Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
O.B. 3 LEGAL FEES 02-03-92
OLD BUSINESS NO. 3 h"G E N DA 2-3-92 C; o ill JANUARY 30, 1992 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL F R OTA: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER J U 6 s ECT: LEGAL FEES This item was continued from the January 20, 1992 City Council meeting in order to provide additional information requested by Councilmember Potts. The January 20, 1992 staff report is attached. Councilmember Potts requested information about the following: 1. The City of Irvine report on legal services: The attached report from the City of Irvine was included with the information submitted to the Tustin City Council at its November 181 1991 meeting. This report is all that was received from the City of Irvine. As of this date, the Irvine City Council has not made a decision about whether to use an in-house City Attorney or continue to contract with a law firm. The report indicates it would cost approximately the same in either case. Irvine's in-house proposal provides for one staff attorney who would perform in-house legal services and coordinate all contract attorneys retained by the City. Information obtained from the League of California Cities indicates that no other city in California the size of Irvine uses this approach. The League's information also indicates there are sixteen cities with a population range of 86,000 to 114,000 with in-house attorneys. Those cities have an average of eight full-time personnel in the City Attorney's office. Most of those cities also utilize contract legal services. 2. Do other cities Tustin uses for salary and benefits comparison purposes pay benefits to contract attorneys? Seven of the ten cities Tustin uses for comparison have contract City Attorneys. Of those seven, Cypress and Fountain Valley provide benefits. Cypress provides retirement benefits and Fountain Valley allows the attorney to purchase medical benefits at the City's cost. City Council January 30, 1992 Page two Staff also checked with the League of California Cities about other California cities. Approximately thirty other cities that use contract attorneys provide some benefits to the City Attorney. The State Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) advised staff that State law specifically permits contract City Attorneys to receive retirement benefits and it is "not an unusual practice". (PERS did not have information on the actual number of cities that provide retirement benefits). It appears that cities contracting for City Attorney services take a variety of factors into consideration when deciding whether benefits will be provided. A common factor is hourly rates for legal services. As pointed out in staff's January 20, 1992 report to the City Council, Rourke and Woodruff's hourly rate for the City Attorney, including the cost of benefits provided by the City, was $123.71 in fiscal year 1990-91. This compares to an average partner rate, without benefits, of $143 per hour for the nine cities referred to in the report. 3. Are there cities the size of Tustin that have in-house attorneys, and if so, what does it cost? There are approximately twelve cities in California with a population range of 50,000 to 63,000 that have in-house City Attorneys. Staff was able to obtain information on the following six cities: GENERAL CITY POPULATION # OF PERSONNEL (1) FUND COST (2) Carlsbad 63,126 5 $ 474,000 Livermore 56,741 4 421,060 Pleasanton 50,553 3 270,000 Redondo Beach 60,167 5 576,490 South San Francisco 54,312 4 330,000 Walnut Creek 60,569 5 550,000 (1) Number of full-time attorneys and clerical staff in City Attorney's office. (2) General' Fund personnel and operating cost of the City Attorney's office. Does not include contract attorney services or cost of liability defense by outside attorneys. City Council January 30, 1992 Page three The costs shown for each City were provided by the respective cities. These amounts should be fairly accurate; however, they would tend not to include all overhead and depreciation costs which would increase the amounts. As noted, these amounts do not include outside legal services for liability (risk management) defense. The City of Livermore budgeted an additional $350,000 in 1991-92 for outside attorneys used for liability defense. The City of Redondo Beach budgeted an additional $367,000 for the same purpose. When comparing costs, it is important to keep in mind that numerous factors affect legal expenses. Each city is affected differently by growth, the level of legal services provided, size of the capital improvement budget, range of municipal services provided, regional issues, etc. WAH �e' Attachments leglfee2.wah NEW BUSINESS N0. 5- 1-20-92 V _, _ I me r- o DATE: JANUARY 16f 1992 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND 'MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ,r • FROM: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: LEGAL FEES Councilmember Potts had requested a report on the City's cost for legal services. A report was submitted to the City Council for its November 18, 1991 meeting at which time Councilmember Potts asked that the item be tabled in order to provide him more time to review the report. .Councilmember Potts subsequently asked for additional detail and that the report be placed on the January 20, 1992 City Council agenda. This report responds to the questions and comments in Councilmember Potts' December 51 1991 memorandum to the City Manager. The following are staff's interpretation of Councilmember Potts' questions and the responses. 1. What is the contingency fee and benefits paid to the City Attorney? The City pays a $6,000 per month retainer fee to the law firm of Rourke and Woodruff. Four thousand dollars of the retainer is credited against the total billable hours for legal services incurred in a month. The balance of $2,000 covers attendance at monthly City Council, Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency meetings. The City pays retirement on the $6,000 retainer amount and provides health insurance for only the City Attorney. 