Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 3 CITY ATTY EXPENSE & CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION POLICY 11-18-91NEW BUSINESS N0. 3 11-18-91 \`-std Inter-Coin ATE: NOVEMBER 14, 1991 � TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY ATTORNEY REQUEST FOR CITY EXPENDITURES FOR CITY ATTORNEY FEES AND LEGAL SUBJECT: COSTS FOR PAST TWO YEARS AND COPY OF CITY OF IRVINE REPORT REGARDING IN-HOUSE LEGAL SERVICES Pursuant to the request of Councilman Potts', please be advised as follows. Attached are the City Attorney Expense Detail for fiscal year 1989-90 and the City Attorney Expense Detail for fiscal year 1990- 91 furnished by the Finance Department. Also enclosed is a memorandum from the City Attorney to the City Manager dated June 26, 1990 regarding extraordinary legal fees and costs concerning the April 1990 City election (the legal fees and costs set forth in that memorandum deal only with the extraordinary legal fees and costs incurred in fiscal year 1989-90; additional extraordinary legal fees and costs on those matters were also incurred in fiscal year 1990-91). The level of legal services, and therefore the amount of legal fees and costs, are directly related -to the demand and level of legal services required by the City. The requests for legal services are directly related to the projects, activities, problems, claims and lawsuits in which the City is involved. The work of the City Attorney's office in conjunction with staff members of the Community Development Department is extensive and includes land use matters, involving the General Plan, the Specific Plan, tract map approvals, Declarations of Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions, and a host of other community development matters and projects, which in recent years have largely,* but not wholly, been driven by the projects proposed by The Irvine Company in East Tustin. East Tustin projects are complex and require a great deal of time of both the Community Development staff and the City Attorney's office. The City Attorney's office is in communication with the staff of the Community Development Department on a daily basis. The advice to the many members of the staffs of the various City departments is extensive and the preparation of complex documents by the City Attorney's office is extensive as well as the review, revision and approval of documents prepared by others. 1 G R: jab: R6:111491(1C-111. jab) Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers November 14, 1991 Page 2 Public Works projects of the City are extensive, both in the East Tustin area as well as in other areas of the City and are on- going at all times and require considerable coordination with the staff of the Public Works Department. The City Attorney's office is heavily involved on an on-going basis with the Public Works Department. That work involvesthe review of development proposals, public works contracts, problems with construction projects and contractors, payments to contractors, etc. Likewise, services in connection with the acquisition of property for the City for the Public Works Department and other purposes is substantial and involves considerable time. The City Attorney's office is in daily on-going contact with the staff of the Public Works Department. Work is also done on an on-going basis concerning business license and permit matters. The City Attorney's office provides on-going consultation and advice to office of the City Clerk. On-going services involving personnel matters routinely involve the City Attorney's off ice working with the Community Services Department. On-going work also involves the Community Services Department in connection with parks and recreation matters. The Finance Department, including the Audit Committee, is another area of on-going work. various projects and work Involve the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency, including the South Central Redevelopment Agency projects and the Town Center Redevelopment Agency projects. Work for these project areas is ongoing. The City Attorney's office coordinates with and provides advice and work for the Building Official, both on a day-to-day basis and special projects basis. The problems in the South Central area regarding sub -standard buildings, overcrowding, etc. are areas of work on which the City Attorney's office performs work with and for the staff of the Building Official and the Community Development Department. The City Attorney services are also required in connection with the Workers' Compensation claims which are filed by City employees. The City Attorney's office is in constant communication with personnel of the Tustin Police Department on an on-going basis, Honorable Mayor and City Councilmemlbers November 14, 1991 Page 3 regarding personnel, discipline, subpoenas, records requests, and other matters. The City Attorney or an Assistant City Attorney attends all regular and special meetings of the City Council, Planning Commission, Audit Committee, License & Permit Board, Parks & Recreation Commission, etc. The City Attorney's office also responds to requests for information and advice from members of the City Council. Examples of some larger projects which have involved very substantial amounts of time and work by the City Attorney's office in the 1990-91 fiscal year are the 'following: A very large project in which the City Attorney was heavily involved in the 1990-91 fiscal year was the Regional Trail Project which involved the City, the County of Orange, and The Irvine Company and was very complex and required extensive legal work with City staff, the staff and lawyers of The Irvine Company and the staffs of several departments of the County and with the County Counsel's office. Substantial work was done in the 1990-91 fiscal year on the very large Jamboree Road Extension Project from I-5 to Barranca Road. Projects for the City Water Service vary from month-to-month, but also are substantial. Examples are the acquisition of sites for new water wells and reservoirs', repair and reconstruction of water facilities, water mains, reservoirs, etc. and are important areas of work. During the fiscal year 1990-91, considerable City Attorney time was involved in connection of the enlargement and reconstruction of the City Hall and contractual arrangements with The Irvine Company regarding its responsibilities for sharing in the cost of enlargement and reconstruction, bid specifications, contracts, insurance and bonding requirements, etc. In the fiscal year 1990-91, a considerable amount of work was required concerning solid waste, development and establishment of the recycling program imposed by the State of California on all cities and counties and development of an amendment to the City's contract for solid waste service in order to meet the new recycling requirements and to fix the costs to the City for the new services the City is requiring that its contract solid waste disposal company perform. Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers November 14, 1991 Page 4 Establishment of the agreements between the County of Orange, The Irvine Company and the City of Tustin for a new fire station in East Tustin and arrangements regarding costs of construction and operation, operational rights and duties, etc. involved extensive work in the 1990-91 fiscal year. Considerable work was involved concerning the County's imposition of jail booking fees and litigation over the County's claim that it was entitled to retain all property tax penalties and not remit any part thereof to the cities. Another matter which required a considerable amount of legal services in 1990-91 involved the ReZai apartment project, meetings with citizens to try and resolve the matter and defense of the lawsuit instituted by the residents against the City and the developer. City annexations is another arca which have required extensive involvement of and work by the City Attorney's office, including litigation involving annexations, appearances before the Local Agency Formation Commission and other work in coordination with the City staff. Considerable work was performed in the 1990-91 fiscal year concerning the Eastern and Foothill Transportation Corridors and their alignments and other matters related to the transportation corridors. Another area of substantial on-going work by the City Attorney's office involves liability claims against the City. The amount of the City Attorney's work regarding liability claims is a direct function of the number and complexity of claims filed against the City and involves considerable work. The City's exposure for liability claims is as follows: The City is responsible for the first $250,000 of liability on each claim. Any liability in excess of $250,000 is the responsibility of the Orange County Cities Risk Management Authority which, in turn, is covered by an excess liability insurance policy. Pursuant to contractual arrangements with the OCCRMA, the City is responsible for its own legal defense fees and costs of all claims and legal actions against the City. The City has a very precise and detailed general and automobile liability claims administrative procedures. These are set forth in the City's General. and Automobile Liability Claims Administration Procedures, a copy of which is attached. An example of one month services by the City Attorney's office is illustrated by a copy of the statement to the City for City Attorney's services in the last month of the 1990-91 fiscal year, the month of June, 1991 which is attached hereto. Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers November 14, 1991 Page 5 The City has in place a procedure established by the City Manager to monitor, review, control and establish priorities for requests for City Attorney services on the projects of the various departments of the City. Attached are copies of the City of Irvine's reports regarding in-house legal counsel. Enclosure cc: WH >- to 1� N 1*- to V- N N v N N 0 J J to (D f%. CO h N U) to Cl 00 v (o _ tD GD to N cD C! -f CO N O to T- F- F- cD cD Cv T N GO Ci tci (D CO C6 CO Z o 0) T O CM O M M 1- (D OO o~ 49 N GO N N O C) It v O O O v O N O D to M N 0) V Ch O Q 69r. T N 4& �O� WO 19 w 00 O w 00 L O O O O O O O O O N llw69. to T O co 9 O O (3) to M q1t O CO) N C4 N T Cq N co C'7 N CV) lqw N O GO C O >' Z N O co O to O O GO �I O GO to N GO T T T T Q T T- 49. 49. O GOO GOO O 0) h co CN) N N T T T O T T GD 40 T GO O O f� N to T co 9 � P r-! N cD T v q1t N O O M M d d_ C) Ld N O 1- GO CN N � t- et co IV C'3 cD 69 69 to (0 qw cli >' Z a a a Q O 0 z O GOO GOO O 0) h co CN) N N T T T O T T GD 40 T GO O O f� N to T co 9 N to N P r-! N cD T v q1t N CD O N O M M d d_ C) Ld N N CO N CN N N N M co IV C'3 a F- > U m m >' Z co co GO T r O N O N IN w Go O O O O D GOO GOO GOO OOO O) O C) O C7 C'3 a F- > U m m >' Z a a a Q O 0 z a LL Q co co GO T r O N O N IN w } O r A co � r O N O O J N N t� o) O N O N CM 1� _t M CO 'it Nt H co Co M N T O CA r*- O �O O GO t. CO v 0 Z~ CMif) M M M r N N N LO N M iR 1)- 40)- 0 0 O C) co v �O � 00 ti v MOO CO LO VMI 1O Ch M M qw q N p N c0 CO 0_0 h iia O O O O O O O O v O O LO M 40) - IN w O0 M�1 Go A Go o O z w� O CD N N N o) O N O N O cn 2:: C a O Co G� H GO V O 0 �O NOONN MM co 0) ' M r M r r 0 CO V- 04 N 0 O CO 0 Cl O O et GO V 49 M co GO O coMCD � 000 N r- N M r Go co Go O co CD N N N o) O N O N O M 0 O Co T A GO LO O 0 O CA GO C1 �O CA O t. CV) 1A ri�i N N N r r r N iR �O NOONN MM co 0) ' M r M r r 0 CO V- 04 N 0 O CO 0 Cl O O et GO V 49 M co GO O coMCD � 000 N r- N M r WJ CD W) M T i9 GO GO Go CM 0 71, 49 a J x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a U > w z m Q a: Q ZO Go Go O co N N N O C'7 �t Lo r t0 CD O CO r 0 O M to N CV) 0 N N N N N r iR WJ CD W) M T i9 GO GO Go CM 0 71, 49 a J x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a U > w z m Q a: Q ZO +:ITr =r i;! ;Iia Inter - Com 0ATEM. -TU=e 2 6 , 1990 TO: WZI,LIAM HUSTON -Rom: CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: EXTRAORDINARY LEQAL FEES AND COSTS Considerable extraordinary laglal fees and costs have been incurred and expended by the City in the period from November 17, 1.9 8 9 to the present date by reason of the aetians , inact ions and lawsuits of Councilman' Prescott and former Councilman Kelly. Thrae 1awsu�.ts were filed on behalf. of Mr. Kelly and qtr. Prescott, a::d one was fj.ied by Mary Wynn on behalf of the City because cif t�:e refusal of Mr. Kelly and Mr. Presco t t to j o_n the o -I er council members in adopting appropriate and legally required resolutions to carry out the mandated election. A partial summary of the extraordinary fees and costs in connection with the foregoing .natters are sumnari•zed as follows. - Fees and costs of the Law Finn of Parker & Covert (to 5/3./90) $ 11,393.65 Fees and costs of the Law Firm. of Ratan & Tucker (to 5/x7/90) $291383.50 Fees and costs of the Law Firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (to 5/31/90) $41,663.01 Fees of City Attorney's office: Nave*mber 1989 $ 21 889 . 00 December 1989 $ 11265.03 j anuary 1990 $ 31429.00 February 1990 $13,676.00 March 1990 $13,684.75 Anr it 1990 $ •Y, 027.20 May 1"990 S 1,884-00 Coss of Legislative Intent service Costs of Sharon Tapia, certified shorthand reporter $40,854.95 $ 2,198.00 $ 767.20 �ntArcom A.- FU.S n 1 �-v e Re ; -x raord_nar , Fees s June 261 1990 Page 2 Fees Grand mo tat Costs Grand Total TOTAL :EES AND OOSTS $123 1295 - 11 $126,260.31 g Lees and costs are not ould be noted: 1) The f ore�ro in o f and Mr. . Prescott it sh ,, litigation 0f ?sir, _Kelly final amounts because L -.e Z ig discontinue . r ed b them and further fees and costs have been s still being pug su , Y d will cont, r•'se 'a be incturred until they incurred an their j„tigation - Yperses to re un.,L. o Yturat e e. These fees and cos ;s are- extrenalY but were necessary on the citizens and taxpayers of Tustin, - imposed L , t `:ie improper acticns intended in order Lo rests n right to elect City council ngmbers at a voters o f Tust yn c = the _ ig proper, legally -prescribed time. _. fees and costs do 'nat include any amount of fees i;1e foregoing r or Mr. p�escott, which either or both and costs oP ,�r. Kal i v and/ b ig pay. ' ztt are amounts the City Ted top Y of them may claim J 1+�`' ROt7PTE Crr�Y z%TTORNEv J0R:kb9:R:6/26/9nV(s476)(kb6) 0 11 CITY OF 'DUSTIN GENERAL AND AUTOMOBILt LIABILITY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES if TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. CLAIMS RECEIVED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. PROCESSING OF CLAIMS, APPLICATIONS, PETITIONS AND ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. Late Claims . . . . . . . . . . . 2 C. Insufficient Claims It . . . . . . . . . 3 D. Applications for Leave to File Late Claim 3 E. Denials of Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 F. Petitions for Leave to File Late Claim . . . 6 G. Summons and Complaints . . . . . . . . . . . 7 H. Claims Recommended for Approval 8 III. DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTS ON CLAIMS 8 IV. ADJUSTER'S NOTICE TO CARRIERS . . . . . . . . . . 8 V. ADJUSTER'S INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . • . 9 VI. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • 9 -i- FORM Form Page AReceipt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B Letter of Transmittal of Claim or of Application to File Late Claim . . . . . . . . . . 13 C Notice of Refusal to Accept Late Claim . . . . . . 14 C-1 Proof of Service by Mail of Notice of Refusal to Accept Late ClaiYtt 15 D Notice of Insufficiency . . . . . 16 D-1 Proof of Service by Mail of Notice of Insufficiency . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . 17 E Notice of Rejection of Application to Present Late Claim Presented Beyond'One Year From Date of Occurrence (Personal Injury or Property Damage) 18 E-1 Proof of Service by Mail of Notice of Rejection of Application to Present Late Claim Presented Beyond One Year From the Date of Occurrence (Personal Injury or Property Damage) 19 F Notice of Refusal to Grant Permission to File Late Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 F-1 Proof of Service by Mail of Notice of Refusal to Grant Permissions to File Late Claim 21 G Notification of Rejection of Claim 22 G-1 Proof of Service by Mail of Notice of Rejection of Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 H Damage Claim (Police Department).. . . . . . . . 