HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-18 PACKET 04.B. REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA
MEETING ITEM # L,,,,�
DATE 11/18/15 �-
.
PREPARED BY: Public Safety Craig Woolery
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR
* * * � * � � * � * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * � * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST:
City Council pass a motion to approve the renewal for the Prosecution Services Contract with
F. Joseph Taylor, P.A. for 2016 - 2018.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION;
Pass a motion to renew the Prosecution Services Contract with F. Joseph Taylor, P.A. for
2016 - 2018.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
MEMO/LETTER: Memo from Director of Public Safety Craig Woolery dated 11-3-15
❑ OTHER: Attachment
ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS:
1�
/� �
City Administrator ate
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * � * � * * * * * * * * :� * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER
Cottage
Grove City of Cottage Grove
�he�ePrideandP�ospefityMeet public Safety — Police/Fire/EMS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Charlene Stevens, City Administrator
From: Craig Woolery, Director of Public Safety �
Date: November 3, 2015
Subject: RENEWAL OF PROSECUTION SERVICES CONTRACT
Introductiorr
For over 25 years, Joe Taylor has provided prosecution services for the City of Cottage Grove.
The current three year agreement expires December 31, 2015. Attached you will find a
proposed 3 year agreement extending his services through 2018.
Discussion
The City has contracted prosecution services with Joe Taylor since 1997, since 1990 he
assisted with prosecution working for another firm.
Mr. Taylor has proposed a three year agreement with an hourly rate of$90.00 and annual fee
caps. Historically Joe Taylor has done an excellent job in providing prosecution services,
keeping hourly rates and annual fee caps either flat or at minimal increases.
Yearend costs for in 2014 were $141,344.90, the fee cap was $142,800.00
The proposed fee cap increases for 2016-2018 are all within 3% of the previous years along
with estimated billable hours.
- Fee Cap
2015 $154,800.00
2016 $162,900.00
2017 $162,900.00
2018 $167,400.00
Enclosed you will find Exhibits A-E which provide a very complete historical review of
prosecution and forFeiture services provided, challenges faced and the proposed Contract for
Prosecution Services.
Prior to submitting Mr. Taylor's proposal for Council review and approval, I met with members of
the Department's Command Staff, Detective Division and Support Services who universally
recommend the continued services from Joe Taylor. He has a demonstrated history of being
very responsive to staff, aggressive in his charging of offenses, an expert in DUI law and
Domestic Violence-Stalking cases and has an excellent relationship with the Bench. Joe is a
longtime member of this community and I consider the city fortunate to have his expertise and
services available.
Recommendation
Should Council concur with the recommendation, by motion authorize a contract for prosecution
and related services with the Taylor Law Firm for the contract years 2016-2018.
Attch.
I�o ������ ������9 �o�o
�������� �� ���
E Joseph Taylor US Bank Building Administrative Assistants
7200-80th Street South Shari Olmstead
Cottage Grove,Minnesota 55016 Cheryl Kinney
(651)459-6644 Phone �
(651)459-7521 Fa�c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Myron Bailey
Council Member Steve Dennis
Council Member Justin Olsen
Council Member Jen Peterson
Council Member Dave Thi e
FROM: F. Joseph Taylor
DATE: September 10, 20
RE: I. Prosecution Services Update
II. New proposal for Prosecution Se�vices for 2016-2018
Dear Mayor Bailey and Council Members;
This Memorandum to Council, once again, has a duel purpose: First, to inform Council as
to the status and issues surrounding prosecution servi��s �s we approach the end of this
current three year contract. Second, I have included, for Council consideration, a new
proposed three (3) year agreement for prosecution servires covering years 2016 through
2018. I do take this opportunity to apologize if some of t�e information is redundant from
prior Memo's as I am unsure how much background inf�r���r�ation Council Member Dennis
might have on the Court sjrstem in Washirigton County.
Background: Cases involving the Cottage Grove pro5f,cution calendar were originally
heard at the satellite facility first located in St. Paul Park and then at the Cottage Grove
Armory building. In the mid-1990's Court Administration r�r�oved all "Jury Trial" settings to
the Stillwater Court facility. They made this move to allow tor more efficient management
of jurors summoned for jury duty and to avoid having to send a group of prospective jurors
from Stillwater to Cottage Grove: Having Court in Cottage urove meant no travel time for
myself, or for the Officers and other Witnesses called inta Court.
Then in the early 2000's discussions began regarding futiare Court facilities for the County.
After a significant lobbying e�fort by the Washington County Bench and others the
1 - --
September 10, 2015
MAYOR BAILEY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
Page Two
Washington County Board decided to locate all Court related matters in Stillwater and to
eventually close the satellite Courthouses in both Forest Lake and Cottage Grove. The
centralization of Courts was the ultimate decision of the County Board at that time even
though they approved and then built a new County Service Center in Ravine Park. The
Forest Lake Court closed in June, 2005. Cottage Grove Court closed June 30, 2008. (The
new Courts building in Stillwater opened on August 30, 2009.) As of July 1, 2008, all
Cottage Grove cases have been heard at the Courthouse in Stillwater.
After the facilities decision was made,the State of Minnesota then moved in and took over
operation of all Courts in #he State. With the State of Minnesota having its own financial
difficulty, at least at that time, there were funding cuts made to Court Administration staff
and other resources associated with the Courts. Those funding issues are largely
responsible for some of the changes in the way Court is run today. For example, we now
have greatly expanded the "payables" list. (These are citations issued to Defendant's
where they can simply plead guilty by paying the fine and they avoid having to appear in
Court.) A large volume of Court cases involve traffic offenses. Today, offenses such as
driving on a revoked or suspended license, driving without insurance, etc... are on this list
and allow an offender to simply pay a fine and have the matter reduced to a petty offense
and thus, avoid any jail type of consequence.
Although I will discuss more fully its impact below, these same funding issues are, in large
part, why we now have e-Court. As of July 1, 2015, everything submitted to Washington
County must be e-filed. In criminal court, motions, witness lists, proposed Orders, etc...
are now all scanned and then e-filed with the Court. All criminal complaints must be
submitted electronically through the BCA's e-charging network. All Court files are now
electronically stored and processed. My reference as to why this could be the result of
funding issues is that the Court, during the hard financial times, started looking for ways
to cut down on necessary Court staff. With the e-file system, now it is the attorneys who
are performing the tasks of entering necessary file data and then scanning documents
rather than Court staff.
As with my previous Memo's and Updates, I like to provide Council with numerical data to
help illustrate all that is involved in bo�h providing current prosecution services to the City
and in predicting services that will be needed in the future including my process in
determining an appropriate"fee cap". As noted,this data includes prosecution information
going as far back as 1990. (I started working on Cottage Grove cases in 1990. I had my
first solo contract for prosecution services with Cottage Grove in 1997.) The data is broken
down to provide Council with insight on prosecution case volume, the time and fees I
charge the City to service these prosecution files, and finally, the revenue collected by the
Citythrough the imposition of Court fines. You will find this data in an "Exhibit"style format
and attached to this Memorandum as Exhibits A, B, C and D.