2. Does the Assistant City Attorney receive City paid benefits? No. The Assistant City Attorney is an employee of Rourke and Woodruff. Any benefits received by the Assistant City Attorney are through his employment arrangement with the law firm. 3. Are other cities paying benefits for contract City Attorneys? Staff has not done a formal survey of cities concerning providing benefits to contract City Attorneys. Contractual _ arrangements with City Attorneys vary from city to city. Some cities do pay benefits; others do not. January 16, 1992 Page two One way to put the City's cost of providing benefits to the City Attorney in perspective is to compare hourly rates for legal services. Rourke & Woodruff charges the City the same rate for all legal work (including litigation). The hourly rate is $120 for partners, $110 for associates and $50 for paralegals/law clerks. Listed below are the hourly rates (for partners) for nine Orange County cities utilizing contract City Attorneys: Dana Point Irvine Laguna Beach Laguna Hills Laguna Niguel San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Villa Park Yorba Linda First 50 hours is $95 per hour; each additional hour is $120. $150 per hour (This is a "blended" rate where the same rate is charged for partners and associates. Typically much of the work is done by associates, not a partner). $145 per hour $130 per hour $110 per hour $150 per hour Range of $135 to $175 per hour depending upon which partner $150 per hour $155 per hour The average partner rate for these cities is $143 per hour. Tustin is paying (partner rate) $120 per hour without the cost of benefits. For purposes of comparison, a billable hourly equivalent cost of providing benefits to the City Attorney has been calculated. Taking the partner rate of $120.00 per hour (the maximum rate charged) and adjusted total Rourke and Woodruff expenses, the hourly equivalent of benefits paid to the City Attorney was $2.31 in 1989-90 and $3.71 in 1990-91. These amounts are computed by using total charges, less the $2,000 monthly retainer for attending meetings (this amount does not correspond to a set number of hours), the partner rate and dollar value of benefits. This calculation provides a basis to compare the City' s cost of the City Attorney at the partner rate plus hourly value of benefits versus the average of the nine other cities above. The hourly rate of the City Attorney including benefits was $122.31 in 1989-90 and $123.71 in 1990- 91. The average hourly partner rate (without benefits) for the nine cities is $143 per hour. . January 16, 1992 Page three 4. What are the total fees paid to attorneys other than the City Attorney's firm? It is common practice for cities to retain law firms for specialized services such as labor relations, personnel matters, acquisition of property, litigation, workers compensation, bond issues, etc. This is the case even for cities having full time in-house attorneys. The nature of municipal law is that it consists of many specialized areas of law. The City of Tustin requires specialized legal services because of its growth, location in an urbanized area and the increasingly regional nature (and complexity) of issues. In fiscal year 1989-90, the City expended $ 146,925 for attorneys other than the City Attorney's office. In fiscal year 1990-91, the comparable amount was $ 174,714. In 1989- 90, $19,079 of the total was paid to the law office of Martin Mayer for legal services in connection with a disciplinary action against one police officer and the termination of one police officer. In 1990-91, $2,801 was paid to Martin Mayer for additional services in the police officer termination matter. In 1989-90, $19,937 of the total for attorneys other than the City Attorney's office was paid to the law office of Filarsky and Watt for labor relations and personnel matters. In 1990-91, $15,665 was paid Filarsky and Watt for labor relations and personnel matters. Attorneys retained by the City other than the City Attorney's firm, Martin Mayer, and Filarsky and Watt include principally those used for liability claims filed against the City and workers compensation claims. In 1989-90 (excluding fees for Martin Mayer and Filarsky and Watt), $ 107,909 was expended for attorneys other than the City Attorney's office. The comparable costs for 1990-91 were $ 156,248. These costs include $126,000 that was expended in 1989-90 and 1990-91 for the City of Tustin/Earl Prescott and John Kelly litigation. 5. How do Tustin's legal expenses compare to the City of Irvine? Tustin staff contacted the City of Irvine to clarify the expenditures for legal services identified in a City of Irvine report regarding attorney fees. Irvine's staff indicated that the City's general fund legal fees were $536,000 in 1989-90 and $772,000 in 1990-91. Tustin's general fund legal fees (City Attorney and all other law firms) in 1989-90 were $514,470 and $386,999 in 1990-91. Since Irvine does not have a redevelopment agency or water utility, other legal expenses were not included in the comparison. - January 16, 1992 Page four Staff was also able to obtain legal costs for the City of Laguna Niguel for fiscal year 1990-91. Laguna Niguel is a contract city (i.e. provides police, fire, water, and most public works services through contracts) and expended $259,206 for legal services for just the contract City Attorney. Legal costs for the City of San Clemente were also obtained. For all legal services (contract City Attorney and other outside law firms) , San Clemente expended $663, 097 in 1989-90 and $769,536 in 1990-91. 6. What were the City's total legal expenses for 1989-90 and 1990-91? Attached is a chart showing the City's total legal expenses in 1989-90 and 1990-91, by fund, and by Rourke & Woodruff and other law f irms . The City' s total general fund legal expenses as a percentage of the total general budget were 2.8 in 1989-90 and 1.8 % in 1990-91. 7. The report prepared by the City Attorney does not identify attorney expenses for the month of July. The attachment showing legal expenses referred to above includes all actual payments made in 1989-90 and 1990-91. The November, 1991 report prepared by the City Attorney included expenses taken from the City's payment register (actual payment made versus accrued expense). This means that payment of the July bill occurred after July 31 and therefore was reflected in the subsequent months payment. The expenses shown in the City Attorney's November 1991 report and the attachment to this report showing annual legal expenses do reconcile. 8. What controls exist to contain legal expenses? The City Attorney performs under the policy direction of the City Council. Any decision about initiating litigation or settling major claims is done at the direction of the City Council. There are some circumstances which the City has no control over such as claims .filed against the City. Regardless of the merits of a claim, the City Attorney's office is responsible for providing legal services required to defend the City. All claims filed against the City are placed on the City Council's agenda for its review and action. The City Attorney's annual budget is reviewed and approved by the City Council each year through the budget review and adoption process. January 16, 1992 Page five The City Attorney provides a variety of legal services to the City staff on a daily basis. Staff's requests for legal services are based on programs and policies approved by the City Council, operational matters required by law and regulatory guidelines. The City Attorney's November, 1991 report regarding legal costs gave specific examples of the daily legal services required by City staff. A copy of the report, without the attachments, is attached. City staff does have a procedure for