24 I General Release of All Claims (Police Department) 25 CITY OF TPSTIN GENERAL AND AUTOMOBILt LIABILITY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATIONPROCEDURES I. CLAIMS RECEIVED All claims made against the City shall be filed with the City Clerk. Upon receipt of a claim the person in the City Clerk's office receiving it shall immediately see that it is processed as follows: A. Immediately stamp the claim with a date stamp. B. Assign to it the next number in sequence, e.g. C. No. 80-11 C. No. 80.2, etc. C. Enter it in a log maintained in the office of the City Clerk which shall contain: 1. the date the claim was received; 2. the name of thO claimant; 3. a brief description of the claim; 4. the number assigned to the claim; 5. the type of service used on the claim, i.e., personal delivery or mail. D. Send photocopies of the claim with a copy of completed Form A attached to it with letter in Form B to: 1. Carl Warren & Co. 2. City Attorney. 3. Department head of the department involved, or to the City Manager if no specific department is identifiable. 4. Finance Director. JGR: jab: R3:4-4-91(A016.jab) —1— E. In obvious emergency Situations, make an oral report to Carl Warren & Co., the police department, engineering department, and/or City Attorney's office, as appears appropriate. F. File the original claim with a completed Form A attached in the claims files in the City Clerk's office. II. PROCESSING OF CLAIMS, APPLICATIONS, PETITIONS AND ACTIONS Carl Warren Company will review the claim and make its recommendations to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall review all claims and advise the City Clerk of the action to be taken. B. Late Claims Upon the advice of the City Attorney that the claim is a late claim, the City Clerk shall imMediately: 1. Notify the claimant and the claimant's representative, using the name(s) and address(es) designated on the claim, by Form C attached hereto. 2. Attach a completed proof of service by mail, Form C- 1, and: a. File a copy of Form C in the City Clerk's office with the original Form C-1 attached. b. Send copies of completed Forms C and C-1 to: (1) Carl Warrekn & Company. (b) City Attorney. -2- C. Insufficient Claims Upon the advice of the City Attorney that the claim is legally insufficient, the City Clerk shall immediately: 1. Notify the claimant and the claimant's representative, using the name(s) and address(es) designated on the claim, by Form D attached hereto. 2. Attach a completed proof of service by mail, Form D- 1 and, a. File original of Form D in the City Clerk's office with the original Form D-1 attached. b. Send copies of completed Forms D and D-1 to: (1) Carl Warron & Co. (2) City Attorney. D. Applications for Leave to File Late Claim All Applications for Leave to File Late Claim shall be filed with the City Clerk. 1. Upon -receipt of such an application the person in the City Clerk's office receiving it shall immediately see that it is processed as follows: a. ImmeaiaLely stamp the (:.1411!11 w.i L.LL a ua L.c a k-cil«r . b. Assign to it the next number in sequence, e.g. ALC No. 80-1, ALC No. 80-2, etc. C. Enter it in a log maintained in the office of the City Clerk which shall contain; (1) the date the application was received; (2) the name of the claimant; -3- (3) brief description of the alleged claim; (4) the number assigned to the claim; (5) the type of service used on the claim, i.e. personal delivery or mail; d. Send photocopies of the Application with copy of completed Form A attached to it with letter in Form B to: (1) Carl Warren & Company. (2) City Attorney. (3) Finance Director. 2. The City Attorney small make the initial review of the Application and make his recommendations to the City Clerk. 3. Rejection of Applics1tion by Clerk If the Application to File Late Claim is more than one (1) year old, the City Attorney may direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of the rejection without action by the City Council. In such case the City Clork shall immediately: a. Notify the claimant and the claimant's representative using the name(s) and address(es) designated on the claim, by Form E; b. Attach a completed proof of service by mail, Form E-1; C. File a copy of Form E in the City Clerk's office with the original Form E-1 attached; d. Send copies of completed Forms E and E-1 to: (1) Carl Warren & Company. (2 ) City Attorney. -4- 4. Rejection of Application by City Council Upon advice of the City Attorney to present the Application to the City Council for rejection, the City Attorney's report shall be presented and upon action of the City Council the Clerk shall immediately: a. Notify the claimant and the claimant's representative using the name(s) and address(es) designated on the claim, by Form F; b. Attach a completed proof of service by mail, Form F-1; C. File copy of Form F in the City Clerk's office with the original Form F-1 attached; and, d. Send copies of completed Forms F and F-1 to: (1) Carl Warron & Co. (2 ) City Attorney. E. Denials of Claims Upon the advice and recommendation of the City Attorney. (generally following recommendation from Carl Warren & Co.) that the claim be denied by the City Council, the City Attorney's recommendation shall be presented and if the City Council accepts the recommendation after formal action of the City Council denying the claim, the City Clerk shall immediately: 1. Notify the claimant and the claimant's representative, using the name(s) and address(es) designated on the claim, by Form G attached. -5- 2. Attach a completed proof of service by mail, Form G- 1, and, a. File copy of Form G in the City Clerk's office with the original Form G-1 attached. b. Send copies to: (1) Carl Warren & Co. (2) City Attorney. F. Petitions for Leave to File Late Claim All Petitions for Leave to File a Late Claim shall be filed with the City Clerk. Upon receipt of a Petition to File Late Claim, the person in the City Clerk's office receiving it shall immediately see that it is processed as follows: 1. Immediately stamp the claim with a date stamp. 2. Assign to it the next number in sequence, e.g. P No. 80-11 P No. 80-2, etc. 3. Enter it in a log n#aintained in the office of the City Clerk which shall contain: a. the date the petition was received. b. the name of the petitioner. C. a brief description of the alleged claim. d. the number assigned to the claim. 4. Send photocopies of the petition with a copy of the completed Form A attached to it with letter in Form B attached to: a. Carl Warren & Company. b. City Attorney. CM: Ll C. Finance Director. 5. The City Attorney shall take such steps as are .appropriate to represent and defend the City's interests. G. Summons and Complaints All Summons and Complaints against the City shall be filed with the City Clerk. Upon receipt of a Summons and Complaint at the City, the person in the City Clerk's office receiving the Summons and Complaint shall immediately see than it is processed as follows: 1. Immediately stamp the summons and complaint with a date stamp. 2. Assign the next chronological number in sequence (e.t. S&C No. 79-1, S&C No. 79-2, etc.) 3. Enter it into a log maintained in the office of the City Clerk which shall contain: a. the date the summons and complaint was received. b. the name of the plaintiff. C. a brief description of the alleged claim. d. the type of service used to serve the complaint, i.e. personal delivery, regular mail, certified mail. 4. File a copy of the SUmmons and Complaint in the City Clerk's office with the original receipt, Form A attached to it with letter in Form B to: a. Carl warren & Company. b. City Attorney. -7- 5. If the Summons and Complaint is accompanied by a form entitled "Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt", unless otherwise directed by the City Attorney, Do Not sign and return. Submit the original to City Attorney with Form A attached. 6. The City Attorney shall take such steps as are appropriate to represent and defend the City's interests. H. Claims Recommended for Approval Claims which are recommended for approval and/or approved, in whole or in part, shall be processed•in accordance with advice of the City Attorney. III. DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTS ON CLAIMS Where appropriate, each Department Head shall cause a narrative report to be written for each claim relative to his/her department, providing detailed information as known to the department and what, if any, corrective action is being or has been taken. Photographs will be attached to the report if available and a copy of the report shall be sent as follows: 1. Carl Warren & Company. 