2
September 10, 2015
MAYOR BAILEY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
Page Three
As to my proposed Agreement for Prosecution Services, 2016 through 2018, I have
mirrored our previous Agreement to provide services at an hourly rate with an annual fee
limitation (fee cap). I am aware that some of our neighboring Cities have been operating
on "flat fee" arrangements for some time now (Newport, Woodbury, Stillwater, to name a
few). I am certainly open to switching to a flat fee arrangement. Such an arrangement
would most certainly benefit me as I would save time in the form of record keeping. I would
no longer need to keep daily time sheets tracking time spent on specific prosecution files
nor would I need to keep track of time spent in Court or the quantity of files or the type of
hearing. Nor would I need to generate an itemized billing statement for prosecution
services that ends up to be about 5 to 7 pages each month. However, I believe the hourly
rate arrangement we've had over the last 25 years combined with an overall fee cap to be
a better deal for the City. The City pays me only for the specific time I spend attending to
Cottage Grove prosecution matters and City Staff can still implement a budget for these
services knowing that there is a "not to exceed" fee amount. As we find new ways to be
more efficient or otherwise cut time and expense, it is the City that stands to benefit.
I can point to a couple of examples for Council on how the City benefits (with an hourly fee
arrangement vs. a flat fee) when efficiencies arise in the performance of prosecution
services. The first example that comes to mind is, when the funding crises was hitting the
Court's hard and the Washington County Bench was searching for ways to divert some of
the more minor offenses from the overcrowded Court calendars, Washington County
looked at Ramsey and Hennepin's Hearing Officer Program. In 2007 Washington County
started their own Hearing Officer program. (Hearing Officers are used by the Court to meet
with an offender on specified offenses and attempt to reach an out of Court resolution.)
Those cases that are resolved via this program are done so without any involvement by
me and thus, at no cost to the City. Firms that utilized a flat fee agreement saw a
significant benefit as a portion of their case volume was now being handled by a Hearing
Officer.
Another example of a time saving measure implemented by the Court occurred in either
2011 or 2012 when the Court decided to establish a single calendar for the initial probation
hearing. This calendar takes place on Tuesday afternoons and it covers alt Washington
County jurisdictions. The benefit is that prosecutors are no longer required to appear at
these initial hearings. Approximately 50% of these probation matters are resolved at this
initial hearing. Again, it is a file/hearing for which I have no involvement and thus, the
matter is resolved at no cost to the City.
I. PROSECUTION SERVICES UPDATE
In predicting future time necessary to handle prosecution services for the City of Cottage
Grove I look at three primary areas:first, I look at changes and/or trends in our overall case
3
September 10, 2015
MAYOR BAILEY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
Page Four
load; second, I look at Court Administration and how they have set up the Cottage Grove
prosecution calendar, now as well as proposed changes to future Calendar plans; and
finally, I closely monitor both Legislative changes in the law as well as case law decisions
derived from our Appellate Courts. I will address each of these areas below.
A. Cottage Grove Caseload and Fine Revenue collected:
Hours and Fees: I have attached, as Exhibit "A", page 1, a Prosecution Contract
Summarv. This Summary shows the annual and monthly hours bitled for prosecution
services since 1990. We have been billing the City an "average" between 120 and 140
billable hours per month since 2004. This works out to be around 1,500 to 1,600 billable
hours annually to service the Cottage Grove prosecution case load. For 2013 the monthly
average for billable hours was 131. For 2014, this average increased to 138. For 2015 we
are averaging 146 billable hours each month. I will address this increase as well as the
increase in prosecution case volume below.
My Prosecution Contract Summary also depicts attorney fees paid out by the City. In
2013, we had an average monthly billing of 131 hours. Then in 2014, 138 hours per
month. In 2015,we are averaging around 146 billable hours each month. In sum,we have
come in under the fee cap limitation for 2013 and 2014. 2015, as stated above, is
appearing, after 7 months, as coming in above the fee cap limitation. This means, at this
juncture, I am anticipating getting to the 2015 fee cap amount and I will be writing off any
billable time in excess of this fee cap amount.
City Prosecution Revenue: Exhibit A, page 2, depicts "Prosecution Revenue" collected
by the City on an annual basis since 1990. Cottage Grove receives a share of "fine
revenue" collected from Cottage Grove prosecution cases. Cottage Grove also receives
100% of all parking violations and 50% or more share of prosecution costs collected. For
2013, the City received from the Court $168,467.87 in prosecution related revenue. For
2014, the City was paid $151,200,83, And for 2015, I am predicting a significant jump in
fine revenue collected, $215,393.05. (The City as has already collected, through August,
$143,595.37 of fine revenue for 2015.)
When looking deeper at this exhibit one can see that City fine revenue peaked in 2006,
2007 and 2008, at around $220K. It then dropped significantly in 2011 and 2012. My
theory on why we have seen this dip in "Prosecution Revenue" is two-fold: First, our
struggling economy and its affect on our Defendants. I see more and more Defendant's
claim poorfinancial circumstances, including being without employment, And, as a result,
I see our Judges imposing lower fines overall. This imposition of"lower fines" continues
today.
4
September 10, 2015
MAYOR BAILEY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
Page Five
Second, is the lack of any serious effort on the part of the Courts at "fine collection". Our
Court Administration in Washington County is now being run by the State. Previously, it
was Washington County that had responsibility for Court operations. The County was
significantly more aggressive in collecting fines. In the last decade, the County had utilized
the services of a "screener/collector" to arrange for payment of the fines. This person
would meet with the Defendant immediately following his or her sentencing. The County
would then bring the Defendant back into Court for nonpayment of a fine. This would occur
in the form of a "probation violation". The first positions cut from Court Administration due
� to the funding issues described above included the "screener/collectors." Yes, the Court
first terminated the positions of the people responsible for setting up payment plans and
collecting fines. And now, since the State has taken over Court operations, fine revenue
is allocated back to the State general fund. In other words, there is no incentive for our
Courts to insure that these fines are ever collected. Thus, at present, when the Defendant
fails to pay his or her fine, the matter is simply referred to a "collection agency". As a
consequence for the Defendant's non-payment, the State may suspend the Defendant's
driver's license until paid. I am of the opinion that this approach does not bring about the
same incentive to pay as, for example, a "probation violation" and the bringing of the
Defendant back to Court to face further sanctions.
Efforts to Increase Revenue: A few years ago I had discussions with Chief Woolery on
what we can do to try to increase fine revenue generated by prosecution related matters.
We agreed to modify our past practice on how we handle Petty Misdemeanor cases,
including traffic violations as well as some low level Misdemeanor offenses. Previouslywe
would be seeking a plea with a fine and other possible consequences. The City would
receive its share; 1/3 of the fine collected. The State kept 2/3 as well as the $85.00
surcharge. The Defendant was convicted of the offense, and if it was a traffic matter, it
would be certified to his or her record. Now, after taking into account various
circumstances including their past record, we agree to "Continue the matter for Dismissal"
for a specified period of time and then direct the payment of "prosecution costs" instead
of a fine as well as other possible consequences. The Court keeps the first $40.00, the
City receives the balance. For example, on a case that would involve a $200 fine,
previously the Defendant would be convicted and have to pay $285. The City would
receive $66 and the State would get the balance, the $134 fine and all of the $85
surcharge. If I "Continue" the matter without a plea and I impose prosecution costs, the
State receives $40 and the City keeps the balance of $160. The Defendant ends up
saving the surcharge and avoids a conviction. In my example, the City comes out $100
ahead.
With this change in our"negotiation practice"we have seen "prosecution costs" rise from
about $20,000 per year to between $50,000 and $70,000 per year. For 2015 I am
predicting that the City will be paid approximately $73,000 in "prosecution costs". The
5
September 10, 2015
MAYOR BAILEY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
Page Six
prosecution costs revenue has been a significant help in offsetting the drop in fine revenue
that is collected by the State.