monitoring and prioritizing requests for legal services. The attached form (Request for City Attorney Legal Services) is submitted to the City Manager's office whenever a department requires other than routine legal advice. This procedure enables the City Manager's- office to review requests for legal services initiated by the departments to decide whether it is needed and if so, a priority. Decisions about a request take into account whether it conforms to City Council direction, the current work plan set forth in the budget and other considerations. This enables the City Attorney and City Manager to ensure that policy, administrative and legal considerations are all taken into account before legal work is initiated. Attachments a C, r- L N 0 N 1 kO Ho rn o 0 - Q co N d' IO kO H z w P4 0 a M N LO N o � wH L oLn a H p dam' M d' M H LO ►-a M 0 N LC) - Ln � ,;t N O --;;r M lO O H � � H N a w ra w 0 w w w4 a z 0w 1 LO 0 1 0 _ - - N N a 0 U a E -4H .1 co d' o U) 00 O% o 1 0 co ON cn M It:;r c N a M o o � o � 0) Q CA m +)..q 0 o d' Olt z W N G1 N N d' H It Ol N O1 %D co W In N M N W O 1 rn w w P 1 o w w H O U co ON� H H N ro � rd O N � O 3�4 W 3 c$ '-A >+ W >4 �4 U a 4 0 O U f-+ r -i U) :j r -A c:=='? CIT - - TI_}'=,TI A l of l*76 RE,,- .JEST FOR CITY COU.. *.'41L ACTION- 'a" , COUNCIL ?�'EMNG DATE: j ANUARY 81 1991 TITIZ: RrCRUIIMENT OF IN-HOUSE CITY ATTORNEY t+ city Mz7nae.. r RECOU' NUETQ ACTION 1. Raquesz City Council to review whether or not to begin the recruit=ent of a full-time, in-house City Attorney .r_SSISiN �= QI�SENDATION Not avplicabla. EXEC''.IT_= S r_', ARY On July 24, -:.990, City Cou.-icil directed the city Manager to establish an in-house City Attorney program as part of the 1991- 93 budget amd begin a formal recruitment to fill the City Attorney's position. Since that act_on was taken, several Counci?members have raised the question of whether or not, under the current economic conditions, the 'City should commence a recruitment at this time or continue to contract with Rutan and Tucker for legal services. Before I begin a aormal racruitment in January 1991, I wanted the opportunity to discuss this with this Council, and raceive your direction. The cost consideration has remained unchanged from that outlined in staff's July analysis. The cost to establish an in-house City A46Czl�Cy of -ft. is now comparable to the contract cost with Rutan and Tucker. The cost to :etaln the services of a contract recruiter to begin the search is $20,000. if a search is delayed, say for one year, a savings would occur. Attached for Council's information is the City Attorney Study conducted by the City Manager's office in early to mid-1990. MEMORANDUM JUDY 24, 1990 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: ASSISTANT C11TY MANAGER HALM SUMMCT : CITY A� rORNEY STUDY on Decihmber 1.2 , the ' Ci ty Council reviewed the various al tez-nativ�ss :!or-- t.`ie pro•>> s ion o' Ci ty Attorney services, The Council adopted that al ter -alive to continue to Cent; act .6. -go City Attorney se;vicas w; th the _aw f! rm of Rutan &nd Tucker, and directed star to return J n July 1990, with an updated report. Specifically, council requested that staff review the concerns of timely response, accessibility, conflict of intares t, and the cost effectiveness of CiICv Attorney services. 1e5al 5ee�v_,ices_?'r;da to The previous staff report indicated broad satisfaction with the quality of sezvices provided by Rutan and Tucker. This quality remains high and is rot an issue here. Acc.essibility: =n March 2.990, access to City Attorney Services was increased i `.ti Ruuan and Tucker scheduling cffice hours in C-omnuni.ty Development on Mondays from 2:00 to 5:40 p. m. , in addition to the Tuesday afternoon sc eduie. Rutan and 'fucker a=orneys are also ava.labla for :alephone conferences and by special appointment. Timaly_Rg, x:orse: Staf` reviewed the response to written Requests for City Attorney Services for the period :November 1989 through March 1990. Ouring the five month. rav_ew period, 68 requests were processed with an average requested 4.Urnaround trate of 17.4 days, and an actual turnaround ti=* of 19.2 days. (The City appears =o r equ Ire a due daze of ten cr fewer days approximately one-third of the time.) Ti=ely raspcnse to written revuesis remains a concern because more than half of the responses were two or mare days lata. These data address only the response time on written requests and do not addrass the services provided in other ways, such as phone responses cr responses to urgent issues:. Conflic.,o est: Rutan and Tucker conduct a regular conflict of interest c :eck on cliants in this Irvine Businssg Complex and all. Community Developtent applications to avoid. any preblems. When. luta, and ^_'*-,cker has discoverad a ccnflic-t og RE{. T -FOR Cr :: • CO . COUNCIL �ETI2lG DAT1'6 : JULY 24, 1990 • T:TAr., : CzTY ATTORNEY STUDY Ass_s=r,nz Ci.yManager Hall 9 ; 6f • ,IL ACTION v /CSG City Ma;zager' / A OP 14,14 V ;► 1. Direct -the City Manager tc &sta z ish an in-yhousa City Attorney program in the 1991-93 budget. 2. Authorize the City Manager to sign an agreement to adjust the billing rate wits. Rutan and 'TIlCkQr trcm 5? 15 fcr g2reral .4 ecal counsel and $ 125 for specialized and co=plex 1 itigation with a $4,000 ;aonth? v retainer to $150, 11 80, and s'7 e o o , respectively. 3: Appoint John Follows as City Attornay for the paricd August 19 9 0 ough Jun e 3 0, CC's?' S S i f3N . rZECQi��DATTOI� Not A: tili.cable. on December 12, 19 8 9 , the City Council reviewed alternatives for t2he provision of City Attorney servicss. 'Tha Council decided to ccnti:tue to contract. for City Attorney services with Ruta= and Tuc.Icar in lieu of creating an in --house City Attorney, ' s office. The City Council also directad staff to ret xrn in July 1990 with a =aporn resvaluati:ng the issues cf the timely response,, accass3biiit-F, confllcz of interest and cost effectiveness of contract City Attorney services. _ .y , 4 ty �f - � - n and ticker remains high T}"' G rte•.& A. " l.r \/ i. se...1 ...`rg.� J. �vi�rQ� ate- �L1tw&* - ard =s not an issue. The issues c f timely response and accessibility of setnricas ccntinus to be of concern. In addi ion, Rutan and Tucker has provided the City with a proposal which significantly increases the costs for cont=act se=vlces. Ru -:..an and Tucker's proposal increases the cost for attaraey services by $152,000 or 36%. The ccst to establish an in-house City Attorney office is now ccnca =able to tha cost of co:�trac==ng- w4 t:j -..Zutan and Tucke=4 Giver, cost considerations and the prcbleM asscctated. with contracting for soxvicas gansra? ? y, staff race= ndm that• the ci tv c: eats a general counsel in --house, City Attorney function with the 1991--93 budget. This action will give staff adequate +-J "e to plan the operation and recruit a now City Attorrsey• In wa the 4 erim, the City. should Continue. ta. with Rutarr. and Tucker under the nav- bill I c.T rate... Ruta=_ and, Tucker _ also rests• that- J-ohn•- 7Jd11c�ww- . be appai.ntad:r -as.