2. City Attorney. 3. Finance Director. IV. ADJUSTER'S NOTICE TO CARRIERS Carl Warren & Company shall forward copies of all claims, applications for leave to file lato claim, petitions for leave to file late claim and summons and complaints as required or W;1c appropriate to each of the City's insurance carrier(s), together with necessary attachments, as may be required by aid carrier(s). V. ADJUSTER'S INVESTIGATION Carl Warren & Company shall investigate each claim and provide a detailed written report of its investigation together with its recommendations for settlement, denial, etc. within thirty (30) days, copies of which shall be sent to: 1. City Attorney. 2. Finance Director. VI. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS A. Upon receipt of the report and recommendation of Carl Warren & Company, the City Attorney shall review the ;matter and may authorize settlements within the limitations provided herein, and shall make. a report thereon to the Claims Committee, or without authorizing payment, make a report and recommendation tot eh Claims Committee. B. Carl Warren & Company may effect settlement of any claim against the City in an amount not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per claimant. C. Settlement of claims for payments up to Fifteen Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) per claimant may be authorized by the City Manager, Finance Director or City ,attorney. D. Settlement of claims by payment of up to Ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) may be authorized by action of a majority of WE the Claims Committee, composed Of the City Manager, Finance Director and City Attorney. E. Settlement of claims by payment in excess of Ten thousand dollars ($10, 000.00) per claimant ynust be authorized by the City Council. F. Claims which have been authorized as proved above shall be paid by City warrant and shall be transmitted to Carl Warren & Company for delivery tot he claimant after execution of proper relapses of City. G. Claims of less than Five hundred allures ($500.00), not involving police department activities, may be settled upon authority of the City Manager, City Attorney or Finance Director, without reference to Carl Warren & Company. H. Claims of less than Five hundred dollars ($500.00) involving loss or damage to property arising out of actions of the police department may be proce$sed as follows when deemed appropriate: 1. The on -scene police department supervisor will contact the property owner, explain the process and ask for three (3) detailed repair estimates. 2. The police department supervisor shall .fill out a Damage Claim Form (Form H attached hereto), write a short description of the event, and attach the police report of the incident to it. -10-- 3. Upon receipt of the estimates, the police department supervisor shall approve payment and forward it to the Services Captain for review/revision. 4. The Services Captain shall review it and forward the form to the finance department for issuance of a check where appropriate. 5. Once the check is issued, it shall be sent to the handling police department supervisor. 6. The Police Department supervisor shall release the check to the, property owner, upon signature on the "General Release of All Claims" form (Form I attached hereto) . 7. A copy of the "General Release" form (Form I attached hereto) shall be sent to the finance department, the original retained by the police department and affixed to the report. -11- CITY OF TUSTIN OFFICE OF THE (CITY CLERK Claim No. ALC No. Pet. No. S&C No. The attached document was received Received: Date: t 19_ Time: o'clock M. Received By: Personal service upon the undersigned Regular mail Certified or registered mail Signature (Print Name) 1 Position Copy to: Carl Warren & Co. on 19 City Attorney on 19 Form A Receipt JG R: jab: R3:4 -4-91(A016. jab) -12- Carl warren & Company Date: 1801 Park Court Place Building E - Suite 208 Santa Ana, California 92701 ATTENTION RE: Claimant: Claim No: or Application to File Late Claim No: Date of Filing With City: Gentlemen: 19 The enclosed Claim (or Application to File Late Claim) was presented to this office this date and has been referred to the appropriate City department for its investigation and also to the offices of Rourke & Woodruff, Attention of James G. Rourke, City Attorney. By this letter, you are authorized to commence the necessary investigation of this claim on behalf of the City. We request that you give such notices as may be appropriate to the City's insurance carrier(s) and further request that you submit your preliminary and all subsequent reports to the City, with a copy to the City Attorney and to the City's insurance carriers. Very truly yours, City Clerk City of Tustin cc: City Attorney Department Head Form B Letter of Transmittal of Claim or of Application to File Late Claim JG R: jab: R3:4-4-914;016. jab) -13- Mr. John Doe RE: Claimant: Date of Loss: Date Claim Filed With City: Dear Mr. Doe: Date: , 19 The claim you presented to the City of Tustin on the date set forth above is being returned because it was not presented within six ( 6 ) months after the event or occurrence as required by law. See Sections 901 and 911.2 of the Government Code. Because the claim was not presented within the time allowed by law, no action was taken on the claim. Your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay to the City of Tustin for leave to present a late claim. See Sections 911.4 and 912.2, inclusive, and Section 946.6 of the Government Code. Under some circumstances, leave to present a late claim will be granted. See Section 911.6 of the Government Code. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. Very truly yours, City Clerk City of Tustin cc: Carl Warren & Company City Attorney Form C Notice of Refusal to Accept Late Claim JGR: jab: R3:4-4-91(A016.jab) -14- r PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the county aforesaid, I am over the age of eighteen years; my business address is: Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial 'Way, Tustin, California, 92680 On , 19_, I served the within NOTICE OF REFUSAL TO ACCEPT LATE CLAIM, presented to the City of Tustin (Claim No. ) by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Tustin, California, addressed as follows: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on at Tustin, California. Signature Title cc: Carl Warren & Co. City Attorney Form C-1 Proof of Service by Mail of Notice of Refusal to Accept Late Claim JGR: jab: 83:44-91(A016.jab) -15- Mr. John Doe Date: , 19 RE: Claimant: Date of Loss: Date Claim Filed With City: Dear Mr. Doe: The above -referenced claim failed to comply substantially with certain Government Code Sections. It was insufficient for the following reasons: For your information, consult Section 910, 910.21 910.4 , and 910.8 , and other applicable sections of the Government Code pertaining to the filing of claims against a public entity. Due to certain time requirements for filing, these deficiencies should be corrected immediately. Very truly yours, City Clerk City of Tustin cc: City Attorney Carl Warren & Company Form D Notice of Insufficiency IGR: jab: R3:4-4-91(A016.jab) -16- PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the county aforesaid, I am over the age of eighteen years; my business address is: Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial flay, Tustin, California, 92680 On , 19 I served the within NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY, presented to the City of Tustin (Claim No. by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Tustin, California, addressed as follows: I declare under- penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on , at Tustin, California. Signature' Title cc: Carl Warren & Co. City Attorney Form D-1 Proof of Service by Mail of Notice of Insufficiency JG R: jab: R3:4 4-91(A016. jab) --17- R Mr. John Doe nate: 1 19 RE: Claimant: Date of Loss: Date Application Filed With City: Dear Mr. Doe: The above -referenced application which you presented to the City of Tustin is being returned to you herewith, without any action having been taken on it by the City Council. The application is being returnedbecause it was not presented within one year after the accrual of the cause of