ArraignmentSettings and our Hearing Officer Program: I have written previously about
our efforts, since 1996, to attend the Cottage Grove Arraignment (first appearances)
calendar. These appearances do add to my "in-Court" time, however, they ultimately
reduce the number of other Hearings necessary to resolve a case, such as Pre-Trials,
Court Trials, and Jury Trial settings. When viewing Exhibit A, page 3, you can see that
while the number of Arraignments have increased, the number of Court Trial Settings and
Jury Trial Settings have dropped from the levels they were at in 2009 and before.
Reducing the number of Court Trials and Jury Trial settings directly translates in a savings
to the City as it eliminates the necessity of paying an Officer's overtime for Court
appearances, this combined with the savings in my time for both preparing and attending
the future Hearing date.
In 2007, Washington County added a Hearing Officer position to deal with Petty
Misdemeanor traffic cases as well as some Misdemeanor level offenses now set out by our
Courts as "payable offenses." This program affords a Defendant, who is charged with a
minor offense, the opportunity to walk in to the Stillwater Court and speak with a Hearing
Officer in an effort to resolve their case without haying to appear in Court. They can also
make an appointment for a time to see a Hearing Officer at the County's Cottage Grove
facility, I believe they offer staff time on Wednesdays.
In 2013, the Hearing Officer reviewed 793 cases. In 2014, 616 cases. And in 2015, I am
estimating nearly 653 cases. (See Exhibit A, Page 3). Statistically speaking, the Hearing
Officer resolves around 60% of the total number of cases that come before them. All of
this occurs without any involvement on my part. As for the remaining 40%, the cases that
the Hearing Officer is unable to resolve, they are then placed on my Thursday afternoon
Arraignment calendar.
On this Arraignment calendar I see any Petty Misdemeanors that are unresolved together
with all Misdemeanors and Gross Misdemeanors. In 2012 I had 532 Arraignment settings
forthe year. In 2013 I had 757 Arraignments. In 2014, I had 917 Arraignments. This year,
2015, I am predicting that I will have 1,021 Arraignment files for the year. This increase
in Arraignment files is due to the issuance of more citations by our Patrol Officers as well
as more cases being initiated by formal Complaint. If I can close these"Arraignment files"
at their first appearance I save time and money by not otherwise needing to attend to these
files in Court on future Hearing dates. Although I don't have specific data on the ratio I
would guestimate that I am closing between 30% and 40% of the cases I see on this
Thursday Arraignment calendar. The balance of unresolved cases then consist of cases
where the Defendant applies for the services of a Public Defender; cases where private
counsel has been retained; this calendar usually includes a number of failed to appear
cases that will end up with a "warrant" being issued; and there are a few that I am unable
to negotiate a resolution, at least at that time.
6
September 10, 2015
MAYOR BAILEY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
Page Seven
2009 Expansion of Court Payables List: I wrote previously about then Governor
Pawlenty proposing significant cuts in a variety of areas including our Court System. The
Judiciary, starting with then Chief Justice Eric J. Magnuson, were very active in lobbying
our legislators - that "the Court system can not absorb more cuts and still provide the
necessary services." In anticipation of further cuts, the Judges met and proposed
expanding the current "Payables List". This is a list of all Petty Misdemeanor crimes
together with some lower level Misdemeanor offenses that would be assigned some
monetary amount only. These people would not be required to appear in Court. To
address the overcrowding of the Court's criminal calendar, Judge's now are targeting all
Misdemeanors except DWI's and Assaults. Everything else can be resolved with an
offender simply paying a fine. Examples include offenses like Careless or Reckless
Driving, Marijuana possession, Driving after Revocation or Suspension, Driving without
Insurance, Underage Consumption, etc... This approach gives no consideration to an
offender's driving record, criminal history or facts of the event.
The expansion of this "payable list" to now include some of these more serious
misdemeanor offenses impacts both our case load and our collected fine revenue. For
example, take a Driving after Revocation offense: The Defendant is stopped in Cottage
Grove and cited for driving without a license. According to the payable list, it is a $200
payable ticket. If there is no payment forthcoming or other contact from the Defendant in
the form of requesting a Court date, the Defendant's driver's license is suspended for"non
payment of fine." The license was already suspended thus, until the Defendant is arrested
on something more serious or comes to the conclusion that he or she needs to pay this
fine to get his license reinstated, we will not see any fine revenue nor will we see the
Defendant in Court. If we, as a City, want these offenders to be brought to Court,we need
to serve them with a Complaint. Chief Woolery and I have met and implemented a policy
to deal with those "payables" that should be brought into the Court process. Thus, unlike
some of our neighboring communities, in Cottage Grove, if you meet certain criteria, we
will serve you with a criminal complaint to insure that you will have to appear in Court to
address the offense and, in a large number of these cases, there will be jail time imposed.
B. Current Status of Court Calendar:
We have seen #he Court undertake significant calendar changes from the way we did �
business before 2005. In closing the Forest Lake and then the Cottage Grove satellite
Court facilities in 2008, Court Administration also restructured the Court calendar by
combining additional jurisdictions. In translation, it means that, as a Prosecutor, we share
the calendar with other cities now more so then ever before. The more cities involved on
a given calendar, the greater distribution of cases even though the amount of time spent
in Court remains the same. This means being "less efficient". To illustrate, when I
attended a Pre-Trial calendar at the Cottage Grove Courthouse I shared that calendar with
St. Paul Park. Currently I share my Pre-Trial calendar with St. Paul Park, Stillwater and the
7
September 10, 2015
MAYOR BAILEY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS �
Page Eight
County Attorney. Thus it takes the same amount of Court time but I am handling a smaller
number of Cottage Grove files than I did with the Courthouse in Cottage Grove. The same
illustration holds true for our Jury Trial Calendar. In Cottage Grove I shared the calendar
with St. Paul Park. Now I share this Jury calendar with St. Paul Park, Stillwater, Forest
Lake and Oakdale.
Because I operate with a budgeted amount of billable time each year I have been very
involved with Court Administration offering up input as they review their calendar plans
from year to year. (The Court calendar plan runs from July 1St through June 30t'' each
year.) If they add even a half day calendar once a month, that can have a significant
impact on the predicted time and hours needed to service the Contract.
A word of caution here: Although Court Administration allows us to comment on proposed
calendar changes for the upcoming year prior to the calendar plan being submitted to the
Judges for their final approval, Court Administration (now run by the State) gives very little
weight to the effect that a calendar change may have on any given Municipality. (In other
words, if it costs a particular City more for prosecution services, that's the City's problem.)
In the past I have had to rely on my relationships with our Judges as they have the final
say. If I can convince them why something might be more efficient, I know that at least
they will consider the option.
e-Filing, e-Charging and e-Court: During the term of the existing contract, Washington
County has transitioned entirely into a fully electronic Court system. I previously wrote that
this was to start to take place in 2013. As of July 1, 2015, everything presented for filing
with the Court,civil or criminal, must be e-Filed. Criminal complaints must utilize the BCA's
e-Charging network. Court files are now both processed and stored electronically. Even
in the Courtroom Judges no longer have physical files but run Court from calendars and
files that are stored electronically.
A small sampling of the benefits of this conversion to e-Court include a reduction in office
supply costs including paper, toner, etc... As an example, I have not billed the City any
copy related costs since May. Although not a big expense in the overall picture, still a
savings. The savings relative to storage of both open and closed files is significant.
