HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-20 PACKET 12.B.��cauES c�F ci� cou�ciL ac�rio� cou�ciL AG�NDA
�E��i�G i���n �
DAT'E 5/20/98 ____��_�j
PF2EF'AREC3 BY: Administration Ryan Schroeder
C7RlGINATIPdG DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTNOR
.�������#.�,...�.�...*,.�.....�.�...�.����.4��k�
s , , � , �
Discuss Prosecution Services as provided by fVir. Joe Taylar
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
� MEMO/LET7ER: Ryan Schroeder, City Administra4or dated 5-14-98
❑ RESOLUTION:
❑ ORDINANCE:
❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMEPJDATION:
❑ LEGAL RECOMNIEIdDATION:
� OTHER: Letter from Joe Taylor dated 5-14-98
,� ., �, �
� s` � 9
City Adminis4rator Date
��.��....*.......tr..��¢.,�..��«�«...�..�..����.�.
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEtd: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTFiER
� •
.
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Ryan R. Schroeder, City Administrator
Date: May 19, 1998
Re: Prosecution Services
EnGosed, piease find a memorandum from Joe Taylor updaling you on prosecution services through
ten months of the corrtract perial. Please note that Mr. Taylor is expressing a desire to discuss an
increase in the annual cap for prosecution fees from the contractual $87,500. I believe that his request
is to increase the cap to approwmateiy $94,000 during this contract period. This would be
approbmately $6,000 to $7,000 below his expected biliable time and $6,500 above the current cap.
When Council requested proposais for prosecution services a year ago ten were received. The
expected retainer caps from those proposers are as foilows:
Holstad $84,000
Taylor $87,500 Qnterviewed)
Eckberg $90,000+ (interviewed)
Nesvig $90,000
Magnuson $98,000
Campbeli $99,000 (interviewed)
Peterson, Bell $101,712
Severson $102,000
Peterson, Fram $102,000
Foster $102,000
It was expected from past experience that there wouid be 1200 billabie hours for prosecution services.
Mr. Taylor is expected to provide appro�timately 1400 billabie hours of time. Under the contract,
however, time expended beyond the 1200 is not recoverable from the City.
During my tenure at the aties of Robbinsdale and Ramsey we entered into contracts for prosecution
services with the fees capped as they are here. in both cases the first year after the bid resuRed in
hours expended by the law firtn in excess of that rewverable under the cap. In one of those cases the
amount exceeded was considerable (2 1/2 months of fees). In neither case was the cap revised.
However, in both of these examples ihe prosecution conirads were for three-year period. My
recommendation in that regarcl is that the City considers proposing a fivo or three year agreement or
e�dension of the currerrt agreement for a like period.
• Page 1
My understanding of the levei of service provided by Mr. Taylor to the Police Departme�t (which is over
97% of our totai u[ilization of his services) is that the staff is quite pleased with his approach and results.
It shouid also be noted pursuant to the attached materials that 'rf the cap were not increased, fees
during this contrect wouid be below those paid in every year since 1990. Wdh the requested increase
the fees would stiii be below those paid since 1995 (although not by a large amount). Our fine revenue
is aiso expeded to euceed our prosecution Iegai costs in 1998 (aflhough it wiil be far beiow our total
costs incurred inGuding PuWic Safety Department expenses).
COUNCIL ACTiON: Based on discussion.
• Page 2
�, ,���, ���� ��'�,��9 � Av
E Joseph Taylor
ATTflRNEY AT LAW
7C64 West Point Douglas Rozd • Suice '03
Coccage Grove, Minnesoca 55016
(612}459-6644 Phone
(612)459-4719 Fas
Pacey DeRocker
Crimfnal Porale�al
Eilen i3rand
Adminfscrnti.'e ,as.iscanc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Jack Denzer
Councilmember Jim Wolcott
Councilmember Rod Hale
Councilmember Sandy Shiely
Councilmember Cheryl Kohls
FROM: F. Joseph Taylor ( j-��
.���,
DATE: May 14, 1998
RE: Prosecution Services Update
Dear Mayor Denzer and Councilmembers:
i am forwarding this Memorandum to Gouncil for the purposes of keeping Council
apprised as to the status of prosecution services as we near the end of the one year
contract. I am also seeking feedback from the Council with respect to two issues. First,
the affects of the 1998 Legisiative changes to Minnesota's DUI law on our contract and
second, I am requesting direction regarding the submission of a proposal for
prosecution services beginning July 1, 1998.