action. To determine whether you have any further remedy or whether further procedures are open to you, you may wish to consult with an attorney of your choice. If you desire to consult with an attorney, you should do so immediately. (See Government Code Section 911.6.) Very truly yours, City Clerk City of Tustin cc: City Attorney Carl Warren & Company Form E Notice of Rejection of Application to Present Late Claim Presented Beyond One Year From Date of Occurrence (Personal Injury or Property Damage) JGR: jab: R3:4d-91(A016. jab) -18- PROOF OF SERVIQE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the county aforesaid, I am over the age of eighteen years; my business address is: Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California, 92680 On , 191 I served the within NOTICE OF REJECTION OF APPLICATION TO PRESENT A LATE CLAIM PRESENTED BEYOND ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF OCCURRENCE (PERSONAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE), presented to the City of Tustin (Claim No. by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Tustin, California, addressed as follows: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on , at Tustin, California. Signature Title cc: Carl Warren & Co. City Attorney Form E-1 Proof of Service by Mail of Noticeof Rejection of Application to Present a Late Claim Presented Oeyond One Year From the Date of occurrence (Personal Injury or Property Damage) JG R: jab: 83:44-91(A016, jab) -19- t Mr. John Doe Date: , 19 RE: Claimant: Date of Loss: Date Application Filed With City: Dear Mr. Doe: Notice is hereby given that the application for permission to file late claim which you presented pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 911.4 was denied by action of the City Council of the City of Tustin on , 19 WARNING: If you wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the appropriate court for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 (claims, presentation requirement). See, Government Code Section 946.6. Such petition must be filed with the court within s iX months from the date your application for leave to present a late claim was denied. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult with an attorney, you should do so immediately. Very truly yours, City Clerk City of Tustin cc: City Attorney Carl Warren & Company Form F Notice of Refusal to Grant Permission to File Late Claim JGR: jab: R3:4-4-91(A016.jab) -20- t PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the county aforesaid, I am over the age of eighteen years; my business address is: Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California, 92680 On , 19-., I served the within NOTICE OF REFUSAL TO GRANT PERMISSION TO FILE LATE CLAIM, presented to the City of Tustin (Claim No. ) by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Tustin, California, addressed as follows: I declare under- penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on at Tustin, California. Signature Title cc: Carl Warren & Co. City Attorney Form F-1 Proof of Service by Mail of Notice of Refusal to Grant Permission to File Late Claim JGR: jab: R3:4 -d -91(A016. jab) -21- NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CLAIM TO: Date: 19 RE: Claimant's Name: Date of Loss: Date Claim Filed With City: Claim No.: Dear Notice is hereby given that the above-described claim which you presented to the City Council of the City of Tustin on , 19 , was rejected on , 19 WARNI G Subject to certain exceptions you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action in a municipal or superior court of the State of California on this claim. (See California Government Code Section 945.6.) You may -seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. Please be advised that pursuari't to Sections 128.5 and 1038 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the City will seek to recover all legal fees and costs of, defense in the event an action is filed in this matter and it is determined that the action was not brought in good faith and with reasonable cause. cc: Carl Warren & Company City Attorney Very truly yours, City Clerk City of Tustin Form G Notification of Rejection of Claim JG R: jab: R3:4 -4-91(A016 Jab) -22- v PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the county aforesaid, I am over the. age of eighteen years; my business address is: Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California, 92680 On 1 19. , I served the within NOTIFICATION OF REJECTION OF CLAIM, presented to the City of Tustin (Claim No. ) by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Tustin, California, addressed as follows: I declare under. penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on at Tustin, California. Signature Title cc: Carl Warren & Co. City Attorney Form G-1 Proof of Service by Mail of Notice of Rejection of Claim JG R: jab: R3:4 -4.91(A016. jab) -23- M DAMAGE CLAIM Supervisor Instructions 1. Claim process should be handled by on -scene supervisor for damage that appears to be less than $500 to repair. 2. Obtain listed information. 3. Instruct property owner (or person suffering loss) to obtain 3 detailed, written repair estimates and submit them to the handling supervisor. 4. Write short statement as to circumstances of claim. 5. Submit claim form, estimates, and recommendations to Services Captain. Person/Business Sustaining Loss Name Contact Name ( i f different f rmm above) Daytime Phone No. Address City State Zip Incident Date/Time DR#_ Location City Incident Description/Damage Sustained Handling Supervisor Rank Estimates $ $ $ Amount authorized $ Date to Services Comments Reviewed by Rank Form H Damage Claim (Police Department) JGR:jab:R3:4-4-91(A016.jab) -24- GENERAL RELEASE Py ALL CLAIMS BY THIS INSTRUMENT, hereinafter referred to as "Releasor(s) ", for the sole consideration of Dollars ($ ), to be paid to Releasor(s), do/does hereby and for my/our/its/their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, release, acquit and forever discharge the CITY OF TUSTIN, its officers, agents or employees, ('collectively "Releasees") from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, demands, suits, rights, damages, costs, loss of service, expenses and compensation whatsoever, which Releasor (s) now has/have or which may hereinafter accrue on account of or in any way growing out of any and all known and unknown, foreseen or unforeseen BODILY and PERSONAL INJURIES and PROPERTY DAMAGE and the consequences thereof resulting or to result from the accident, incident, casualty or event which occurred on or about , 19 at or near California. IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that this settlement is a compromise of a doubtful and disputed claim, and the payment made is not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the Releasees, or any of them, and that said parties deny liability therefor and intend merely to avoid litigation and buy their peace. IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD, INTENDED AND AGREED that this Release shall be effective as against all rights and benefits conferred upon Releasor (s) under Section 1542 of the Civil Code of California which provides: "A General Release does not extend to claim which the creditor does not know or suspect exist in his favor at the time of executing the Release, which if known by him must have materially effected a settlement with the debtor;" and any similar law of any state or territory of the United States. RELEASOR(S) HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVES ANY AND ALL RIGHTS AND BENEFITS CONFERRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1542 OF THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE AND ANY SIMILAR LAW OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES AND HEREBY ASSItMES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INJURIES, DAMAGES, OR LOSSES THAT HE/SHE/THEY MAY INCUR FROM THE ABOVE-MENTIONED EVENT. Releasor(s) understand(s) and acknowledge(s) the significance and consequence of such specific waiver. FORM I General Release of All Claims (Police Department) JGR:jab: R3:4 -4-91(A016. jab) -25- Rourke & Woodruff * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 * cover page * client 1100 Tustin - City of Orange, CA 92668 * * matter 00000 (714) 558-7000 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only Federal ID No. 95-3678827 * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses July 9, 1991 current .00 * 30 days .00 Bitted through 06/30/91 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 Client number 1100 JGR * * 120 days .00 City of Tustin * billing frequency M-01 Attn: Finance Director * last payment 06/26/91 23629.91 15222 Del Amo Avenue * billing realization 100 y Tustin, California 92680 * fees billed to date 209595.55 * * 544-8890 ANNEXATIONS * matter 00003 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 31'2.00 * fees 312.