However, we still have a ways to go to take full advantage of e-Court. I have been waiting
for the Public Defender's Office to allow me to provide reports electronically. (I am still
required to print and mail police reports to any Public Defender handling Cottage Grove
cases.) Also, I remain hopeful that it won't be too long into the future when my staff can
access Cottage Grove case file information directly. Currently we still rely on Cottage
Grove Police staff to provide us with prosecution related files. And even these files are
being forwarded to us electronically, it still takes their time to fulfill our requests.
Public Defender Problem: I am sure most of you have either read or heard about the
cuts in public defender services over the last several years. The effect of these cuts on our
Court calendar is very real and continue despite some relief in funding. At nearly every
8
September 10, 2015
MAYOR BAILEY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
Page Nine
Court calendar I am finished with my"private lawyer"cases and my"pro se"cases in quick
order. As I describe above, I am resolving a significant number of the usual"pro se"cases
at the 1St appearance. That leaves only a small number of these cases with Defendant's
representing themselves on the Pre-Trial calendar. Then I have the cases involving private
defense attorneys. And finally, the balance of my calendar is made up of the assigned
"public defender" cases. These cases are always the source of any delay in getting
through the calendar. There is but one public defender assigned to handle that particular
Court calendar. Prior to these funding cuts they would assign two public defenders, one
was assigned exclusively to handle the Cottage Grove cases because of our high volume.
In other words, the calendars take longer because all the prosecutors�are waiting (down
time)for the one public defender to speak with the various Defendants before their matter
can be heard by the Court. Again, this point goes toward the lack of overall efficiency in
processing cases through a Court calendar.
One Positive Calendar Adiustment: I wrote previously about a positive change to Court
scheduling that occurred during the last contract term. This change involved the creation
of a separate "probation" calendar for all jurisdictions. Formerly, all Cottage Grove
probation matters were heard on my Omnibus and Court Trial calendar. Probation
violation hearings would take up a good chunk of the calendar with Cottage Grove cases
numbering over 200 a year. With this change, a Defendant who violates his or her
probation now makes their initial probation appearance on a Tuesday afternoon.
Prosecutors are no longer required to appear. The Probation Officer and the Defendant
meet and I would estimate that half of these matters are resolved at the first appearance.
(Again requiring no action on my part.) If the probation violation is "denied"then they are
scheduled for a "contested" Revocation Hearing assigned to my Omnibus/Court Trial
calendar. This change means that we are setting up and preparing for less than half as
many probation matters than previously thus saving time in the billable hour category.
C. Legislative & Case Law Changes or Issues:
There were not a lot of changes in the last Legislative session that would relate to
Prosecution services with one big exception. This exception was not well publicized. It
pertains to DWI offenses where one's alcohol concentration is .16 or more. The State's
legal limit is still at .08. However, previously there were enhanced penalties if your alcohol
concentration was .20 or more. Those penalties include a more serious criminal charge
and the individual would be jailed. The .20 case always required me to prepare a formal
criminal complaint. On the surFace this doesn't seem like a big change. However, we do
see a lot of cases that fall in the .16 to .19 category. Thus, even with a 1St time offender,
if the offender's alcohol concentration is at .16 or more, he or she will now be 'ai� led and a
formal criminal complaint will need to be prepared by me. Previously, this same individual
would have received a citation and then allowed to call someone to take him or her home.
If this individual has a prior offense, now their vehicle is subject to forFeiture.
,
9
September 10, 2015
MAYOR BAILEY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
Page Ten
Thus this small change by the legislature wili result in some increase to prosecution
services. Since we don't have any data on files based on their alcohol concentration it's
difficult to quantify the anticipated increase.
There has also been some very important case law decisions that affect Prosecution
services coming out of our Appellate Courts. I mentioned in my last couple of Updates the
issues surrounding breath testing in Minnesota and our Department's use of the Intoxilyzer
5000. This issue did make it to the Supreme Court, twice, and although the machine has
been determined to be "reliable", the State proceeded to purchase and install new breath
testing machines called DataMasters.
More recently several decisions have come down on whether a search warrant is required
before an officer can request a DWI suspect to take a test to determine his or her alcohol
concentration. Our Supreme Court has ruled that, as it pertains to obtain a breath sample,
the search itself is a"search incident to arrest"and a warrant is not required. This decision
however, did not offer any guidance on blood or urine tests. This particular case is now
moving to the United States Supreme Court. Additionally, I am also certain there will be
further appellate litigation coming through on this "warrant" issue as it pertains to DWI
related blood and urine tests.
D. Other Issues:
Motor Vehicle Forfeitures: For a number of years now we have had in place an
aggressive DWI vehicle forFeiture policy. A third offense and, in some cases, a second
offense, fall within the criteria for seizure and forfeiture of a defendant's motor vehicle.
These vehicles are seized and, when the forFeiture process is challenged, the action is
defended in District Court. Our policy was not structured with the only objective being the
additional revenue. We seize all vehicles where forFeiture is applicable, irrespective of
value. We do this with the idea of removing that vehicle from the hands of the re eat
drunk driver. I believe this policy to be consistent with the intent of the legislation and the
State's continuing effort to deter drunk drivers. Even with a policy where we pursue
forFeiture whenever possible, I believe we are more than covering the City's administrative
costs.
I have assembled DWI Forfeiture data and have included information about revenue
collected, number of files opened and costs. This data is included in Exhibit"C"attached.
From a review of this data for the existing contract term the overall number of vehicles
seized and forFeited were down as was the amount of revenue collected. These numbers
do appear to be climbing for 2015. And as mentioned above, I would predict that the .16
change will envelope a few more vehicles into the criteria allowing for forFeiture.
10
September 10, 2015
MAYOR BAILEY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
Page Eleven
II. PROPOSAL FOR PROSECUTION SERVICES
A. Background:
Billable Time/Cit,y Revenue: Attached to this Memorandum, and set forth as Exhibit "A",
you will find the previously mentioned "Prosecution Contract Summary"that includes data
from 1990 to the present. This Summary, on page 1, details the total number of billable
hours expended as well as attorneys fees paid by the City. As for the current contract, in
2013 I was $5,712.00 under the fee cap. For 2014, I was $2,048.50 under the fee cap.
And for this year, 2015, I expect to be approximately$3,000.00 to $4,000.00 over the fee
cap and thus, this amount, whatever the final number is over the fee cap, will be written off
in December.
Then as to revenue collected by the City, I am predicting a substantial increase for 2015
to approximately$215,000.00. This amount is somewhere around $64,000.00 more than
the revenue collected by the City in 2014,
I believe the biggest reason for this year's increase for both prosecution time as wefl as fine
revenue collected is because we have seen an increase in prosecution case volume. Our
Police Department issued citations are up. In 2012 CGPD issued 2,047 citations, then in
2013, they issued 2,379 citations, and in 2014, 2,565 citations were issued, and I am
predicting that 2015 Cottage Grove Police will issue just under 3,000 citations for the year.
Formal complaint requests went from around 150 in 2011 and 2012 to approximately 200
in each 2014 and 2015. The number of Arraignment files handled in 2015 has jumped up
by about 20%over 2014. Also,the number of Pre-Trial Settings has jumped up about 20%
for 2015.
It is always hopeful that,when we see increases in prosecution time(especially since 2015
exceeds the amount I had predicted at the time I submitted my last proposal)that we would
see a corresponding increase in fine revenue collected by the City. That does appear to
be the case here for 2015.
B. Prosecution Pro osal (3 year contrac�•
Essential to predicting billable time is the Court's "calendar plan" and its assignment
relating to Cottage Grove cases, We have been on a Court calendar plan that, in my
opinion, is as efficient as any before, except for the added mix of additional jurisdictions
and the public defender problems addressed above. I am hopeful that this "calendar plan"
remains consistent in the coming years as I put forth a new proposal below.
