECEIVED oJ v,. 1 0 1991 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE approve a Joint Prosecution would share an attorney for several Scott County cities. FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Joint Prosecution Agreement INTRODUCTION: The Counc il is asked to Agreement proposal which prosecution services with BACKGROUND: At the May 23rd meeting of the City Council, direction was given that Savage should not contract for prosecution services through the City of Shakopee. As a result, negotiations have continued between Belle Plaine, Prior Lake, and Savage to jointly hire an independent attorney solely for prosecution of criminal matters. What has been negotiated is attached. In effect, a Board will oversee the hiring, supervision, and firing of a prosecuting attorney ( s), and clerical support. For bookkeeping purposes only, one of the cities would be assigned the bookkeeping and payroll functions for the positions. BUDGET IMPACT: It is anticipated at this time that something could be worked out with the City of Shakopee to lease space at its soon to be acquired city hall building, and now housing the Marquette Bank. Preliminary lease amounts appear to be reasonable, and there is a potential that a law library could be shared. We would also hope that, if necessary, the "joint attorney", and the Shakopee city attorney could assist each other in handling cases during absences or multiple trials. We would anticipate that that would not be commonplace. The Board will be made up of a representative designated by each of the three cities previously described. We've also offered to the cities of Elko and New Market an ability to utilize this service. They would be invited to have representation on the Board in an ex-officio (non-voting) status. We have attached a copy of a preliminary budget, showing an annualized amount of just under $103,000. This anticipates a single prosecutor hired to begin at $34,500, and a secretary at $20,000. We had originally anticipated the setup costs could be reimbursed through a State grant, provisions for which were approved by the 1991 Legislature to encourage governmental service consolida-tions. However, that provision was vetoed by Governor Carlson. . Mayor and Council Joint Prosecution Agreement -2- June 7, 1991 The budget as shown is less than what would have been required had Shakopee participated, owing to the fact that 1.5 fewer attorneys would be needed. Some modification may still need to be made by the Board. It is our hope that if this is successful, that Shakopee would join with the Joint Powers group at some point in the future. Actual impact on each city will depend upon the amount of usage. Each will be billed proportionate to the amount of use. I would note that the three "voting" cities in 1991 have budgeted nearly $200,000 for prosecution services. The amount of the draft budget is about half that amount; we are confident that there will be a substantial savings for each participant. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the City Council authorize the Mayor and Administrator to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement for the provision of joint prosecution of criminal matters. We also recommend that the City Administrator be appointed as the Savage representative for the Joint Powers Board. The cities of Prior Lake and Belle Plaine will be considering this at their meetings the week of June 17th. Assuming all cities are in agreement, the Board will put together qualifications for the attorney, and secretary, and will advertise for same immediately. Realistically, this should be operable by August 1st. If needed, former prosecuting attorney Colleen Trende will be available to assist in the start-up, and could be hired on an hourly basis. If Krass and Monroe are unable to provide prosecution past their previously announced July 1st deadline, I recommend negotiating with Ms. Trende for interim prosecution services (an alternative would be the "to be appointed" City Attorney for civil matters). ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the Joint Powers Agreement for Prosecution Services on behalf of the City of Savage. It should further, by motion, appoint the ~y Adm~n~~trator as ~he 5avage representative to the Joint Powers Board. Vl~~~'VL'w~l Mark McNeill City Administrator MM/rjl JP-AGMT.COU Enclosures bcc: R. Krass, Attorney (via FAX) D. Unmacht - Prior Lake C. Dressen - Belle Plaine JUN-I0-91 t'10H 8:23 CITY OF SAVAGE D R AFT JOINT POWERS PROSECUTION BUDGET One (1) Prosecutor, One (1) Clerical Salaries: Prosecutor Secretary Overt ime PERA (4.23\) FICA (7.65\> Disability Health & Life Worker's Compensation Medicare $ 34,500 20,000 P.l2t4 $ 54,500 500 2,327 4,208 5,640 1,375 798 69,348 2,400 750 1,200 200 2,500 1,200 4,000 1,250 700 500 100 100 400 1,000 300 1,000 3,000 5.000 25,600 Rent Utilities Supplies Equipment Maintenance Telephone (Service and Long Distance) Vehicle Mileage Reimbursement Insurance (professional Liability) Insurance Claim Deductible Dues and Subscriptions Printing, Miscellaneous Legal Filing Fees Courier Service Postage Schools and Conferences Meetings and Lunches Westlaw Research Consulting