Current Contract
I have again attached my "Client Summary" as Exhibit "A" which details all expenditures
made by Council for prosecution services. As of the end of the Aprii billing cycle, the
total fees paid by the City for prosecution services are $82,985.00. My legal services
agreement sets forth a fee limitation that the annual compensatio� shall not exceed the
sum of $87,500.00. I am, therefore, $4,515.00 under my annual cap with two billing
months left in this year's agreement. During the first four months of 1998, I have bee�
averaging approximately $8,900.00 per month. If those numbers hold true to form, I wili
be over our agreed upon cap by approximately $13,000.00 to $14,000.00.
May 14, 1998
MAYOR DENZER AND COUNCILMEMBERS
Page 2
By way of background, I have been primarily responsibie for the prosecution services
dating back to 1990. I have statistical numbers relative to the total time spent providing
these services and I had this information at the time I bid the contract. If the increase
time spent on prosecution services were due solely to a rise in case volume greater
than expected, that increase would rest solely on my shoulders as I knowingly proposed
a contract that contained a"fee cap". Enciosed as Exhibit "B" you will find a
Memorandum written by Dennis Cusick dated April 8, 1998. Dennis raises the issue
that the 1998 Legisiative mandates were not contempiated nor considered at the time
we antered into our contract. Specifically, implementation of the new DUI legislation
which went into effect January 1, 1998 set torth, among other things, a new offense
level termed "Enhanced Gross Misdemeanor", the creation of a new crime based on
one's alcohol concentration level, i.e. 0.20 or more, and changed the laws in the area
of plate impoundment, forfeiture of motor vehicles, conditionai release requirements,
etc., all of which falis under our prosecutorial responsibility and is more particulariy
described in my Memorandum to Council dated March 23, 1998.
With respect to the effect the 1998 legislation has had on our caseload, there has been
a dramatic increase in the number of Jury Trial settings. Currently, we are backlogged
and cases are being set for Jury Trials into September, 1998. Normally, we would have
Jury Trials twice a month. In the month of March, we had three separate Jury Trial
settings and then in the month of April, we had four Jury Trial settings. The increased
fees displayed on our Client Summary, Exhibit "A", show high numbers in the months
of March and April primarily due to this increased trial calendar. I enclose our 1997
Prosecution Contract Summary, Exhibit "C", which shows the annual numbers through
1997. Exhibit "D" sets forth statistical data conceming the prosecution caseload for the
first four months of 1998. If these numbers continue, we will have neariy doubled the
amount of Jury Trials that we had from 1997 to 1998. Likewise, we have already had,
in the first four months, the same number of Contested Hearings that we had in the
entire year last year. Further, the number of formal Complaints that must be drafted
have increased due to the 1998 Legislation.
Mv Proposal
It is my proposal to Council that we spiit the amount that exceeds the annual cap. I
recognize that any increase in fees due to either an increased caseload or more
aggressive prosecution falls under my responsibility. As I reported in my last Memo,
I was approximately $3,000.00 over the annuai cap for the months of July through
December of 1997 a�d, during this period, the new legisiation was not yet in effect.
Assuming a similar overage for the second nalf of our contract, the total would be very
close to 50% of the total anticipated to be the overage for the entire year. If the Council
were to approve my proposai, it would be my intent to bill the City for prosecution
services accrued during the
May 14, 1998
MAYOR DENZER AND COUNCILMEMBERS
Page 3
month of May, 1998 and make the adjustment at the end of the June, 1998 billing
writing off one-half of the amount in excess of $87,500.00.
Future Contract for Prosecution Services
The second reason for this Memorandum is to solicit direction from Council with regard
to the prosecution services starting July 1, 1998. As I recall, Councii proposed a one
year term as both myself and Mr. Long were contracting with the City for the first time.