11
September 10, 2015
MAYOR BAILEY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
Page Twelve
I enclose and attach, as Exhibit "D", page 2, a summary of my Prosecution Services
Proposal for 2016-2018. First, and most important, I am not proposing any change in the
hourly rate for the next three years, currently at$90.00 per hour. The fee cap currently for
2015 is $154,800. As I discussed above, I am predicting, based on the first 8 months of
this year, that I will be over the cap amount by about $3,000 to $4,000. And any amount
over this fee cap would be written off in December. For 2016, I am proposing that, for this
first year, to keep the fee cap and anticipated billable hours at the numbers that are
currently indicated for 2015. For 2016, the fee cap would be set at $158,400. This
anticipates an average billable hours per month to be 146.6 or less.
Then for 2017, I am proposing the average monthly billable hours not exceed 150.8 and
the fee cap amount to be set at $162,900. Thus something less than 3% increase in the
fee cap as I am calculating a billable hour increase from 2016 to 2017 of 50 billable hours.
Then for 2018, I am proposing that the average monthly billable hours shall not exceed 155
and the fee cap amount to be set at$167,400. In otherwords, I am including an additional
50 billable hours for the year in calculating the fee cap for 2018. Again this is less than a
3% increase.
Finally, t have taken the liberty of submitting a draft Contract for the years 2016-2018 with
the proposed changes. This is attached as Exhibit "E".
CONCLUSION
As I indicated above, I am most certainly open to the idea moving into a flat fee
arrangement. Those benefits are discussed above. However, I do believe that those
benefits mostly fall to me and not the City. I am assuming that this Council would prefer
the current system. One that is based on 25 years of prosecution data regarding billable
time, case volume, fees paid, fine revenue collected, etc.. rather then some number that
might be obtained through more arbitrary means.
Further, the current system has a fee cap or limitation or, perhaps best put, a "not to
exceed amount." This was first proposed by me in 1998 as I knew the Council then wanted
to have a bottom line number. Having this fee limitation still provides the incentive for me
to manage the City's prosecution services as efficiently as possible. If I exceed the cap
amount, I bear that cost, It is for these reasons that I maintain an active role with Court
Administration, attend calendar plan meetings, track case volume, and continue to look at
ways to control costs as the transition into a fully electronic Court system continues.
My objective has been and will continue to be in providing quality prosecution services and,
at the same time, keeping the City's financial concerns in mind. I believe the enclosed
"Prosecution Services Proposal" reflects this objective.
12
September 10, 2015
MAYOR BAILEY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
Page Thirteen
Should anyone on the Council desire additional information relative to either the proposal
presented or the issues as set forth in my Update, please advise and I will be happy to
supplement the information in writing or, in the alternative, make an appearance before this
Council to personally address any concerns.
I thank you for your consideration.
cc: Chief Craig Woolery, Interim City Administrator
Pete Koerner, Acting Police Chief
13
EXHIBIT " "
PR SECUTIO CONT T SUMMi4 Y
(Billable Hours and Fees Charged)
Year Total Hours Average Hours Total Fees for Year Actual Fees
Per Month Amount Written
Off
1990 1,110.95 92.58 85,868.00
1991 1,329.40 93.30 93,022.50
1992 1,460.20 121.68 93,331.00
1993 1,276.15 106.35 90,777.92
1994 1,272.50 106.04 92,938.50
1995 1,361.35 113.45 99,401.25
1996 1,304.35 108.70 97,909.97
1997 1,347.80* 112.30* Unknown*
1998 1,512.50 126.05 Cap: 94,000.00
1999 1,452.10 121.01 101,647.00
2000 1,354.30 112.86 94,801.00
2001 1,442.90 120.24 101,003.00
2002 1,332.80 110.07 99,960.00 (Hourly increased $70 to $75)
2003 1,357.50 113.13 101,813.00
2004 1,504.40 125.36 Cap: 108,500.00 ($ 112,867.50) ($4,367.50)
2005 1,548.50 129.04 Cap: 123,200.00 (Hourly increased $75 to $80)
($ 123,928.00) ($ 728.00)
2006 1,525.20 127.10 122,016.00 (Fee Cap was $ 126,400)
2007 1,569.20 130.77 125,545.00 (Fee Cap was $ 131,200)
2008 1,536.10 128.00 122,888.00 (Fee Cap was $ 142,200)
2009 1,464.50 122.04 117,160.00 (Fee Cap was $ 144,600)
2010 1,584.40 132.03 126,752.00 (Fee Cap was $ 128,000)
2011 1,488.50 124.04 126,522.50 (Hourly increased $80 to $85)
(Fee Cap was $ 139,400)
2012 1,535.50 127.95 130,517.50 (Fee Cap was $ 142,800)
-------------------------CURRENT CONTRACT-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 1,572.80 131.06 133,688.00
(2013 Fee Cap $ 139,400.00)
(Amount under Cap=$5,712.00)
2014 1,655.90 137.99 140,751.50
(2014 Fee Cap $ 142,800.00)
(Amount underCap=$2,048.50)
2015 1,750.80+ 145.90+ 157,572.00+
(Hourly rate increased from $85 to $90 per hour)
(2015 Fee Cap $ 154,800.00)
(Predicted Write Off=$3,572.00+)
Notes:
* Estimated from 6 months of data. (Without billing information from Jack Clinton for 1997.)
- Bold emphasis reflects current contract information.
+ Estimated year end totals with Data through July, 2015.
1
FINE REVENUE PAID TO COTTAGE GROVE
(From 1990 to Present)
Court Fines Costs of Combined Total
Year City's share) Prosecution Fines & Costs
1990 $ 131,960,00 $ $
1991 115,061.00
1992 160,477.00
1993 157,646.00
1994 139,217.40
1995 140,310.08
1996 130,801.65
1997 157,234.53 7,500.00 164,734.53
1998 146,181.60 11,100.00 157,281.60
1999 155,663.91 12,457.76 168,121.67
2000 133,093.73 20,185.00 153,278.73
2001 129,781.61 16,608.00 146,389.61
2002 134,218.74 20,780.49 154,999.23
______________________________DATA PROVIDED IN COMBINED FORM ONLY------------__________o______________________
2003 173,985.65
2004 194,013.05
2005 209,394.88
2006 220,687.18
2007 $ 220,471.71
------------------------------DATA WITH PROSECUTION COSTS BROKEN OUT---------------------------------------
2008 173,094.85 47,202.75 $ 220,297.60
2009 134,516.19 54,762.31 ' $ 189,278.50
2010 130,566.99 69,692.34 $ 200,259.33
2011 134,367.39 56,944.28 $ 191,311.67
2012 112,403.11 48,648.75 $ 161,051.86
-----------------------------CURRENT CONTRACT DATA---------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 109,719.87 58,748.00 $ 168,467.87
2014 109,043.33 42,157.50 $ 151,200.83
2015 142,148.05+ 73,245.00+ $ 215,393.05+
+ Estimated year end totals with Data through July, 2015.