* City At'._ Ay* e f f ec r'_ve Augus t 1, 19 9 a through June 30, 19 91. C:tv :tanager _ Duly 2:, 1990 Page -2- occasions when a canalicv of interact existed, and the ragular eviow by Rutan and Tucker prior to accenting new legal matters, has avoided this prob=es. cost_gife=iVeness: Present c46.Ly Attorney fees are based on a $4,000 per month retainer fee plus a composite hourly rate- _*or work outside t::e : ataine: of $1!4.1 per hour for rcrmal. legal work and $125 per hear fc- sc_ecial{zed cr camplax litigation. City Attorney s a* -vices ccsts f or Rutan and Tucka=, not i:�cludxnq litigation, are estiratad to be $428,000 for the first half of t::e 1989--96 biennial _budget. Tho December ?989 report to Council showad that contracting for legal. services is zo=e cost effective than hiring an in-house. attorney. However, as part of -'the dont=act renewal, process, Rutaz ai=d T'uckar has :ac ested a rata increase which changes the Cost issue. Jew Rutar* and ducker „P, caeca - . The City Attorney has submitted a proposal wo adjust their fees to a $7,000 monthly retainer. plus a 5150 per hour fee for general government services _ and 1itigatlon. certain special or cdaplax litigation would be subject to an- :.ncreased hourly rate of not more than $180 per hour. As :s tr.e case cu.:,,.ertly, any increase o higher rale is subject to -,.he City Manager's approval. The proposal also increases the nu=b er of hours that can be charged under the retainer from the City average of 65 hours per month to 8$ hours per month. ;n can j unction with the fee chances, Rutan and T'a^kar proaosas tzat -orn : el? ows be appointed as C=ty Attorney. As A$szszan� City Attor nev fc; the past todo .years, Fellows has been the principal aztornev_ prvf:.di ng . services tp the Planning -c; fission and the Co=unity Javaloprent Deeparts mi ent . To address the concerns of timeliness and accessibility, the Rutan and '_'sicker proposal includes provisions to have a City Attorney availab? a at the City Har.1 sita a ninimun of 20 hours Per week, in addition. to Scheduled mast .ngs. Rutan and Tucker also pr anises to work =ore closely with the City to insure timely response, to written service requests, and to provide improved on-sita arc teiaphcnic access to a -tcrnly se=vices. The new proposal also adds responsibilities for the city Attornev to more cl.osaly review the necessity of service re nests to cantaia costs to budgetad levels. cost CoMUd,-;son 3etwe:,en CQntr ct and in-H2YRS SeXEices. Exhibit 11 shows a cc=ar=son of City Attorney cost$ from 1979-80 to 1989-90, and t:,a cost of Rutan and Tucker' $ prc=050d+ :ees based on- estimated ? 9 s 9-90 City Attorney coats. The prapossd f ess. for. the - same: aneunt: crf' 189wl.- work in- 1.489-90' will rc=LZ in city Attorney costs of S58Q; 000; an* increase of 30 or $I5Z; 000. er L;y 24 , 1990 'P -age 3- S �a a -a identiaied costs in he Decerher 12, 1989 r epcz-t t- un c _1 o'unci.1 0f 5581 , 000 for an in-house. C.46ty Al, to" o�n ev ;,::cj.uding $350, 000 `or conm acr_ legal services. A . `::e :a t r sport was suhmi t tad 'Co Council, the costs to the C+ a^_ cont=act City A`tor ney services were less than the in-houseCity jk-ttornev costs. voweve,, the cam:=-=`ent proposal by Ru -: a:: Tucker rnow r esul, is in costs or contract services win:,c ar e oo:-tearable to an in --house oaerat=on, shown as=ollows : _ --Nouse a. nua? costs Y 581, 000 Lstart-start-un costs ) C :n tract ccs is estimated under new :;080 , 000 Proposed fee schedule (excluding 1.1 t i ga tj,on ) �: marv: Access to the CJI. -..y- Attornev and timely res onsE to . __tten reauesis for se--v-.e continue to be concerns. Due to _�-ob1 er:s these associated with contractinc fer se_vicas general, staff- reco=ended _n December that the City initia ze a:n in -:louse City Attorney operation,- however, because of r.J. q her ccs is , the City Council decided to cont+nue with the Ruta: anc :ucKer Contract. since Rutan and -,;:cker's new proposal _ncr�,ses costs to contract- for services, `.:^.e dec=soon to cr eatz ' n -house C_ty Attornev function is now more Peas .ble. =''=' IENTATIVrES CONSIDIZED: he =ci owi�.g are �.Ii three aiter.�atives disc::ssad in ^;Ze �as �. su;.:dy and s zaff ' s *-ecor=endations ` Aiterrlat:.ve - Continue to contract for City Attorney w .... v T.he City cou:.d Choose to continue contracti.^.c for C+ty A ,:tornev services with Ru tan and Tucker. The advantages • to this option are that a large �' -= like utan and Tucker has . a-omicre_iens_ve municipal i.aw ? s ac;. i cn and v.. `srJ numer cus Leaa generally found in smaller in-house city attorney - ... ogrr..ms . Rutan and Plucker also has a long Ment:re and :evaluable experience with the City of I.^v:.na. r addition, under their new proposal, Rutan and Tucker proposes to have a,City Attorney at the City Hall Sita a minimum of 20. hours per week. and to. work closely wits sta- f to insure- tie lines- are net:- otlh& - advantag¢=s !� of contract services _ncltzde the the desire of- f ?t�'•,' i � ' 1 05: 29F•I.1 1_ I T`i - T UST IN C `y Mager July 24, 1990 Page -4- fact that service is not inte=zpted • by the vacat_cn and sick leave days af�orded to in-house staff. Staff does not recommend this alternative because tha City would continue to face the difficulties associated with contracting for services. For example, there are communication delays associated with routing ree•uasts and rasponses to an organization outside the City. S ta': deals with a variety of attorneys at a contract legal fi= and must insure that the opinion received by a staff attorney is consistent with It -he opinion of the appoin ed City Attorney . A ccntr act at for nay trust deel wit_ the ==meeting demands of a variety of•clients, only ona of whc:: is the City of Tz-vine. In addition, a contract attorney Way not be perceived by the organization as an integral par` of th management team, and may not have. -the same organizatithe anal oersnective tbiat one has when one is a full -ti=e emm? oyee. B.tarnatLi_v_e 2 - Bid the City Attorney contract -- The City could choose to bid the City Attorney contract . The - advantage of this alternate is the opportunity to determine what other law ohms can offer the City in both cost and level of service. This alternative* is not recommended because this alternative does noz resolve the Problems associated with contract services generally. In addition, because Rutan and Tucker's rates are comnatitjve with firms of s i=i? ar caliber, bidding the contract m not soatzzantially reduce contract costs. C. A? te*-nativ3_ - Staff recommends the alternative to GLlSa Ci'.:�: nLtOZ`:I�V CC.an implement a central %:ounsel in-?: - - July ? , 1991.:: Under the general counsal approac;:, the City Attorney would have responsibility for providing the general govern=ert legal. services and canes! litigation servicas currently covered by the Rutan and Tucker retainer. in addition to providing direct .legal services • to. the City, the in-house attorney would manage and supervise contract servicers. Because of. the wide range of legal needs, the City would out of necessity continua to contract for certain legal services. Undar the proposed approach, the i. -I -house City Attorney would not only provide dirac-- services, but would act as an inte=ed{ ary, or "broker" of legal servics,s. This approach is likely to be more cost effective because it insures that work requested is necessary and `..'tet j *' A. properly completed. '"his recommendation for an in -douse operation is based on the followinv agn=nti.ons : City Ma^ager j ul y 24 , 1990 Page -5- The costs for an in-house operation are comparable to the new costs proposed by Rutan and Tucker. 