I believe there was also some discussion about increasing the following term by adding
an extra half year to the end of the Contract to get Mr. Long and I back on the calendar
year.
My proposal to Council concerning future prosecutio� services would remain
unchanged from our original agreement with one exception. That exception wouid be
to negotiate more room under the so-cailed "fee cap" for the reasons specified above.
I wouid not be seeking any rate increase but continue to operate under the $70.00 per
hour rate as originally agreed. Further, I would continue to provide ali of the same
services currently set forth in our Fee Agreement.
Otherissues
Finaliy, the following is a discussion of several issues that have or may have an effect
on the amount of time required to provide prosecution services to the City. As I
indicated above, the number of Jury Trial settings has increased dramatically, primarily
as a result of the 1998 legislation. As a result of this backlog, the Washington County
District Court Judges and Court Administration are looking at several options to address
this "over-crowded" trial calendar. One option currently being discussed is the moving
of ali Cottage Grove Jury Trials to the Stillwater Court facility. I have been very
aggressive in opposing this proposal on the basis of both time and cost to our City. The
travel time alone wou{d add an extra hour for all Court appearances. Additionally, I am
aware the majority of our Officers live in or near our community and they would have
to allow for sufficient travel time if Court were scheduled on their day off. O�cers that
would be on duty at the time of their scheduled Court appearance wouid be out of
service for a greater period of time. As of this writing, the Judges appear to be split on
the viability of this option. I will continue to update Council.
Another option being proposed with respect to the "over-crowded" Jury Trial calendar
is the scheduling of at least one additiona� trial date each month. We were originally
scneduled to operate with Jury Trials being scheduled every other Monday. Under this
option, Jury Trials would then be scheduied in Cottage Grove at least three out of every
four Mondays.
May 14, 1998
MAYOR DENZER AND COUNCILMEMBERS
Page 4
This is the same tactic that I described above and was utilized in the months of March
a�d April to try to get caught up on the backlog. It has been suggested that this
practice should continue.
On a positive note, the success of our attending arraignments and subsequently ciosing
a large number of our petty misdemeanor files without the need for scheduling Court
Trials has freed up some time on the Court calendar such that they are able to schedule
Jury Trials three out of four weeks. As I discussed previousiy, the closing of the petty
misdemeanor files at arraignment is a tremendous cost savings to the City relative to
overtime doliars. Because of the success of this reduction in the Cottage Grove and
Woodbury Court Trial calendar, the Washington County Bench has implemented a
similar policy for the other jurisdictions that operate out of the Stillwater facility. I wili
continue to attend the arraignment calendar and the practice of attempting to close as
many of the petty misdemeanor files as possible.
On another positive note, I have had some discussions with Court Administration
regarding the processing of Compiaints. Specificaily, as of May 1, 1998, we will no
longer have to provide the Court with the five extra copies that were required to
accompany a particular Compiaint. Court Administration is going to assume the
responsibility of making the necessary copies of both the Compiaint and the reports.
I am optimistic that this wili result in a significant savings in our photocopying expenses.
We have also devised a procedure in Cottage Grove that we believe wiil save both my
time and our Investigators time. Formaily, in an "in-custody" situation on a weekend,
an Investigator would be required to come to the Cottage Grove Police Department,
review the appropriate file, contact me and once I have prepared the necessary
Complaint, that Investigator wouid have the responsibility of locating and traveling to
a signing Judge's home, then hand deliver the signed Complaint to the Stillwater Jail
facility. The procedure being utilized now is such that upon a telephone conversation
with me regarding probable cause, we have forms in place that are to be completed by
the arresting officer, reviewed by the Investigator and forwarded via facsimile
transmission to the Stillwater Jail facility. It wili then be the jail's responsibility to bring
the matter before the on-call Judge. This is clearly a more efficient process to handle
the in-custody situations that occur outside of business hours. The importance of either
having the Complaint or the Probable Cause Determination to the jail facility is
significant. I point out a very recent incident regarding a St. Paul abduction suspect
who was released from the Ramsey County Jail facility due to a miscommunication
between the St. Paul Police Department and their attorney's office. I am aware that our
Investigators at Cottage Grove are very familiar with the rules regarding time
constraints when a person is incarcerated and I will continue with our efforts to keep an
open line of communication with our Investigators to ensure that the scenario that
occurred in St. Paul does not occur in Cottage Grove.