2
- PROSECUTION CASE LOAD - BREAKDOWN BY TYPE OF HEARING
(From 1990 to Present)
Year Arraiqnment Cases: Pre-triai Omnibus/Court Jury Calendar Sentencinqs, Plea &
Court/Hearing Officer Settinqs Trials/Plea Hearinqs Settinqs Probation Hearinqs
1990 -- 560 147 107 ---
1991 -- 644 94 91 ---
1992 -- 816 136 113 ---
1993 -- 741 145 108 ---
1994 -- 779 158 129 ---
1995 -- 769 135 146 ---
1996 296 734 66 95 --
1997 494 770 70 116 30
1998 383 932 86 154 59
1999 345 1,052 80 134 71
2000 466 1,068 78 78 31
2001 458 1,024 65 80 54
2002 462 1,053 50 130 103
2003 669 1,052 47 140 112
2004+ 878 1,322 64 110 143
2005 906 1,344 71 146 191
2006 1,033 1,480 67 120 183
2007 1,301 /349*= 1,650 1,618 108 137 231
2008 807/634*= 1,441 1,112 149 58 240
2009 909/ 1,052* = 1,961 952 64 41 172
2010 841 / 1,049*= 1,890 937 71 43 193
2011 620/748*= 1,368 1,010 90 31 168
2012 532/619* = 1,151 1,044 � 104 66 125
------------------------ CURRENT CONTRACT DATA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 757/793*= 1,550 976 90 43 28
2014 917/616*= 1,533 816 111 58 24
2015 1,021/830* = 1,851+ 974+ 204+ 52+ 36+
Notes:
* is the additional number of Cottage Grove arraignment cases seen by the Hearing Officer.
+ Estimated year end totals with Data through July, 2015
3
PROSECUTION CASE LOAD - REQUESTS FOR CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
(From 1990 to Present)
Year Formal Complaint Requests Declined To Prosecute
(cases reviewed but not charged by Complaint)
1990 116 33
1991 282 55
1992 197 22
1993 255 21
1994 256 17
1995 121 22
1996 184 35
1997 167 9
1998 200 20
1999 206 13
2000 193 17
2001 198 18
2002 195 14
2003 153 9
2004 189 17
2005 220 13
2006 172 14
2007 158 7
2008 220 4
2009 175 5
2010 187 11
2011 153 5
2012 152 2
----------------------- CURRENT CONTRACT DATA -----------------------------
2013 172 1
2014 205 6
2015 190+ 4+
Notes:
+ Estimated year end totals with Data through July, 2015.
4
EXHIBIT "B"
PROSECUTION SERVICES SUMMARY
-2013
-2014
, -2015
January, 2013- December, 2013 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE Page ' of 3
Client Summary- Prosecution Services
(First year of 3-year Contract) �
Criminal Prosecution Housing Matters MV Forfeitures MONTHLY
Q11-2011 Q10-1015 Q03-1000 TOTALS
(Prosecution
MONTH Hours Fees (*) Costs (+) Hours Fees (*) Costs (+) Hours Fees (✓) Costs (+) � Housing
Fees Onl
January, 2013 112.40 9,554.00 26.90 ---- ---- ---- 7.10 603.50 ---- 9,554.00
February, 2013 132.80 11,288.00 29.80 --=- ---- ---- 5.30 450.50 ---- 11,288.00
March, 2013 123.00 10,455.00 27.70 ---- ---- ---- 7.20 612.00 ---- 10,455.00
April, 2013 125.70 10,684.50 219.40 ---- ---- ---- 12.40 1,054.00 ---- 10,684.50
May, 2013 162.80 13,838_00 174.80 ---- ---- ---- 3.40 289.00 ---- 13,838.00
June, 2013 103.80 8,823.00 41.00 ---- ---- ---- 3.30 280.50 ---- 8,823.00
TOTAL (1/2 760:50 64,642.50 549_60 0:00 0.00 0.00 38.70 3,289.50 0.00 64,642.50
year):
July, 2013 114.00 9,690.00 15.90 ---- ---- ---- 6.50 552.50 ---- 9,690.00
August, 2013 149.80 12,733.00 29.20 ---- ---- ---- 3.00 255.00 ---- 12,733.00
September,2013 127.00 10,795.00 31_50 ---- ---- ---- 11.20 952.00 ---- 10,795.00
October, 2013 164.30 13,965.50 44.70 ---- ---- ---- 2.00 170.00 ---- 13,965.50
November, 2013 120.60 10,251.00 19.00 ---- ---- ---- 0.50 42.50 ---- 10,251.00
Decem ber, 2013 136.60 11,611.00 33.10 ---- ---- ---- 4.00 340.00 ---- 11,611.00
TOTAL (1/2 812.30 69,045.50 173.40 ` 0,00 0.00 0.00 27.20 2,312.00 0.00 69,045.50
year):
TOTAL (YEAR): 1,572:80 133,688.00 693.00 0:00 ' 0.00 0.00 65.90 5,601.50` 0.00 133,688:00
" All fees are billed at the hourly rate of$85.00 per hour per Contract; 2013 SUMMARY:
✓ Represents fees billed directly to the City's DWI Forteiture Fund. -2013 FEE CAP= $ 139,400.00
+ Costs include service of subpoenas, obtaining records, certified mail & -2013 TOTAL FEES PAID=$ 133,688.00
copy costs for Court complaints at the rate of$.10 per copy; (AMOUNT UNDER FEE CAP=$5,712.00)
January, 2014- December, 2014 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE Page 2 of 3
Client Summary - Prosecution Services
(Second year of 3-year Contract)
Criminal Prosecution Housing Matters MV Forfeitures MONTHLY
Q11-2011 Q10-1015 Q03-1000 TOTALS
(Prosecution
MONTH Hours Fees (*) Costs (+) Hours Fees (*) Costs (+) Hours Fees (✓) Costs (+) &Housing
Fees Onl
January, 2014 132.20 11,237.00 19.40 ---- ---- ---- 2.50 212.50 ---- 11,237_00
February, 2014 126.20 10,727.00 14.10 ---- ---- ---- 0.00 ---- ---- 10,727.00
March, 2014 135.90 11,551.50 54.90 ---- ---- ---- 0.40 34.00 ---- 11,551.50
April, 2014 138.10 11,738.50 32.60 ---- ---- ---- 0.00 ---- ---- 11,738.50
May, 2014 148.50 12,622.50 44.00 ---- ---- ---- 0.00 ---- ---- 12,622.50
June, 2014 134.30 11,415.50 38.60 ---- ---- ---- 1.50 127.50 ---- 11,415.50
TOTAL (1/2 815.20 69,292.00 203.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 374.00 0.00 69,292.00
year):
July, 2014 161.70 13,744.50 220.70 ---- ---- ---- 10.30 875.50 ---- 13,744.50
August, 2014 133.30 11,330.50 29.00 ---- ---- ---- 8.70 739.50 ---- 11,330.50
September,2014 155.10 13,183.50 50.60 ---- ---- ---- 0.50 42.50 ---- 13,183.50
October, 2014 137.20 11,662.00 15.60 ---- ---- ---- 12.10 1,028.50 ---- 11,662.00
November, 2014 125.20 10,642.00 20.80 ---- ---- ---- 4.80 408.00 ---- 10,642.00
December, 2014 128.20 10,897.00 53.10 ---- ---- ---- 6.30 535.50 ---- 10,897.00
TOTAL (1/2 840.70 71,459:50 389.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.70 3,629.50 0.00 71,459.50
year):
TOTAL.(YEAR): , 1,655.90 140,75�1.50 593.40 0.00 O.QO 0:00 47.10 4,003.50 0,00 1'40,751_50
* All fees are billed at the hourly rate of$85.00 per hour per Contract; 2014 SUMMARY:
✓ Represents fees billed directly to the City's DWI ForFeiture Fund. -2014 FEE CAP= $ 142,800.00
+ Costs include service of subpoenas, obtaining records, certified mail & -2014 TOTAL FEES PAID=$ 140,751.50