2. $ecausa an in-house City Attorney would be available forty -plus hours per woek, staff believes that legal services requests will be more easily managed and that access of staff and Council mrmbe;s to legal seryices will increase. 3 . HIr ing a City Attorney to actively 'ibrok�ar" legal services will insure the Ci+,.'.y is maxiziz inc the use c f its resources. s "f f believes that careful =evlew of t.hc necessity and scope of 1 erg&.:. requests may keep legal services costs under control. 4 . The City has g- own to a point where daily, in-house access to attorney services is likely to ;.reprove our effectiveness. 3.rvine is currently the only city in orange county with a population over 100,000 that does not have its own in-house City Attorney's office. 5 . A full -t.1=8 city Attorney, well -versed in municipal law, will provide a consistent organizational perspective and can. become an essenz.A,al Member c44. .he managi=ent team. The cost of Rutan and Tucker's proposed fees in the 1989-91 budget :.s an additional $152,000. Currantly funds are available in the City's Non -Departmental Litigation Reserve to offset these is creased Costs. �CC�:�DATIGN� Direct the city Manage= to establish an :.n -house City Attorney program in the :991-93 budget. 2. Authorize the City Manager to sign an agreement to adjust the billing rate with Rutan and Tucker from $1.15 for general *gal counsel and $125- for specialized and complex litigation with a $4,000 monthly retainer to $150, $iso, and 57 , 000 , = a�spectivel.y . 3 , Annoint John Feiiaws as City Attorney for the tieV{ od' August c'_ zy Manager - - j•11y 24, 1990 Page -6- .._ Repo* -t Prepared by: Rick Paikof�, Budget Of`icer Submitted by: ' Allison Hall, �Ass is'"sant City Manager M/RP/erg At taChment (City Attorney Study) en/dir l=1T• 1_1Fr1 1_717-:" ;71r j'_ , :l,a DECEbMER 12f 1989 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASSISTANT ciTY KMAGER FOR: CITY COUNCIL KEETING OF DECM4-BLP 12s, 1989 SUBJECT: CITY ATTORNEY STUDY 1. Select one of the following options: Alternative 1 - Continue to contract for City Attorney Services with Ru tan and Tucker, Alternative 2 -- Rebid.the City Attorney contract, h_ternatiE 3 - Estab=_sh an in-house City Attorney ram effective July 1,, 1990, and direct the Fnnaand Pro program' to work with staff to develop appropriate funding recommendations. STA NT OF ISS The purpose of this study is to review the prov"L aof nd Th p '"P Attorney services under the current contractual te rc ig1s future to make recommendations on�S 8ue i t }pow to continue to provide legal services needs. The timely, and cost-effective services as the city grows quality, and demands for legal services rise. B CKGRO : Y cecticn 7Q1) specifies. that a City Attorney The City Charte_ ( • ' shall be ajpointed by-- the City Council under the ad=i iasrchi e direction of the City Manager. The City Attorney serves all city legal advisor to the Council, the City Manager, and A -Corney represents the City in all legal departments. The City- oceedin s and perfc �s ether duties as prescribed by Council. pr g The contract legal services provided include: 1 Attending City Council and planning Cozmt iss iOn T1=et; Reviewing stzf i =encrzs presented to the City Cou:.cyl 2. Rev i g 3. Reviewing and preparing city contracts and agreements• IT F Ti I'=TIN - F. 1r; city Council December 12, 1989 Page Two 4. Reviewing and preparing c;.tv ordinances and reso_utions. ,. 2,,; .. it;.gation (exce=c personal 5. Represen►.l.ng the city _.: injury)- 6. Assisting the city in mee= and confer n egot-_at;,ons and preparing related memoranda of understanding. 7. Advising the city on personnel matters and �isss rating the city before the Fair E-.aploy hent Practices Co 8 . Advising the city on financi.n.9 issues. 9. Advising the city on land use and code enforcame::t issues. 1p. Researching legal issues as requested. le al se= -vices WI law the The City of Irvine has cantrac ed `° e City's incomeoration in f Rutan and Tucker since th Y law flrp 0- 1971. The City also uses other law firms from t6. lertise matters in which Rutan and Tucker may ,not have specialLecal services or where they have a conf 1 is %. ,o:. and workers' ccmpgnsat�-on recrnlired as a result o� l�.abi__,.y L , s contracZ claims claims are handled through the utside law firms with special administrators who assign cases t - claims experience and expertise. This is a standard practice for mos t self --insured Cities and is a requirement� of the excess insurance carrier when losses exceed the City's se..� insur ed retention leve. Legal services Lor special financing issues s�_..c..s, etc. such as industrial development bonds, assessment d basks ' and are are generally handled on a prof ect-by+prod ec.. incorporated as part of the bond insurance cost. to ensure that The staff periodically reviews contract services `oL`Qed to the the highest quality legal serti z.ces= Sacs �alnre viewed the City. city, in 1976 the C1�y Manage_ • l' est considered the Attorney contract, and at she C:.unci_ s request, t=n ,�..h�.•se City Attornev se=vi ces. feasib�l+.,} o,�� _...p,�emen usions of that study were that contract legal The conclservices are generally more cost-effective and are easier to cnterestthan in-house g. Council expressed an reviewing the issue again once the move to tae reN � , � _c �E-•--- waS completed. This study was beerun in October '1989, in response to that request. ;'Ft` i 1_ I T• . -lF TU'7 T I t`I P.17 _ city council December 12, 1989 Page Three General ASIS : 169 The Staff co? lected information on the city's legal counsel through the following methods: needs, concerns and alternatives o Intervisws with the City Council and City ;tanager o interviews with selected members of the city staff o In -erview with the contract City Atto--ney o In:.e� liews with City Attorneys active in the League of directing in --house .c/2 California Cries, and currently operations in other cities o Review -of relevant documents and -written materials C Review of City Council reports and notes regarding City 33/5 39/1 Attorney services o Survey of 25 Orange County cities o Cost comparison of contract services and in-house sevv=ces in Irvine and 25 other cities. The staff analyzed City Attorney services in four areas. These alit of services, 3} timeliness, and are 1) service level , 2) quality 4} cost effectiveness. Additionally, information collected from orange County cities was used to evaluate City Attorney services. A, service LeVel - The total number of service hours billed in the past 1-2 months (10/88 + 10/89) was 3,418, distributed as follows: TOTAL HOURE HIGHILOW 806 99-38 General 169 58/0 Public Safety Code �:, f orcer.e7 t ( not including spec i f is ZS 1.4/0 litigation) Irvine TranspoL''cation Authority 78 1 30/0 138/0 CFC Ordinance 3 S .c/2 City Clerk 63 11/1 City Manage= Administrative Services - General 9 1. 