May 14, 1998
MAYOR DENZER AND COUNCILMEMBERS
Page 5
i raise one (ast issue that concerns our domestic abuse policy in Cottage Grove. I recall
Council having several concerns regarding domestic abuse cases, the Victim's Rights
Act, and aggressive prosecution. What is now being set up in Cottage Grove is a pilot
project for domestic abuse directed at multi-family housing areas within the City. The
project k�own as "Circie Sentencing" is in its inception stage and is bei�g proposed to
function very similariy to that of a diversion program. The primary focus is to have the
community directly involved in deciding the conditions that may be imposed on a
particular defendant. I am optimistic that Cirde Sentencing wi�l be operational within
the very near future. I will keep Council advised as to its success.
Conclusion
If the Councii is in need of additional information relative to the time spent on
prosecution services in the first year or more detailed information on the 1998
legislation, please advise and I would be happy to forward same. In the alternative, if
Council desires a personal appearance, I would be more than happy to attend your ne�
meeting. It is my i�tent to leave the "fee cap" issue open for Council consideration. i
sincerely hope my proposai would not be interpreted as any type of demand. With
respect to the future contract issue, I am simply soliciting Council direction. If there
shouid be any questions, i invite you to give me a cail.
Thank you.
ca Chief Jim Kinsey
Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator
W
�
�
�
�
W
�
�
F'-
�
N
U
L
N
�
C
O
�
U
�
N
O
a`
�
U�
m
O �
� �
H �
U �
�
U
T o ° o o ° o ° o ° o ° o
J N C � tn e- I� O � fh
a � � O� t� M t.�f) W �
O � � CO CO h OJ 1� h- r '
� N d �
LL.
...-
�
.N �p O
o + N � o � � i N
U M � � � i ' �
r �
N
d
�
,+�-� �. � O O O O O O O
'C h
� r> a�i r N l� l� N V �
��' O lL
� �
�
� O O O O O O O
y t!') V' CO 0� O CO
�" r � N CO
�
O
S
� �
+ M M
N � �
"" i i N i i ! N
N
O
U
�
::
c0 a O O O O O
� O � O O O O O
�� � n ; � � i � �
�� O ti � r-
0
x
0 0 0 0 0
� .- ro o o rn
� � ; r: .= ; .= o
O i � �
x
�i � � �. � � Q Q
cv r � � .- rn r.
* GO V � O� N �- �-
y c- r <}' c- M M
� U �
0
�
� o 0 0 0 0 0 0
y� � o 0 0 0 0 0 0
O N `� m I� O) e- M 6) o�
a � H � (O CO W I`C` C�O O�i
�
G � LL �
.�
.`
V O O O o 0 0 0
� (� �- I� M 6'� i� V'
�
_ { � � � O O �
2
F � � � � � � �
W
Z� W � i' � � � ¢ N
� ' N
� G CA O Z � ��
o o ° o 0 0 ° o ° o ° o
CO N ln (�O � � � �
N V � (O CO �
CO W � � M OJ
O O
O N
i � i i M
� i i i �
O O O � O
O
i � t� � � N
a- (+') � O
�
O O O O O
W � � � �
; N O cY �p .. V
i �
O �>
I 1 I i O N
i i i i
O O O � O
O
� �1' I� �j �LCj
� N N <t � �
N ti- �,.� �
r
0 0 0 0 0
�
; o ri c�i � �o
� �
� � � r
� � � � � �
M � N O �j i`�.
� � M N � �
N N
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 ° o
� � n � � .�;�..
CO O � O � O
N N N � CO
o� O� 6i m � O
� �
O O O O � M
W I� � �- r � �f'
�- �- M M � �
v- � � � � �
�
�
� �
� O� � rn O�i � (6 �..�.