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ .00 * * expenses .00 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86-2:CA * matter 00004 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 1,332.00 * fees 1332.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ 43.00 * * expenses 43.00 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE * matter 00011 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 727.00 * fees 727.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ .00 * * expenses .00 CITY COUNCIL * matter 00012 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 400.00 * fees 480.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ 11.00 * * expenses 11.00 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. * matter 00013 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 3,390.00 * fees 3390.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ 25.00 * * expenses 25.00 ELECTIONS * matter 00017 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 742.00 * fees 792.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ .00 * * expenses .00 FIN"CE * matter 00018 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 713.00 * fees 713.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ .00 * * expenses .00 City of Tustin 120 24.00 87.60 PAGE 2 * CONTINUED client number 1100 JGR 4320.00 4.30 110 473.00 * 110 M LANEOUS 5.30 110 583.00 2.20 110 242.00 .40 110 44.00 4.00 20 * matter 00022 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH S .00 * fees TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ 8.25 * * expenses POLICE DEPARTMENT * matter 00026 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH S 78$.00 * fees TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH S .00 * * expenses PLANNING COMMISSION * matter 00027 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH S 750.00 * fees TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ .00 * * expenses PUBLIC WORKS * matter 00028 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH S WAD * fees TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH S .00 * * expenses SOLID WASTE * matter 00029 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 5,004.00 * fees TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ .00 * * expenses VIO"TIONS * matter 00030 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH S 520.00 * fees TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ .00 * * expenses WATER DEPARTMENT * matter 00031 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 1,2418.00 * fees TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ 41.65 * * * expenses * * LEJ * JGR * JRS * DAD * RWL * SRM * TFN * DIS * * DMC .00 8.25 788.00 .00 750.00 .00 588.00 .00 5004.00 .00 528.00 .00 1248.00 41.65 .20 120 24.00 87.60 120 10512.00 36.00 120 4320.00 4.30 110 473.00 3.40 110 374.00 5.30 110 583.00 2.20 110 242.00 .40 110 44.00 4.00 20 80.00 City of Tustin PAGC 3 * CONTINUED client number 1100 JGR * TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $16,652.00 * * 16652.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH 5 128.90 * 128.90 TOTAL CHARGES FOR THESE MATTERS ---------- $16,780.90 * 16780.90 TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE $16,780.90 * 16780.90 Rourke 8 Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1100-00003-000 JGR City of Tustin Attn: Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward ANWr-VAT IONS FGr. .o(OFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/05/91 JRS Telephone call with R. Nault re methodology for instituting utility user's tax. 06/10/91 JRS Re: Utility User's Tax Dictate letter to R. Nault re Woodlake v. Logan: Proposition 62 is invalid; dictate letter to Ben DeMayo re Woodlake case. 06/10/91 JGR Fax from J. Brooks; review of files; review of law; office conference with John R. Shaw/James G. Rourke; telephone call to attorney Ide re Woodlake case. 06/10/91 JRS Draft and send letter to Jim Brooks, North Tustin Citizens Against Incorporation in response to his letter of 6-7-91. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * bitting realization 100 % * fees billed to date 351.00 * 544-8890 * $ 360.25 $ 360.25 CR $ .00 * * * matter 00003 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * JRS 06/05/91 .20 120 24.00 * * JRS 06/10/91 1.00 120 120.00 * * * * JGR 06/10/91 .90 120 108.00 * * * * JRS 06/10/91 .50 120 60.00 * * * * $ 312.00 2.60 312.00 * * * * JGR .90 120 108.00 * JRS 1.70 120 204.00 * $ 312.00 * 2.60 312.00 City of Tustin PAGE 2 * CONTINUED Statement Number 1100-00003-000 JGR * * ---------- TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH $ 312.00 ---------- TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE $ 312.00 312.00 312.00 Rourke 8 Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1100-00004-000 JGR City of Tustin Attn: Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue %-stin, California 92680 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86-2:CA FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/03/91 JGR Re: Fire Station - Telephone message from/telephone call to D. Corey (will call back). Oe, i91 JGR Telephone message from/telephone call to R. Ledendecker (will call back); telephone call from W. Huston re Jamboree Road and the Eastern Corridor; memo to file; telephone call from R. Ledendecker; memo to file; review bond documents; telephone call to R. Ledendecker (will call back); telephone call to W. Huston; memo to file; memo to attorney Ed Long. 06/20/91 JGR Telephone call to E. Long (will call back); telephone call to/telephone call from Long; memo to file; review of files; memo to file. 06/26/91 JGR Review of file; telephone call to R. Nault re foreclosures; memo to file. 06/26/91 JGR Re: Fire Station Review fire station file; telephone call to C. Shingleton (will call back); memo to J. Blakely. 06/26/91 JGR Re: Regional Trail Receive final Regional Trail documents from attorney Devine. 06127/91 JGR Re: Fire Station Review final documents re fire station; memo to file. 06127/91 JGR Re: Regional Trail __ Review all final documents; telephone message to/telephone message from/telephone call to attorney Devine; telephone call to W. Huston; memo to file. * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 0 y * fees billed to date .00 * 544-8890 * * * matter 00004 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * JGR 06/03/91 .30 120 36.00 * * * JGR 06/19/91 2.30 120 276.00 * * * * * * * JGR 06/20/91 1.90 120 228.00 * * * JGR 06/26/91 .30 120 36.00 * * JGR 06/26/91 .50 120 60.00 * * * JGR 06/26/91 1.10 120 132.00 * * * JGR 06/27/91 1.10 120 132.00 * * * JGR 06/27/91 3.60 120 432.00 * * * * * Total fees for this matt $ 1,332.00 11.10 1332.00 City of Tustin PAGE 2 * CONTINUED Statement Number 1100-00004-000 JGR * P 'RSEMENTS * 06/28/91 Extraordinary photocopy charges ---------- 43.00 * CY 06/28/91 43.00 Total disbursements for this matter $ 43.00 * * 43.00 BILLING SUMMARY * * JGR 11.10 120 * 1332.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 1,332.00 * 11.10 * 1332.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ 43.00 * 43.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- $ 1,375.00 * 1375.00 Rourke & Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1100-00011-000 JGR City of Tustin Attn: Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward C"- ':LERK'S OFFICE FOk PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/07/91 DAD Research re duties of City Clerk at elections; dictate memo to James G. Rourke. 06/10/91 JGR Letter from K. Wynn; telephone -call to V. Whiteman; memo to file; review and revise memo to V. Whiteman. 06/11/91 JGR Telephone message from V. Whiteman; review of files; telephone call to W. Huston; memo to file. 06/14/91 DAD Research, update list of clerk election duties. 