6 1? 33/5 39/1 Go=.uni ty Services --General community Development - General 1, 155 187/19 60. 22/0 Citv Council 3,418 -- -- _- - -- City Council December 12, 1989 Page Four Cu, rer. t usage of City Attorney h curs is approximately equivalent to two full. -time staff.... Individuals i::te:.-viewed far the sL. y are satisfied with the level of services provided, i.e.. `hat all requests are legal handled. There is an indication ^ h �t demand do on services i's ris4 ng, as the C_�y A��L-n1 Y greater frequency 'Co review staff reports, prepare ordinances and resolutions, and- cons-- land use planning issues. As the City grows, this de -.and can be expected to rise even more. B. Qu_ 1 itv_ - Resu? is of interviews suggest that the quality of h. services provided by Rutan and Tucker is Qconsis d nt such ly lgas Some problems we+e cited by those int_rviewe , occasional -lack bf coordination between attorneys at Rutan and Tucker regarding opinions give: to staff. There is , however, that Ruta:: and Tucker's services general corisens::s are first rate. C. Timeliness - n 1980 the City and Ru -t --an and Tucker established a ten-day turnaround 1t=me ,as the from standard for most requests for legal Services Y• Over the past three and one-half years, the City has processed a tctai cf 6;4 attorney requests and the City Attorney has been two or more days ?ate with a response about 47% of the time. The City appears to zecuuire a due date of less than ten -days about one-third of the time. individuals interviewed for this study indicated that timely response is of major concern and that accessibility is also a problem. In some respects, these problems are associated with the nature of contract services. Contract services canl produce competing priorities and.de=ands between the law firm (contractor) and the cli4nt. For example, an important deadline of the City may conflict v:th deadlines of other clients represented by the firm. To the extent that demands compete, problems of timeliness can result. No one cited any major negative consecpaences as there It oa delays. Several individuals suggested that problem. receiving timely advice because there is nc • =7A tho ��=ber of hours the City Attorney is on the C=ty Hall site is very limited. P. ,'74 City Council December 12f 1989 Page Five �c;�-.�� �fpGyiyenes$ - The fid of '-,,,tan and Tucker charges D. ..,,,..i-� f the city a $4,000 monthly retainer or $48,000 per year. This fee covers general legal seryices, attendance at City Council and Planning Commission meetings, and review of legal documents a4nd staff reports. The rataine= fee has increased from $30,000 in 1979 to is cu --rent level of $48,000. Rutan and Tucker renegctiated its rates with the city two years ago. The city receives many more hours of legal services under the retainer concept than would be the case if we did not have this arrangement with Rutan and Tucker. For example, the city received 806 hours last year from Ratan and Tucker. At regular hourly rate these hours would have cost the city $92,690. The retainer approach is thus a very cost-effective one for the city. Ratan and Tucker rates are competitive, witil general legal services billed at $115 per hour. Additiona.1 services are billed by Rutan and Tucker at $125 per hour. Hourly rates paid by other cities for contract services averages $109. Proportionately, City Attorney services have not been unduly 1 m At`c --e`� - servi CES ' n Ir-rvi ne has %.1 -Id ..4. he cost '1 or yy doubled since 1975 while the City's population has increased 160 and total operating expenditures have gone up over 700%. Table A shows the ten ,. Year hisorv, of rate and expenditures for legal services by depar t�nent. Table B. depicts graphically these expenditure patterns. The city currently budgets $540,000 annually for legal services. In 1988-89 the city expended $792,862. phis was unusually high due to the litigation in which the city was involved. In this same year, contract services, excluding the retainer fee, totalled $370,478. The cost for contract- s e,,,v ice s ontractServices exclusive of litigation has been gradually increasing. (Table C) It can be assumed that the city will require approximately $400,000 annually, exclusive of the retainer fee, for contract legal services. One consideration concerning the cost-effectiveness o� City S . %,= _ss„a o f ;:hether all Se*_rvices {mow /�AN V�j M V i.. Co ey se --v C.es requested by the city are essential. Yn 1980 the City Manager's office instituted a cost monitoring process r LC by Directors and the Clty of ec #--- requiring approval Manager. This practice appears to have been effective; City Council . December 12, 1989 Page Six however, j- s Ver': attorney to properly and scope cf work. P.-1-_1 d i f f icUl - "ar a person who is rot an make decisions regarding the necessity CoM0 ,t ve Data - Tabye D reflects the result of the survey o. 25 Orange County cities regarding City Attorney services. of the 25 cities reviewed, nine have contract City Attorney services and 16 have in-house staff services. City Attorney costs vary f Zom city to city -As a percentage of budget, city Attorney costs in the survey cities range from a low of .22% to a high of 2.85%. There is no apparent correlation between percentof budget spent on attorney services, and the type of services (contract or in-house) provided. Irvine is on the low end of the scale with .65% of total budget_ dedicated to City Attorney services. Of those cities over l00,00o in copulation, all but the City of Irvine have in --house City Attorney services. Discussions with staff from other cities revealed that those cities that contract for attorney services generally do so because of an inability to afford an inhouse operation. Some suggested that they would prefer .in-house attorney services because they would have more control over access, consistency of services, and timeliness. AL *YATESM5 CONSI MED A. Alternative_ - Cont_nue to contract for City Attorney services with Rutan and Tucker The City could choose to continue contracting for City Attorney. services with Rutan and Tucker. The advantages to this option are 1) tree reasonable rates charged by the firm, 