Attorney Startup Assistance Contingency Setup Costs: Furnishings Desks, Chairs (2 each) Side Chairs (2) Credenza (1) Bookcases (2) File Cabinets (3) Computer Table (1) Library wordprocessing Equipment Computer Laser Printer Typewriter Software Dictaphone & Transcriber FAX Machine GRAND TOTAL BUDGT-JP.LIS n~nn/o, 950 300 250 400 750 250 3,000 1,875 1,800 400 250 300 -2Q.Q. 5,900 5,125 11,025 $ 105,973 Page 1 of 5 Joint Powers Agreement for Prosecution Services THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of , 1991, by and between the CITIES of PRIOR LAKE, BELLE PLAINE, SAVAGE, ELKO, and NEW MARKET, Minnesota, all of which are Minnesota municipal corporations organized and operating under state law, hereinafter collectively referred to as "the CITIES" . RECITALS 1. Each of the CITIES individually has the power and responsibility to prosecute criminal matters within its respective jurisdiction. 2. Each of the CITIES has previously contracted with private law firms for prosecution services but believes that such services can be obtained more conveniently and more economically on a joint basis by means of this Agreement. 3. The CITIES desire to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of providing for the joint exercise of their prosecutorial powers according to the authority and procedures set forth in Minnesota Statues Section 47l.59, the Joint Exercise of Powers Act. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Joint Powers Board. A Joint Powers Municipal Prosecution Board ("the BOARD") is hereby created. The BOARD may exercise its powers in order to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement consistent with Minnesota Statute Section 471.59 and other applicable laws. Each of the CITIES of Prior Lake, Belle Plaine, and Savage, shall appoint one (1) individual to serve as voting members on a joint powers board, hereinafter referred to as "the BOARD". The CITIES of Elko and New Market may each appoint one (1) non-voting member to service on the BOARD in an ex-officio status. Each member shall serve until replaced by the member's respective City. A simple majority of voting BOARD members shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of conducting BOARD business. The BOARD shall be the employer of the prosecution and support services under this Agreement authority to hire, fire, discipline and adopt personnel of the BOARD. Under no circumstances shall the BOARD'S employees of any of the CITIES. The BOARD shall meet at least quarterly to review the quality of the prosecution services. The BOARD shall make recommendations to the CITIES regarding improvement of prosecution, stricter or less-strict plea bargains, job performance of the affected employees, and other matters related to this Agreement. Each of the CITIES also may adopt its own prosecution policies which shall be followed by the prosecutor when handling cases from that City. The BOARD membership shall include at least one (1) Police Chief, and one (1) ~ity Administrator/Manager. employees providing and shall have the rules for employees employees be deemed , Joint Powers Agreement for Prosecution Services Page 2 of 5 2. Board Staff and ~mn;nistration. The BOARD shall advertise for and hire one or more prosecutors and secretaries or legal assistants who shall be employees of the BOARD. The number of staff hired and whether they are part or full-time shall depend on the case load to be handled. The City of shall be the administrative and fiscal agent for the BOARD and shall provide office space, supplies, payroll, and benefits for BOARD staff. All hiring, firing, and other personnel decisions relating to BOARD staff shall be made by the BOARD. The CITIES shall contribute a sum of money as set forth below to cover each City'S proportionate share of the costs of performing prosecutorial services under this Agreement. All BOARD staff shall be qualified and licensed to perform such services. None of the work or services covered by this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior approval of the BOARD, except in an emergency. 3. Budaet. By August 1st in each year, the BOARD shall prepare a proposed budget for prosecution services, which shall be forwarded to the City Administrator or City Manager of each of the Cities for review. Any City objecting to the proposed budget shall so notify the BOARD. In the event the objection is not resolved, such City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon one hundred twenty (120) days' prior written notice, if such notice is given on or before September 1st. 4. Cost Sharina. Each month the BOARD shall submit a bill to each of the CITIES detailing the amount due for that City'S proportionate share of prosecutorial services. Within thirty (30) days, each City shall pay to the BOARD the billed amount. This amount shall be equal to UrN, as expressed in the formula r = x (y 1 z), where: x = one-twelfth of the total current annual (or annualized, if this contract starts at a time other than the beginning of the fiscal year) prosecution budget. y = the number of calendar calls set for that particular City for the previous month. z = the total number of calendar calls set for all the Cities the previous month. The CITIES shall assist and cooperate with one another in keeping prosecution costs down by covering for each other when prosecution personnel are on vacation, ill, or otherwise unavailable for court, or where representation would result in a conflict of interest. 