copy costs for Court complaints at the rate of$.10 per copy; (AMOUNT UNDER FEE CAP=$2,048.50)
January, 2015- December, 2015 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE Page 3 of3
Client Summary - Prosecution Services
(Third year of 3-year Contract)
Criminal Prosecution Housing Matters MV Forfeitures MONTHLY
Q11-2011 Q10-1015 Q03-1000 TOTALS
(Prosecution
MONTH Hours Fees (*) Costs (+) Hours Fees (*) Costs (+) Hours Fees (✓) Costs (+) &Housing
Fees Onl
January, 2015 156.80� 14,112_00 19.50 ---- ---- ---- 17.00 1,530.00 ---- 14,112.00
February, 2015 132.80 11,952.00 32.40 ---- ---- ---- 1.90 171.00 ---- 11,952.00
March, 2015 154.60 13,914.00 200.80 ---- ---- ---- 11.30 1,017.00 ---- 13,914.00
April, 2015 151_60 13,644_00 9.80 ---- ---- ---- 3.00 270.00 ---- 13,644.00
May, 2015 132.80 11,952.00 0.30 ---- ---- ---- 9.50 855.00 ---- 11,952.00
June, 2015 145.80 13,122.00 0.00 ---- ---- ---- 1.00 90.00 ---- 13,122.00
TOTAL (1/2 874:40 78,696:00 262:80 0.00 0.00 0.00 43:70 3,933.00 0.00 78,696.00
year):
July, 2015 146.90 13,221.00 0.00 ---- ---- ---- 11.50 1,035.00 ---- 13,221.00
August, 2015 156.90 14,121.00 0.00 ---- ---- ---- 3.00 270.00 ---- 14,121.00
September,2015
October, 2015
November, 2015
December, 2015
TOTAL (1/2 303..80 27,342.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 14:50 1,305.00 0.00 27,342.00
year);
TOTAL (YEAR): '1,178.20 106,038:00 262_80 0.00 0.00 0.00 ::58,20 5;238.00 0;00 106,038.D0
* All fees are billed at the hourly rate of$90.00 per hour per Contract; 2015 SUMMARY:
✓ Represents fees billed directly to the City's DWI ForFeiture Fund. -2015 FEE CAP= $ 154,800.00
+ Costs include seroice of subpoenas, obtaining records, certified mail& -2015 TOTAL FEES PAID=$
copy costs for Court complaints at the rate of$.10 per copy;
EVI�IIvI� 6i�77
/\
DWI FORFEITURE SUMMARY �
(1997 to Present)
-Total DWI forfeiture fee's collected by City.
-Number of DWI forFeiture files opened by City Attorney.
(Does not include DWI forFeiture files opened by County Attorney.)
-Money paid out of forFeiture fund for Attorney's Fees to City Attorney.
Year DWI Forfeiture Fee's Collected New Files Attorney Fees Paid
1997 Without data 4 $ 462.00
1998 Without data 26 3,178.00
1999 $ 18,287.00 21 5,621.00
2000 5,378.57 17 4,718.00
� 2001 8,529.72 19 7,903.00
2002 16,711.80 26 5,895.00
2003 14,476.44 24 6,802.50
2004 15,742.29 22 5,317.50
2005 14,204.38 33 7,664.00
2006 33,855.40 29 14,616.00
2007 19,979.60 21 10,160.00
2008 29,076.35 33 10,736.00
2009 38,335.98 27 9,656.00
2010 24,139.02 28 10,264.00
2011 45,281.15 26 8,313.00
2012 29,573.00 25 9,324.50
-------------------- CURRENT CONTRACT DATA ------------------------------------------
2013 15,699.00 11 5,601.50
2014 3,890.00 16 4,003.50
2015 $ 12,318.00+ 21+ $ 7,857.00+
(+2015 data through August, 2015)
Notes:
�Does not include value of 2002 Dodge Durango converted to School Resource Vehicle.
+ 2015 numbers are extrapolated from Data for January, 2012 through August, 2015.
EVLIIQIT Li�79
/\f7 v
PROSECUTION SERVICES PROPOSAL
BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2016
Proposed Prosecution Services Contract:
-Hourly Rate remains the same for 2016, 2017 and 2018 = $90.00 per hour;
-Predicted Annual Hours for Contract;
-Increase in Hours from one year to the next;
-Predicted Average Monthly Hours for Prosecution;
-Annual fee limitation by year w/all in-Court time in Stillwater;
-Actual fees paid by the City.
Actual Increase Actual Fee Cap Fee Cap Actual
Annual in Annual Monthly w/CG w/o CG Fees
Year Hours Billed Hours Hours Court Court Paid by CitX
------------------------------- PRIOR CONTRACT ----------------------------------------------------
2010 1,584.40 ---- 132 ---- $128,000 $126,752.00
- Hourly rate at $80 per hour.
- Actual amount under Fee Cap for 2010 - $1,248
2011 1,488.50 ---- 124 ---- $139,400 $126,522.50
- Hourly rate increased from $80 to $85 per hour.
-Actual amount under Fee Cap for 2011 - $12,877.50
2012 1,535.50 ---- 128 ---- $142,800 $130,517.50
- Hourly rate at $85 per hour.
-Actua) amount under Fee Cap for 2012 - $12,282.50
--------------------------- CURRENT CONTRACT 2015 - 2015 --------------------------
2013 1,572.80 ---- 131 ---- $139,400 $133,688.00
- Hourly rate at $85 per hour.
-Actual amount under Fee Cap for 2013 - $ 5,712.00
2014 1,655.90 ---- 138 ---- $142,800 $140,751.50
- Hourly rate at $85 per hour.
- Actual amount under Fee Cap for 2014 - $ 2,048.50
2015 1,750.80+ ---- 146+ ---- $154,800 $157,680+
- Hourly rate increased from $85 to $90 per hour.
- Estimate will be OVER Fee Cap for 2015 - Fee Write Off amount $ 2,880.00+
+ Extrapolated from hours and fees billed through July, 2015.
Predicted Increase Predicted
Annual in Annual Monthly Actual
Year Hours Hours Hours Fee Cap Fees
---------------------------- PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR 2016 - 2018 --------------------------
2016 1,760 40 146.6 $158,400
- No increase in Hourly rate = remains at $90 per hour.
- 2.4% increase in Fee Cap hours (40 hours more than 2015)
2017 1,810 50 150.8 $162,900
- No increase in Hourly rate = remains at $90 per hour.
- 2.8% increase in Fee Cap hours (50 hours more than 2016)
2018 1,860 50 155.0 $167,400
- No increase in Hourly rate = remains at $90 per hour.
- 2.8% increase in Fee Cap hours (50 hours more than 2017)
-2-
EXHI IT " "
LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement, made this day of , , by and
between the City of Cottage Grove, hereinafter referred to as "City,"first party and the law
firm of F. Joseph Taylor, P.A., hereinafter referred to as "Taylor," second party.
A. City has selected Taylor to serve as the law firm providing criminal prosecution services
to the City based upon a formal proposal submitted by Taylor dated September 10, 2015.
B. City and Taylor desire to embody, in this written agreement, their understanding on
such matters as the scope of services and the fee arrangement.