2) the fact that a ?arge fir: like Rutan and Tucker has a comprehensive municipal law section i ega_ and offers nmeus se:v =es not generally ound in seCity and Attorney programs, and 3) the invaluable history experience that Ru -an and Tucker has with the Citv of Irvine. The disadvantage to this alternative is that the C ty would continue to deal With difficulties achieV1nV' 2-�' response to recueszs and with problems stemming from limited s access to the City Attorney• Should the Council select this option we reco;�.end that the City Manager =each agreement City Council December !2, 19s9 - Page Seven wit:-: Rutan and Tucker on ways to resolve these problems; such: as, co^tract ing for more on-site hours, and reducing the ten-day response time. g , A ternat 4 Ve 2 - Rebid the City Attorneyt Conr act The City could choose to rebid the City Attorney contract. '.he advantage of this alternative is the opportunity to determine what other law firms can of f er the city i:1 bot;Z cost and level of service. This alternative would give Rutan and Tucker the ability to rebid their existing agreement and would not preclude he city from renewi tng a contract with them if their proposal proved to best meet the needs of the city. The disadvantage of this alternative is that it does not resolve the problem of accessibility and timeliness associated wit.�i contract City Attorney services generally. The City will also lose the invaluable history Rutan and Tucker brings to the organization. Tn addition, because we found that Rutan and. Tucker's rates are competitive, rebidding the contract may not substantially reduce contract dosts. C . A1__ Derr ve 3 - Establish an lri-house City Attorney Program The primary advantage of an in-house full-time City Attorney program is achieving better access and faster response to legal services requests. In add; tion an in-house City Attorney staff offers the advantage of continuity of service and consistent organizational perspective. Full-time City Attorneys in other orange County cities suggested that City Attorneys can be an essential member of the management team, part icimating in the daily discussions which lead to sound adm i,nistrative decisions and Council reco=endations. Fu? i--tiuze legal staff can also better respond to those spontaneous and emergency demands for legal assistance which cannot often be suitably handled by phone. Ir, addition, fall -tine legal staff can provide crucial �- - - -- t� a i n creas ing_ t'v_ �.d p ex area of dss5 �a.li.c In • employee relations. Close and continuous assistance to - of grie ces, disc'-pl_na-_y actors, and sta�� in :and'__.ag van terminations can avoid costly lawsuits, and assist in the proper functioning of the organization. Also, as the City ffCt'. L� '�1 =', __ =+F T11�TIN City Council December 12, :989 Page Eight ages anc craws, code enforcement activities through civil or criminal prosecution will increasingly rely on city attorney services. A critical component is the close relationship necessary in this area between the City Attorney and the City's code enforcement s taf f . The p r 1 if.- e r t i on of legislation and case decis ions affecting aunicipal governments, the complexities of land use 1 aws , and the increased demand for drafting resolutions, ordinances and agreements support the case for inaugurating a full --time legal seryices staff, well -versed in munic:-al affairs. The primary disadvantage of an in-house City Attorney operation. is the cost associated with such a program. Cost considerations 'include• salaries, space and equipment needs. However, time size of an in-house operation can range from one atter:;ey with a significant amount of contract support, to a large number of legal staff relying very little on contract a_torney service support. Costs can be controlled by the size of the in-house City Attorney program which is established, and through a well-planned transition from contract "Co staff services. Should tie Council select this option, it is recommended that the implementation of an in-house operation include initially only a staff City Attorney and necessary clerical support. This approach will help contain costs and accomplish a successful transition. Under this arrangement we recommend that the role of the City Attorney be one of general counsel. As general counsel, the City Attorney would have primary responsibility for manacing and supervising contract services, and for providing the gdneral- legal services currently incorporated into the Rutan and Tucker retainer. The City Attorney would serve as an intermediary between contract attorney services and stag. This approach enables the City Attorney to play a crucial rowe in cost and qua? ? ty control by acting as a "broker" fcr legal services, and by making determinations about the necessity and scope of legal work requested by staf f . Costs associated with the proposal include the salary and benefits 'or a Citv Attorney, salary and benefits for a legal secretary, supplies and office operations, start up. costs (ecruipment, space) , and costs for contract legal services, as follows: City Council December ?21 ?989 Page Nine Firs- Ve?^ C' nn 00 City Attorney (full -toe) Y122,� Lxecu_ive secretary 48,000 Contract legal services 350,000 Supplies and office operation 30,000 Start-up costs - equipment 30.000 TOTAL $580,000 It is clear that a transition to an in --house City Attorney operation is more costly to the City. This is due tc the fact' that a full -tine City Attorney, at a cost of $122, 6CO3 will cost $74,600 innore than the retainer services currer.L.iy provided by Rutan and Tucker. in addition, there are new costs fc: clerical support, space and equipment. The additional expense amounts to $182,600. This cost analysis assumes that special contract services will continue to be approximately $350,000 to $400,000 per year. However, the number of hours available with an in-house City Attorney will double the amount of hours currently provided under the retainer. This may reduce the amount of contract legal a �=ch are necessary. aggressive addition, with an aggressive s_rv_ce_ w.__ approach ;,o managing legal services, a staff city atmorney may play a crucial cost containment role in the long term. The City Attorney can make a determinationto hire add_ticnal legal staff as needed to decrease the city's dependence on outside contractual services in the long term. It is strongly recommended should this option be selected, that the c_zy proceed. incrementally, carefully evaluating which services can best be provided in-house, and which are best continued on a contract basis. Achieving a suitable balance between in-house services and c� ntrac� services will bath Deet the legal needs c= the city and will control costs. We recornend that should the Council select this option that the t1 he implemenu the in-house prograr in july 19°0, w _ �h tne rew fiscal year. `, J.4 ty COLISIC ? 