06/14/91 DAD Revise memo to James G. Rourke re City Clerk election duties. 06/18/91 JGR Telephone.catt to/telephone call to V. Whiteman; memo to file; review and revise memo to V. Whiteman; review of law; memo from David A. De Berry; review and revise memo to V. Whiteman. 06/19/91 JGR Review and approve contracts. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill * 5 = summary w/expenses * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 * fees billed to date 1562.00 * 544-8890 * $ 1,562.00 $ 1,562.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * matter 00011 * tmkp date hours rate * amount * DAD 06/07/91 1.10 * 110 121.00 * JGR 06/10/91 1.00 * 120 120.00 * * JGR 06/11/91 .80 * 120 96.00 * DAD 06/14/91 1.40 110 154.00 * DAD 06/14/91 .40 * 110 44.00 * JGR 06/18/91 1.20 * * 120 144.00 * * JGR 06/19/91 .40 * 120 48.00 $ 727.00 * * 6.30 * * 727.00 * * JGR 3.40 120 408.00 * DAD 2.90 * 110 319.00 $ 727.00 * 6.30 727.00 City of Tustin PAGE 2 * CONTINUED Statement Number 1100-00011-000 JGR * TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH $ 727.00 * 727.00 ---------- TOTAL ----- ---TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE $ 727.00 * � 727.00 Rourke 8 Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1100-00012-000 JGR City of Tustin Attn: Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward CITY COUNCIL K ROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/06/91 JRS Prepare conflict of interest memo to Councilman Prescott re method of disclosing nature of conflict of interest for offici•at record. 06/17/91 DMC Pick up agenda package. 06/19/91 JRS Re: County Redistricting Issue Research case law/statutory law re redistricting per Councilman Prescott's request. 06/20/91 JRS Re: Redistricting Issue Dictate memorandum re redistricting procedure per Councilman Prescott's request. 06/26/91 JGR Telephone call to W. Huston (will call back); telephone call from W. Huston; fax from W. Huston; telephone call from J. Weil; memo to file. Total fees for this matter aDISBURSEMENTS 06/18/91 Executive Express charges incurred to deliver _ documents on 5-3-91 to councilman Prescott Total disbursements for this matter * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 126.00 * 544-8890 * S 126.00 S 126.00 CR $ .00 * * * matter 00012 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * JRS 06/06/91 1.00 120 120.00 * * * DMC 06/17/91 1.20 20 24.00 * JRS 06/19/91 1.00 120 120.00 * * * JRS 06/20/91 1.00 120 120.00 * * * JGR 06/26/91 .80 120 96.00 * * * * * $ 4810.00 * 5.00 480.00 * * * * EE 06/18/91 11.00 11.00 ---------- 11.00 * 11.00 * City of Tustin PAGE 2 * CONTINUED Statement Number 1100-00012-000 JGR * VG SUMMARY * * JGR .80 120 96.00 * JRS 3.00 120 360.00 * * DMC 1.20 20 24.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 480.00 * * 5.00 480.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ 11.00 * 11.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- $ 491.00 * 491.00 TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE ---------- $ 491.00 * 491.00 Rourke & Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1100-00013-000 JGR City of Tustin Attn: Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. ROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/03/91 JRS Re: Bennett Appeal * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense -only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 * fees billed to date 2049.00 * 544-8890 * $ 2,049.00 $ 2,044.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * matter 00013 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * JRS 06/03/91 .20 120 24.00 * * * * JRS 06/05/91 .30 120 36.00 * * * * DIS 06/05/91 .40 110 44.00 * * * * * JGR 06/05/91 .90 120 108.00 * * * * * RWL 06/05/91 3.00 110 330.00 * * * TFN 06/05/91 .20 110 22.00 * Telephone call from Dan Fox re appellant's changes to site plan re their appeal before City Council on June 3, 1991. 06/05/91 JRS Re: Vera Cruz/Shadow Canyon Telephone call from attorney Paul Watkins (The Irvine Company) re right of company to sell condominium units now. 06/05/91 DIS Re: Vera Cruz/Shadow Canyon Telephone conference with Paul Watkins, attorney for The Irvine Company re sale of condominium units at Shadow Canyon and Vera Cruz developments; confer with John R. Shaw re same. 06/05/91 JGR Telephone call from W. Huston re Goodyear; telephone message from/telephone call to architect Bennett; memo to file; telephone call to C. Shingleton (will call back); telephone call to W. Huston; memo to file. 06/05/91 RWL Re: Foothill Community Association Finish legal research and drafting of opposition to motion for default. 06/_05/91 TFN Re: Foothill Community Association Partial review of oposition to motion for default. * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense -only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 * fees billed to date 2049.00 * 544-8890 * $ 2,049.00 $ 2,044.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * matter 00013 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * JRS 06/03/91 .20 120 24.00 * * * * JRS 06/05/91 .30 120 36.00 * * * * DIS 06/05/91 .40 110 44.00 * * * * * JGR 06/05/91 .90 120 108.00 * * * * * RWL 06/05/91 3.00 110 330.00 * * * TFN 06/05/91 .20 110 22.00 * City of Tustin PAGE: 2 * CONTINUED Statement Number 1100-00013-000 JGR * r -",,/91 JRS Re: Tire Center Appeal * JRS 06/06/91 .20 120 24.00 Read City Council minutes of 6-3-91 to prepare for 6-7-91 meeting with C. Shingleton. 06/06/91 JRS Re: Tire Center Appeal * JRS 06/06/91 .20 120 24.00 Confer with city attorney re tire center issue/First Street. 06/06/91 JRS Re: Shadow Canyon * JRS 06/06/91 .20 120 24.00 Review letter of Paul Watkins of 6-5-91 re permit issue for Vera Cruz and Shadow Canyon. 06/06/91 JGR out of office conference with C. Shingleton, W. * JGR 06/06/91 1.70 120 204.00 Huston, and James G. Rourke re Goodyear; telephone message to V. Whiteman; receive transcript; letter to Bennett; fax from C. Shingleton; review and revise letter to Bennett; office conference with John R. Shaw/James G. Rourke; memo to file; review Health Services Contract; memo to B. Schoemann. 06/06/91 TFN Re: Foothill Community Association * TFN 06/06/91 1.30 110 143.00 Revise opposition to motion for relief from default. 06/06/91 DMC Re: Foothill Community Association * DMC 06/06/91 .80 20 16.00 File opposition at Court of Appeal. 06/07/91 JRS Re: Library Lease * JRS 06/07/91 .70 120 84.00 Review proposed library lease amendment and C. Shingleton's 5-31-91 memo. 06L97/91 JRS Re: Tire Center Appeal * JRS 06/07/91 2.00 120 240.00 Attended meeting with C. Shingleton, property owner and architect re future processing of tire center following appeal hearing at City Council meeting of 6-4-91. 06/07/91 JRS Re: Graffiti Contract * JRS 06/07/91 1.00 120 120.00 Review bid specs; dictate memo -and make telephone call to C. Shingleton re same. 06/10/91 LEJ Memo to James G. Rourke and John R. Shaw re * LEJ 06/10/91 .20 120 24.00 decision in Westminster case on day care centers. 06/10/91 JRS Re: Graffiti Bid Specs * JRS 06/10/91 .70 120 84.00 Per discussion with D. Ogden, dictate and fax bid spec changes for graffiti package. 06/10/91 JRS Telephone conference with Rita and D. Ogden re * JRS 06/10/91 .30 120 36.00 low bid wording of graffiti contract/bid package. 06/10/91 JRS Re: Irvine Hillside Project JRS 06/10/91 .20 120 24.00 Telephone call from A. Bonner re wording of public hearing notice. 06/10/91 JRS Re: Graffiti Bid Package * JRS 06/10/91 .50 120 60.00 Further review of bid specifications/graffiti. 06/10/91 TFN Re: Foothill Community Association * TFN 06/10/91 .20 110 22.00 Review order granting relief from default. 06/10/91 JGR Memo from Lois E. Jeffrey re Zukowsky case; * JGR 06/10/91 .80 120 96.00 review of file; memo from Robert W. Lucas; telephone call to attorney Johnson (will call back). ' '91 SRM Re: Hayashi (Bankruptcy) SRM 06/11/91 .60 110 66.00 Prepare proof of claim in Kenneth S. Hayashi Corporation bankruptcy; telephone conference with L. Schutz at Tustin City Hall. City of Tustin PAGE 3 * CONTINUED Statement Number 1100-00013-000 JGR * r - 1/91 JGR Telephone call to C. Shingleton re Zukowsky; * JGR 06/11/91 .80 120 96.00 telephone call to S. Johnson (will call back); telephone call to Robert W. Lucas; memo to file. 06/14/91 JRS Re: The Irvine Company/CC&R's/170 Units * JRS 06/14/91 1.00 120 120.00 Review draft set of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for conformity with City Resolution 2687-2688. 