Therefore, it is hereby agreed between the parties as follows:
1. SERVICES: Taylor will prosecute all petty misdemeanor, misdemeanor and
gross misdemeanor offenses together with any ordinance violations occurring within the
geographical boundaries of the City. Taylor will provide the following prosecution services:
a) Advisinq. Review of all investigatory reports; consultations with
police and City officials throughout the work week, evenings and
weekends; advising police and the other City departments on
appropriate action or follow-up to be taken in cases submitted for
review.
b) Charging, Drafting complaints for statutory and ordinance violations
(petty misdemeanor, misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor
offenses); if probable cause exists, drafting appropriate e-charging
documents and arranging to have a criminal complaint presented to
a Judge of the Washington County District Court for review and
signing; arranging to have the defendant appear in response to
appropriate process;
c) Arraignments. Appearing at all arraignments for the City in
Washington County District Court(petty misdemeanor, misdemeanor
and gross misdemeanor offenses).
1
d) Court Trials. Representing the City at trials for petty misdemeanor
and certain misdemeanors in Washington County District Court;
assembling the case file; notifying and/or subpoenaing all necessary
witnesses; obtaining all necessary documentation (certified driving
records, prior conviction records, insurance records, etc.); meeting
with and interviewing witnesses; presenting the City's case; and
attending any subsequent proceedings(sentencing, probation review
and/or revocation hearings, restitution hearings, etc.)
e) Pretrial Conferences. Representing the City at pretrial conferences
(misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor) held in Washington County
District Court; preparing the case file; obtaining all necessary
documentation (certified driving records, certified conviction records,
etc.); notifying and/or subpoenaing any necessary witnesses;
contacting victims pursuant to the Victim's Rights Act (to solicit input
on case disposition, restitution, etc.); making and responding to
pretrial motions; and appearing for the City at the pretrial hearing.
� Omnibus Hearings. Representing the City at omnibus hearings
and/or evidentiary hearings held in Washington County District Court;
preparing a case file; obtaining all necessary documentation(certified
driving records, certified conviction records, etc.); notifying and/or
subpoenaing any necessary witnesses, contacting victims pursuant
to the Victims Rights Act; and appearing for the City at
omnibus/evidentiary hearings.
g) Jury Trials. Representing the City in jury trials in Washington County
DistrictCourt(misdemeanorand gross misdemeanoroffenses); being
available throughout the week should any case be called for trial;
preparing the case file; notifying and/or subpoenaing witnesses;
obtaining all necessary documents; responding to pretrial and
evidentiary motions and presenting the City's case to the jury.
h) Sentencinq. Representing the City at sentencings (petty
misdemeanors, misdemeanors and gross misdemeanor offenses);
presenting information pursuarit to the Victim's Rights Act; supplying
the Court with all necessary information (prior record, restitution
claims, etc.); and arguing the City's case at sentencing.
i) Revocation Hearinqs. Representing the City at revocation hearings
(petty misdemeanors, misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors);
preparing the case file; notifying and/or subpoenaing necessary
witnesses; and arguing the City's case at the hearing.
2
j) Ordinance Enforcement. Prosecuting all ordinance violations;working
closely with the various City departments to enforce all City
ordinances; advising the City as requested or required on all
ordinance developments and changes; consulting as necessary with
the civil City Attorney on ordinance development and interpretation;
k) Appeals. Appeals from District Court are to the Minnesota Court of
Appeals and then a discretionary appeal to the Minnesota Supreme
Court. Appeals are rarely taken by the defense in non-felony matters
and almost never pursued by the prosecution. Appeals are nofi
covered by this agreement, and may only be initiated with the express
permission of the Director of Public Safety and/or the City
Administrator.
I) Officer Traininq. Informing, advising and training the Cottage Grove
Police Officers and other City personnel on legislative changes, case
law developments and court room procedures including testifying.
m) Civil Forfeiture. Consulting with police and other City personnel on
forfeiture issues including case updates, preparing all necessary
pleadings in the forFeiture action as well as appearing on behalf of the
City at any hearings relating to the civil action.
n) Detainer Requests. Responding on behalf of the City to any requests
for detainer filed with the Court; prepare any necessary documents
relating to transport and appear in response to the appropriate
process.
o) Re orts. Maintaining all statistical data relating to prosecution
activities and providing updates to Council and staff as requested.
2. FEES.
a) Hourlv Rate/Fee Limitation in 2016 2017 and 2018 The City
agrees to compensate Taylor at the rate of Ninety Dollars ($90.00)
per hour for all prosecution services described in paragraph one (1),
with a limitation that the annual compensation shall not exceed the
sum of One Hundred Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Dollars and
00/100 ($158,400.00) in 2016; the sum of One Hundred Sixty Two
Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars and 00/100 ($162,900.00) in 2017;
and the sum of One Hundred Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred
Dollars and 00/100 ($167,400.00) in 2018.
3
b) Forfeiture Fund. The City has an established DWI forfeiture fund
that is being administered pursuant to Minn. Stat. §169A.63, Subd.
10. The proceeds from these funds are to be used exclusively for
DWI related enforcement, training and education. Further, said
Statute requires thirty percent (30%) of the money or proceeds
collected to be forwarded to Taylor as the prosecuting authority.
Taylor has agreed that, upon receipt of any proceeds from the City's
forfeiture fund, the City will receive a credit against any previous
billing for time spent on DWI forfeiture matters as set forth in
Paragraph One (1)(m). As directed by State Statute, any proceeds
- forwarded from the City's forFeiture fund are specificallyexcluded from
the computation of the annual compensation limitations set forth in
Paragraph Two (2)(a) above.
c) Additional Services. No criminal prosecution services or other legal
services in addition to those described in paragraph one (1) shall be
undertaken by or expected of Taylor without the express request and
authorization of the City and without a prior agreement between the
City and Taylor as to compensation for any such additional services.
3. COSTS. Taylor shall also be separately reimbursed for any costs and
disbursements which Taylor incurs in connection with providing any of the services
described in paragraph one(1)ofthis agreement. Reimbursable costs and disbursements
shall include out-of-pocket expenses such as the key fob issued by the Minnesota Bureau
of Criminal Apprehension for access to its e-charging network, filing fees, transcript fees,
photocopying, etc., for documents and materials required to be served and/or filed with the
Court. Any costs and disbursements wil� be itemized on the monthly billing statement, The
costs and disbursements do not include expenses for secretarial or word processing
services nor general office supplies.
4. MONTHLY BILLINGS. A fee statement will be submitted by Taylor to the
City for legal services and shall include costs and disbursements. This fee statement shall
be submitted to the City Council on a monthly basis. The fee statement shall be in
sufficient detail to adequately inform the City concerning the tasks performed, the time
spent on each such task, the nature and extent of the costs and disbursements. The fee
statements shall also show the total time spent and the fees charged.
5. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Taylor agrees that it will not undertake the
representation of any person or other entity during its appointment as Prosecuting Attorney
in instances where such representation may create a potential conflict of interest, unless:
a) Taylor reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect
its relationship with the City; and
b) The City and such other person or entity have consented after
consultation.
4
6. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE. Taylor shall maintain, during the
term of this contract, professional liability insurance ensuring payment of damage for legal
liability arising out of the perFormance of professional services for the City, in the insured's
capacity as an attorney, in an amount of at least Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($500,000.00)with an insurance company in good standing and authorized to do business
in the State of Minnesota.
7. TERM OF AGREEMENT. This agreement shall be from January 1, 2016
through the last day of December, 2018, and being renewed thereafter upon mutual
agreement by the parties. Either party may terminate this agreement upon ninety (90)
days written notice to the other party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands the day and year
above written.
F. JOSEPH TAYLOR, P.A. CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
By: By:
F. Joseph Taylor, President Myron Bailey, Mayor
By:
Joe Fischbach, City Clerk
5