1 Dece=ber 12, 1989 ?age Ten RECOMMENDED A ON = Staf� recommends that the citv implement an in-house C4 -.v ,ttcrney operation. This recd.-Mendation is based on the _ol?owing conclusions: An in-house operation will improve the accessibility of staff and council members to legal services because a C_ty Attorney will be available forty hours per week. ?. An in-house City Attorney operation wiles improve the timeliness of the legal services eprovided. mati n because delays requests will be handled without th associated with contract services. •_ 3 ..Hiring a City Attorney -to aggressively_ manage legal services isL,axi �i2ilg ng'the use of will ensure the city its = esources . We believe careful review of the necessity and scope of legal requests may conta .n contract services costs. 4. A full-time City Attorney, well -versed in municipal law, will provide a consistent organizational perspective and can become an essential member of the management team. This is as demands dor servicerise, and yam especially important issues requiring legal advice (i.e . ernp..oYee _ code enforcement) become more complex. BUWET XPACT I Funds in the amount of $800,000 Attorney services for the rY89-91 available to cover options 1 and 2. are budgeted for the City two year period. Funds are Should an in-house program be implemented July 1, 1990, an additional_. $180, 000 .to $200, 000 is estimated to beh�equiaed• wCw{ recommend . that i f tiie Council selects this op,,_on �. ,.ith the Finance Commission to develop appropriate funding recommendations. C0NCLUSIQN; analysis suggests that the law firm of Ru:.an and Tucker The staff analy - _ rho ♦ . r . �.... .. -•—ear . "� .9 1 — has well served he legal neeas of - oast eighteen years, and provides a full range ` of comp etre quality services. The aralysis also sLCCes�s ^roblems of accessibility and timeliness, associated cwn zhaccnt - services generally. Because the City is e=erlen g g City Couriail Deaeaber 12, 198A Page Eleven demand for legal services which are t- ths study proposes three alternatives hely and more accessible, r The staff reccu=ends that the cit respond to the issue. services program, in which the City iAttomeiet an in-house legal counsel and manager of contract services, Y acts as a in=house wl'►il• creation general Program will increase city services, the benefits derived Y a�nditures for legal increased accountability,from this decision include services. accessibility and timeliness of legal Prepared by; Allison Hall, Assistant Cit Mah Rick Paikoff, Budget officer ager SUB=1'j''ED By.- Allison x: Allison Hall Assistant City Manager APPMV$D BY S Pawl Brady • r. Ci ty Mana ; AH:sh/ccmeeting Attachmants 41044 9� M N a 40 $ ex40 40* �NN N y y " R N m N h R N N N 1A r N vp N a H h ZA x P I 5 LW -- L.. got at -It M n cc r- t'o � � ... � � N M M� �►F � �1► Y t+ �/f� v m N Q' Iry wwqmM b aq. M M QQ C��J 1�j pj 07 .4 m ti e.i o_ �- ••r rC o_.e � g c. � Sa M M 1� t:= tT t:' + r Q 4 SCO ,�ti CD ` Q M � � C%(mLq a '� N � t0 1 ti k h. SQ � � G �• M M 1/F M v► low LM cn 41W QQ1 {p w �m :a . -4D ri,2 .r .. Pk. $ -- 000, NOW M y� c� qn p N eD m wSoir o 1b. 401P Tn N qr! tt •..► PS t' P% Sq to tD� �=L P- O pais O ull t 4 �P 4^ Y�F M. tn q r+ M M C ' '1i rtef •+ y"�� e"f !V "++fit tT e'! i N ` 'r i ?` %� t N �N��,, 11117 7 * Y! �'1 m :. d:t::Ki,$ 6+r•,�X�, m tow � c M M' M �t2 -mv. yr M w c o 0 = .c CD TV" d gFD QN o O vQ� tr7 ��Zl'=�1_ Tr LU W O C3 N W ui r A c, • j 11 N n :n rp. c N t7 N N z v LIZ I -q n V U N t7 c11, lqtr 1.7 �2 � N N N N N N N N 4—n eq C"4 K: N AI's f"S wz r> fly N N � N1 Q N N :.7 N .^ ft 415 a N r• r` P P'1 h N tl1 N `• Q 04 f� > O n O 2 to QC N vi 4 p ev � GS N N $ 10 N CN � � a N � N N cn �s N P N P N N CR CR N 04 N a � o N W N t0 O r� to +A N cc Ill 8 P Q N N N OL 1 h .9 z �. Z t� V U 04 f� > O n O 2 to QC N vi 4 p ev � GS N N $ 10 N CN � � a N � N N cn �s N P N P N N CR CR N 04 N a � o N W N t0 O r� to +A N cc Ill 8 P Q N N N OL 1 h .9 z H H X N O O N 40 kb M o 0o0v) L 0 0 0 a C %D 000 . u A N . . • ri 11 0 o o c C a o o N U U i N CDin O 0 to O N � N r•1 O C o r a.+0 • 0 .. N , rc opo .-t U) J a u O M %0 H N o 0 0 0 m c �-+ a OON • u to % . . r4 a� d r, 00 .-t t~ 0 0 u 0 0 N vt• U a % wl «] Q0 O N �' %0 w .-S a o 0 0 U N4 N 0 0 0 C Ct a to O 3t u rt . % �ar-o a a0 N m sn 0 ti w0eq U A . yr rl N M C to x J o. «1 r 0000 U m N r .•t Ma u .. o� ..t . . ..4 y C qd o m 0 p o 9-4 N U �-1 N O a .•e 000 In cf 000co 7 c'1 000 • 0 •.! a N . . %N © Q 0 014 i cY 00 v t: a 0ry H .. N r 0 .-t H O CD � L' Y© m 0 0 N J u a .*oam o 0 n m •r O �+ C� Y! % . N y t Qtaw v -a > � w U a m o 4J o+ n 0 A c A v w 0 w G •i c •� U C sj 0 *� U 0 C .: -! v \ -1 0 Y C A +1 Iz c 4 G U t .t 0 ,i 17 L �. 0 C •� t 4 A) d 4 Cr u V w v C O u u e C 0 od z H H X N N u c� J v N a X N C v r. i, -i 0 v gr c O Of d 0 0 0 N T. 0000 i r 000 0 5 0 N 0% c7 •-� r 40 w t V p t^ OOON V O O O O O d t- cv o to • u Q C N . . . ri 1) 10 v V Ok %a 0 w C m N 0 0 0 -c U a , c► o.. of a} y &n u 0 t1 0000 tS 0 R1 O o 'n �+ CD . 94 y C N 00el .^. a CDa ti CA r C14 o to dO +1 0 0 4 000cv 9 r # N 00 0 .•c o G 000 • 11 V D a r C coo 0 YfC?N U W M -r 0 o m t- v 000 • 0 t .0 co A CD r4 0 '• O N � d► N •-+ o r4py P c*� 0 0 0 a a o091m a d O04v • L rq � 0 0t. 0, 0 Ln A h U H m o a do •r N r 0N00 In c r n IN z G r t-aN 0 r n r ev N n a M 1J L'1 IA p H 0 .r v> 41 w -4 w U c o 0 4i �+ n w .. L -1 U 0 y 0 ►-c u A .•t 0 .� 4 u .� t a H o >a Ai e s a y v u a.� � � •aGv.J i � A4 n w ti u v N a X N C v r. i, M 0 6-1x h O 11 I f eq to e O L1 of - fi ° 0 ori � � - 0 0 to m u� a; .� o 0 r 4) r, r- 0 i 0 .r 000to 0 - N 0 O C :4 C O d N 0 C +� •-r to N 0 0 to fn CD (} 0.0 N en (14 1.1) t? N o r y �i to Q N 0 t0 h u ri N N 0 C d R a L .o y a In 0% c 0 r{ N O ri 0 a b 0% 0 .-1 U p } .y n or f') 0 a 0 0 00014 n C c rn 000t- :1 d 16 d Onto 0 a vf�r c brqW)r4 td &n N U N � y a o a r y d M tiD a 000(n u O o o t% 0 y 000 u c i a oot� c u u NOCs 0 a .� N U N M O e r 0 O� N 0 OOOa O CO • ti0 M wl Co i- p L'f VNO+ 0 X L4)ot rt r- V) a 0 [ Dina N ..K �n &n t -t H h e� O td 40 tJ y f N O O C O u - O 000 N r .-r . o U ri N 0 to M G O•fN O • of N N e�l N N :� V1 V C c • � � e Nm 7 0 i 0 0 e r, y sr i V -� o -•c v� a v c �( 0 AJ .4 U ( �. v v y c r u v L N C d *i k 4 1 4, u 0 14 D .-1 C H +i 1 " JJ %. rr. 3 rl 'D V u i % 0 0 T . : C. trf G• fl U M 0 6-1x r b N Q. CD r- r-+ 4 C) CD 0 0 ♦ 41 (n m N 0 0 0 N U in M 61100ty o a rom • k 0 17 � m •�t �+ v G k ri O t� 0 0 a t�F rr U M o M 44- F0 0 N m O d ♦ A) * m r m en cv O cY u .1 M N 4•4OM 0 C 0 0 0 0 • w ,• 1 (7 ri . . no 10% N tY O o+ a r- 0 o U o � � N at t.. 0 .p 3 Qao0 N N m00.1 4 d . O r-1 A 0 • k r% 0 o %0arq p� U �o n N IIF O %D t7 N O I" 1 rq u d o. N amr{•a C N • 14 A • O 11 ,D c •a �o w a C An ver V n 0. o P1 r 0 d Iii m 0 0 0 to Q t; r 0 11% 0 0 0 1n 0 N a O O 0 W •-+ oom I • � a r N C '{ NaN F! '{ ..iri or w Na m N � w � U c o y � r w to 14 v -I P 0 W C C tJ U G Ai 0 ►r V i v A v Aj 'a a 6 t .{ a L y •• b u U k n ON 64 4j 0 C. v i. `,' f r b N Q. CD r- r-+ 4 C)