� � � � � � Q A Q.
c ,p � = >' c � N 1—
-` ti � Q � -'� o � O
>,
�
O
U
N
a
O
•--
EA
O
N
(D
i
N
�
�
N
C
.�
Q
�
O
U
�
�
O
C�
O
�
�
N
O
U
T
Q
O
U
U�
� �
i �
C �
U �
� �
��
fl ' U
�
� �
o -
� �
L Q
� ^'
�- i
O
O �
O '�
r -
� �
� �
0 0
N uj
� C N
T N ,�
� a m
O 7 .G
L N �
� O �
+' N �
(6 V p
'a � U
� N N
� N 5
'�
� 7 �
N U C
� � N
N �
QU�
� +,
Q
�-'
m
_
X
w
� �
To: City Administrator Ryan Scnroeder
From: Director of Public Sarety Dennis S. Cusick
Date: April 8, 1998
Re: CRlMINAL PROSECUTfON SERVICES
IN?RCDUCTION
When Council retained Mr. Joseph Taylor as the C;ty Prosecutor, they requested we
develop a comprehensive prosecution prcgram. The pur�ose of this memorardum is
to ucdate the Council on �he developmert cf the pres2cuticn prcgram and request
if12 l�..liy �.OU(1.C1� 840Gi i�l@ @(1CIGScG� F''i0S2CUt�Cf1 VUIG''2tificS BiIU' �Oficiiu(c
Procedures.
DISCUSSION
With the ever-increasing criminal caselead placed on the Judicial System, plea-
bargaining is an essential component of the system frequently imposed by the
Judges. Whether we agree with it or not, we must work within the system.
The role of the Prosecutor is to ensure that justice is achieved by proving the
commission of criminai acts, either through a guilty plea o� triai to the Court or Jury.
While the Prosecutor has a responsibility to assist the Crimiral Justice System and
the Courts ;n processing cases, there is a greater responsibility to ensure that rights
of crime victims and the public are protected 6y the appropriate disposition of cases.
To achieve justice and ensure for an efficient, consistent and effective Criminal
Prosecution Program, I be{ieve it is essentiai that local communities in conjunction
with their Prosecutor, develop formal prosecution guidelines which include piea
negotiation standards and sentencing recommendations.
f�71.�I:�i�
• Page 1
Mr. Joseph Tay�or and i devefoped the Prosecution Guidelines for Cottace Grove
which are an adderdum to this memorandum. The guidelines as you can see, are
comorehensive, achieve :he;ustice responsioility of the o�ice of the Prosecutor and
the City Council as the elected representatives of the citizens.
Aside from the legai and pnilosoonical principies, these guidelines establish a
standard of prosecution which direct!y effects the cost or our Cnminal Prosecution
Services.
Our request is that the Cib� `ormaliy adcpt the proposed Frosecution Guidelines.
The second area that we are requesting City Councii 2ndorsement of is our Vehicle
Forfeiture philcsophy and procedures, particulariy in the area of driv;ng while urder
the influence of alcohoL
The r�e�v law authorizes ?olice OfPicers to seize the vehicle of semeone arrested for a
third driving wnile intoxicated offense. The oid law provided for seizure after a fourth
offense. A driver fourd to have a biood alcohol content of 0.20 percent (twice the
legal !imit) faces Iicense plate impoundment on a first o`fense and venicle `orfeiture
on a second. The 'aw also provides fer an administrative process `hat ailows vehide
foreiture at the time of arr2st unless the person requests a judicial review within 30
days. The old !a�N required a judicial process aiter cenviction for a CWI orense
beiore the vehicle was �cRei'ted.
Under this new law, the numoer of vehicles eligible �or forfeiture has dramatically
increased for our department. The average cost to `oReit a vehicie :hreugh the
Judicial Process, is approximately �500.00. The dilemma with respect to fereiture,
until this new law, has oeen do we forfeit every vehicle that qualiries or just th2
vehicies where we can cover our costs andlor make a prcfrt.
Mr. Taylor and I oelieve that the intent of the new DV�II legislation is to remove the
ofrenders vehicle and the offender from the roadways. We believe based on our
experience this year that we will on average, recover all costs asseciated with DWI
forfeitures. Revenue in excess of costs for vehicles forfeited under the DWI
Legislation, may only be used for training Police O�cers in DWI law and practices
and/or ror enforcement initiatives within the city.