5. Costs Limited. The BOARD shall keep track of the calendar calls billable under this Agreement at all times. The BOARD shall notify the CITIES if the BOARD anticipates that the costs may exceed one hundred ten (110%) percent of the estimated budget total set forth in the budget attached hereto as Exhibit A. In the event actual expenditures or costs do exceed one hundred ten (110%) percent of the budget, the BOARD shall bill he CITIES proportionately, by averaging their percentage established as (y 1 z) in paragraph 4 above for the.previous six (6) months, for cost overruns. Any budget underruns shall be refunded back to the CITIES proportionately. Any City unsatisfied with any overruns may elect to terminate this Agreement upon ninety (90) days prior written notice as provided below. , Joint Powers Agreement for Prosecution Services Page 3 of 5 6. Civil lfatters. A City may request BOARD legal staff to handle civil legal matters, such as zoning enforcement, personnel issues, liquor licensing questions, ordinance preparation, contract review, etc. Such requests shall be handled on a time-available basis only, and shall be billed back to the requesting City at actual cost on an hourly basis. Billings from civil matters shall be used to offset the total prosecution budget. 7. Exchanae of Data. All information, data, and reports as are existing, available and necessary for carrying out prosecution services under this Agreement, including police reports and arrest records, shall be furnished to BOARD staff without charge, and the CITIES shall cooperate in every way possible in carrying out prosecution services. 8. Confidentiality. Any reports, data, or similar information given to, prepared or assembled by the BOARD or BOARD staff under this Agreement, which the BOARD or any of the CITIES requests to be kept confidential, shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the BOARD, BOARD staff, or any of the CITIES without prior written approval of the concerned party, consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act or other applicable statutes. This paragraph shall not apply to documents which are required to be public under the Government Data Practices Act or other applicable law. 9 . Duration and Renewal. This Agreement runs from the date set forth above to December 31, 1991. This Agreement shall be automatically renewed thereafter and shall be valid for the next calendar year, unless terminated as set forth below. 10. Tennination as to One Party. This Agreement may be terminated by any City at the end of any calendar year upon six (6) months prior written notice, or at any time with the express approval of all other parties hereto. This Agreement may be terminated by any City upon one hundred twenty (120) days prior written notice given on or before October 1st for objection to the proposed budget, or at any time upon one hundred twenty (120) days prior written notice for cost overruns, as set forth above. Prior to termination by any City, the proposed reasons for termination shall be presented to the BOARD. The BOARD shall discuss these reasons and determine whether specific action should be requested to resolve the issue. All records pertaining solely to the terminating City shall be returned to that City. 11. Termination as to All Parties. In the event this Agreement is terminated in its entirety, all records pertaining solely to a particular Ci ty shall be returned to that City. All other records shall remain with the City of as custodian of such records. The records may be retained, stored, or disposed of according to state law and the City of __ 's records retention policies. Any City may copy any public records at its own expense. All fixed assets shall be returned to the City which purchased them. Any remaining monies and expenses, including such employee expenses as unemployment compensation and payment for accumulated vacation, shall be shared by the CITIES in proportion to their contributions. Each City 's contribution percentage shall be calculated by averaging its percentage established as (y / z) in paragraph 4 above for the previous six (6) months. Joint Powers Agreement for Prosecution Services Page 4 of 5 12. Indemnification. Each City shall indemnify and defend the BOARD and each of the other CITIES which is a party to this Agreement against, and hold each other harmless from, any and all claims, causes of action,. administrative orders, costs, expenses, and liabilities of every kind and nature arising out of the BOARD'S hiring, training, supervision, and personnel actions under this Agreement, including attorneys fees and costs incurred by the BOARD or the CITIES in defending claims to establish or enforce such liabilities. Each of the CITIES shall indemnify and defend each other City and the BOARD against, and hold each other City and the BOARD harmless from, any expenses and liabilities of every kind and nature arising out of the indemnifying City's prosecution prior to this Agreement, its actions in entering into this Agreement, including attorneys fees and costs incurred by any of the CITIES or the BOARD in defending claims to establish or enforce such liabilities. 