In summary, we are requesting the City Council establish the policy that the Police
Department and City Prosecutor will initiate forfeiture proceedings against all vehicles
e!igible �or forfeiture under the DWI Statute and that we will not negotiate the retum of
forfeited vehicles to offenders.
�astiy, the cost cf our Crimina( Prosecution needs to be addressed. Our increased
case volume couoled with the implementation of the new DWI Legislation and the
new ennanced gross misdemeanor offense which must be prosecuted by City
s Page 2
Attcmeys wiil increase our costs of pros2cution. The impac� of the new Legislation
was not predictaole at the time we accepted Mr. Taylor's proposed cortraC.
The Fine Revenue and cost of prosecution crdered by the Court and ;zceived 'oy the
city in 1997 was 5164,734.53. i oelieve this revenue standard will also continue in
1998 and wili more than offset any increases in Prosecution costs dunng the first
year of Mr. Taylor's contract.
Mr. Taylor has implemented prac�ices and procedures to ensure for ±he most cost-
efrective ooeration of our Criminal Prosecution Program. Mr. Taylor has �he full
support of the Police Department and is rapidly becoming recognized for his cutting
edge leadership throughout the Washington County Judiciaf System.
RECOMMENDATION
It is my recommendation the Council —
1. Adoqt the proposed Prosecution Guidelines for the City of Cottage Grove
included with this memorandum.
2. Adopt a DWi forreiture policy wnich authorizes the Police Department and
Prosecutor to initiate `orfeiture proceedirgs against ail vehicles efgible for
forfeiture under the new DWI Legislation. Tnis policy wili also prohibit the
regotiated return cf ary vehicle seized under :nis legisiation to the offender.
3. Authcrize an increase in the costs or' our Cnminai Presecutien Program
consistent with the anticipated increase in costs as outlined in Mr. Taylor's
memorandum to you dated March 23, 1998.
Thanks.
Attcn.
DSC/cce
s Page 3
Q11-2011 PROSECUTION CONTRACT SUbIIriARY
Year Total Hours Average Hours/MOnth Total fees for Year
1956
1987
i988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
859.80
923.30
974.10
1,036.80
1,110.95
1,329.40
1,460.20
1,276.15
1,272.50
1,361.35
1,304.35
�r
356
599
503
792
560
644
816
�41
779
769
734
770
57,167.40
69,247.SC
73,053.00
77,�57.00
85,868.00
93,022.50
93,331.00
90,777.92
92, 938 SG
99,401.25
97,909.97
++
Q11-2011 PROSECUTION CASE LOAD BREAKDOWN
Year Arraignments Pre-trials Omribus Court Trials JurX Trials
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
296
494
Year Complaints
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
123
245
197
198
116
282
197
255
256
121
184
167
71.65
76.9
81.17
86.a
92.58
93.30
121.68
106.35
106.04
113.45
108.70
*«
14
9
12
18
41
46
31
40
45
35
28
Closed No Prosecutions
(cases reviewed but not charged)
81
72
7'7
63
33
55
22
21
17
22
35
9
52
110
87
128
129
53
90
114
118
90
31
42
84
159
138
137
107
91
113
108
129
146
95
116
Revoca�ion Hearincrs
30
**Unavailable as I am without billing information from Jack Clinton ior the
first 6 months oi 1997.
EXHZBIT "C"
L
�
4�
� h
� �
O �
N �
m
U
�
rn
arn
m �-
o �
� o
N t-
� �
U�
� �
r�.. , �
f4 +-'
� C
_ W
N �
W �
ONCO W I�d'�COO
1� V s- CD .�' V' C�
t� r r m r
�f�tn�NOJN�M
V �6)N6)��NM
OJ �- �- r �
�
m
� �
s �
+-� r
� _
R �
C Q
(4
-'�
M�tnt�CO(Dd'Me-
W c- (D CO (O V r'
N
y
�
G
N
�
C
�
N �
C �
�
� a
C O
N t� m.� � G
N f6 N N � C( � O
t6 f- '� �� G Q � t�6
.i . F- 'C O' � � N Q
� � � � C � � >
dU-�OC�fnd��'