13. Liability. The BOARD shall purchase liability insurance from budgeted funds for each attorney hired under this Agreement. This insurance shall cover professional liability, personal injury liability, and disciplinary proceedings costs. The BOARD may also, at its discretion, purchase general liability and directors' and officers' (errors and omissions) insurance. To the extent any action under this Agreement shall resul t in liability which is not covered by such insurance, each of the CITIES agrees to assume liability for all services requested by it or performed on its behalf. 14. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only in writing signed by all parties. lS. Notices. All notices required or permitted in this Agreement and required to be in writing may be given by first class mail addressed to any ~f the CITIES at their respective City Hall. 16. Certification. Each of the CITIES certifies, by signing below, that this Agreement has been approved by that City's governing body. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF SAVAGE, MN CITY OF BELLE PLAINE, MN By By Its Mayor Its Mayor By By Its City Administrator Its City Administrator Joint Powers Agreement for Prosecution Services Page 5 of 5 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MN CITY OF ELKO, MN By Its Mayor By Its Mayor By Its City Manager By Its City Clerk CITY OF NEW MARKET, MN By Its Mayor By Its City Clerk PROS-SVC.AGM 06/05/91 H... ~ 0... ".fCft City of Savage 6000 McCoH Drive · (County Road 16) Telephone (612) 890-1045 · Savage, Minnesota 55378 FAX (612) 890-3815 June 5, 1991 Mayor Jean Benci City of Elko 9616 Main Street Elko, Minn. 55020 Dear Mayor Benci: The Cities of Belle Plaine and Savage, like Elko, have used the law firm of Krass and Monroe for prosecution and civil legal services for a number of years. As you probably have been informed, after July 1st, Krass and Monroe will no longer be providing at least the prosecution portion of those services. The need to look for a new attorney to do criminal prosecution caused Savage, along with Belle Plaine and Prior Lake, to examine what other services might be available, especially considering the need to reduce expenditures as a result of state aid cuts. It appears that the most cost effective way of doing this may be to hire an attorney(s) and support staff to serve specifically those cities. The main benefit of this would be that we would be paying significantly less overhead than we would be by hiring someone from the private sector. Originally, you may have received a telephone call from the City Administrator of Shakopee. We had negotiated with Shakopee for several weeks, that idea being to utilize their staff attorney to supervise this venture. However, the Savage City Council felt more comfortable in having a prosecutor who would be the employee of a Joint Powers Board, who could serve independently of anyone city. At this time, we are presenting this option to the city councils of Belle Plaine, Prior Lake, and Savage, the intent of which would be to have authorization to proceed with this independent employee. Together, these three cities spent over $200,000 in fees for prosecutions during 1990; the attached draft budget antici.pates that we could get by for about one-half of that amount. We would like to offer the Cities of Elko and New Market an opportunity to utilize this Joint Prosecution Agreement, if you would be interested. Fees would be based upon the number of "calendar calls", or the number of cases that are actually filed needing services of. a prosecutor. Each city would be t>illed proportionately; while I don't have specifics as far as the number Mayor Jean Benci City of Elko -2- June 5, 1991 of calendar calls by Elko, we anticipate it would be a substantial savings over what you would be able to find in the private sector. I've enclosed a draft copy of the Joint Powers Agreement. Note in that that Elko and New Market would have representation on the governing "Board" in a non-voting status only. There are still several factors which will need to be negotiated for final form, but we feel confident that this draft is close to the end product. It is anticipated that the city councils of the three cities will be considering this in mid June, so that a prosecutor could be hired and underway in late July or early August. Would you please discuss this with your City Council to determine whether you have any interest in participating? We would be most pleased to have you as a part of the Joint Prosecution format. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, 1/u..,.1 ~c. i~~( Mark McNeill City Administrator MM/rjl AGM-CITY.LTR Attachment cc: Ms. Mary Ellen Flicek City of Elko 26641 Drew Ave. Elko, MN 55020 Mr. Dave Unmacht City of Prior Lake P.o. Box 359 Prior Lake, MN 55372 Ms. Cynthia Dressen City of Belle Plaine 420 East Main Street Belle Plaine, MN 56011 ..