06/15/91 JRS Re: The Irvine Company/CC&Rs/170 Units * JRS 06/15/91 .50 120 60.00 Complete review of CC&Rs and dictate memo to planning staff re same. 06/17/91 SRM Re: Hayashi (Bankruptcy) * SRM 06/17/91 .40 110 44.00 Telephone conference with L. Schutz; receipt of form Proof of Claim from Bankruptcy Court. 06/17/91 JRS Re: Irvine Hillside Project * JRS 06/17/91 .80 120 96.00 Telephone call with A. Bonner re handling of initial study for this project. 06/17/91 JRS Re: Relocation Guidelines * JRS 06/17/91 2.00 120 240.00 Review relocation guidelines and dictate intercom to C. Shingleton. 06/18/91 JRS Re: Shadow Canyon * JRS 06/18/91 .20 120 24.00 Telephone call from Paul Watkins re CC&Rs on Shadow Canyon development. 06/19/91 JRS Re: Tentative Tract 14397 * JRS 06/19/91 1.00 120 120.00 Review draft resolutions and telephoned revisions to A. Bonner. 06/_19/91 JGR Fax from Dan Fox; review Tokyo Lobby matter. * JGR 06/19/91 .70 120 84.00 '91 JGR Out of office conference with Dan Fox/James G. * JGR 06/20/91 1.90 120 228.00 Rourke at Tustin City Hall re Tokyo Lobby; memo to file; review of files; memo to file. 06/21/91 TFN Re: Foothill Community Association * TFN 06/21/91 .20 110 22.00 Review notice from Court of Appeal re filing of record. 06/24/91 JRS Re: Tract 13788 * JRS 06/24/91 .30 120 36.00 Letter approving CC&Rs. 06/24/91 JGR Letter from F. Greinke; memo to file. * JGR 06/24/91 .30 120 36.00 06/24/91 JGR Telephone call to attorney Cole (will call back); * JGR 06/24/91 1.10 120 132.00 out of office conference at Tustin City Hall re Bren Co.; telphone call to E. Long (will call back); telephone conference with R. Nault/James G. Rourke/attorney Cole/attorney Long; memo to file. 06/25/91 RWL Re: Foothill Community Association * RWL 06/25/91 .40 110 44.00 Review clerk's transcript on appeal for inclusion of all documents requested. 06/26/91 TFN Re: Foothill Community Association * TFN 06/26/91 .30 110 33.00 Status letter. 06/28/91 JRS Re: Sign Ordinance * JRS 06/28/91 1.00 120 120.00 Review latest draft of sign ordinance; telephone call with S. Pashalides re exception versus variance procedure. * Total fees for this matter $ 3,340.00 * * * 29.50 3390.00 City of Tustin PAGE 4 * CONTINUED Statement Number 1100-00013-000 JGR * r 'SEMENTS * 06/06/91 Extraordinary photocopy charges 25.00 * CY 06/06/91 25.00 Total disbursements for this matter ---------- $ 25.00 * * 25.00 BILLING SUMMARY * * LEJ .20 120 24.00 * JGR 8.20 120 984.00 * JRS 13.30 120 1596.00 * RWL 3.40 110 374.00 * SRM 1.00 110 110.00 * TFN 2.20 110 242.00 * DIS .40 110 44.00 * * DMC .80 20 16.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $.3,390.00 * * 29.50 3390.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ 2$.00 * 25.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- $ 3,415.00 * 3415.00 TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE ----- --- $ 3,415.00 * 3415.00 Rourke & Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1100-00017-000 JGR City of Tustin Attn: Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward E1 TIONS Fug, eROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/05/91 JGR Telephone call to/telephone call from attorney Total fees for this matter B.--1NG SUMMARY * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 96.00 * 544-8890 * $ 96.00 $ 96.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * matter 00017 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * JGR 06/05/91 .70 120 84.00 * * * JGR 06/10/91 1.30 120 156.00 * * * * JGR 06/11/91 .70 120 84.00 * * JGR 06/12/91 .80 120 96.00 * * JGR 06/19/91 .90 120 108.00 * * * JGR 06/20/91 .90 120 108.00 * * * JGR 06/24/91 1.30 120 156.00 * * * $ 792.00 * 6.60 792.00 * * * Covert; memo to file; telephone call to W. Huston. 06/10/91 JGR Telephone message from/telephone call to attorney Covert; review of law; memo to file; fax from Covert; review arbitration agreement; memo to file; telephone call to Covert (will call back). 06/11/91 JGR Fax from attorney Covert; review of files; memo to file. 06/12/91 JGR Fax from attorney Covert; review of file; memo to file; memo from Covert; memo to file. 06/19/91 JGR Telephone call to attorney Covert (will call back); memo to Martin & Chapman; review of file; memo to file. 06/20/91 JGR Telephone message to/telephone call from attorney Covert; memo to file; review of files; memo to file. 06/24/91 JGR Letter from attorney Covert; review of file; memo to file; review•of files; memo to J. Blakely. Total fees for this matter B.--1NG SUMMARY * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 96.00 * 544-8890 * $ 96.00 $ 96.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * matter 00017 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * JGR 06/05/91 .70 120 84.00 * * * JGR 06/10/91 1.30 120 156.00 * * * * JGR 06/11/91 .70 120 84.00 * * JGR 06/12/91 .80 120 96.00 * * JGR 06/19/91 .90 120 108.00 * * * JGR 06/20/91 .90 120 108.00 * * * JGR 06/24/91 1.30 120 156.00 * * * $ 792.00 * 6.60 792.00 * * * City of Tustin PAGE 2 * CONTINUED Statement Number 1100-00017-000 JGR * JGR 6.60 120 792.00 * TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 792.00 * 6.60 792.00 * ---------- TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH $ 792.00 792.00 ---------- TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE $ 792.00 * 792.00 Rourke 8 Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1100-00018-000 JGR City of Tustin Attn: Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 $ 10$.00 A/R Adjustments made since last bill $ 10.00 Net balance forward $ .00 FI►WCE FG,. .KOFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/04/91 SRM Re: Hayashi (Bankruptcy) * date of last reminder Review water charges by property; telephone call to Tustin City Halt; telephone -call to Citivest, bill through date current property manager (Dana Haynes). 06/04/91 SRM Re: Hayashi (Bankruptcy) Telephone call to debtor bankruptcy counsel; action to be review notice from bankruptcy court; telephone calls to receivor's office; telephone calls to 0 = no bill Carol Stewart at receivor's office. 06/05/91 SRM Re: Hayashi (Bankruptcy) 1 = a/r reminder Review Hayashi suit with "partners" at Orange full detail County Superior Court; telephone call to L. 2 = expense only bill Strang and L. Schutz at Tustin City Hall; summary w/expenses preparation of memo to James G. Rourke. 06/24/91 SRM Telephone conference with Tustin City Hall re .00 back up bills for proof of claim. 06/27/91 JGR Review of files; prepare for Audit Committee .00 meeting; memo to file; letter from Colson; memo 60 days to file; memo to Susan R. Medwied; out of office .00 conference at Tustin City Hall for Audit 90 days Committee meeting; memo to file. .00 Total fees for this matter $ 713.00 * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * * 120 days .00 * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 108.00 * * 544-8890 * CR * * * * matter 00018 * * tmkp date hours rate amount * * * SRM 06/04/91 1.00 110 110.00 * * * * SRM 06/04/91 1.00 110 110.00 * * * * SRM 06/05/91 1.80 110 198.00 * * * * SRM 06/24/91 .50 110 55.00 * * * * JGR 06/27/91 2.00 120 240.00 * * * * * 6.30 713.00 City of Tustin PAGE 2 * CONTINUED Statement Number 1100-00018-000 JGR * r VG SUMMARY * * JGR 2.00 120 240.00 * SRM * 4.30 110 473.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 71$.00 * * 6.30 713.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH $ 713.00 * 713.00 TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE ---------- $ 71$.00 * 713.00 Rourke 8 Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Bitted through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1100-00022-000 JGR City of Tustin Attn: Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward MISCELLANEOUS D, xSEMENTS 06/18/91 Extraordinary photocopy charges 06/20/91 Extraordinary photocopy charges Total disbursements for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE * * bitting timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 y * fees billed to date 3703.00 * 544-8890 * $ 3,773.90 $ 3,773.90 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * matter 00022 * .00 .00 * 4.50 * CY 06/18/91 4.50 3.75 * CY 06/20/91 3.75 ---------- $ 8.25 * 8.25 * * * * $ 8.25 8.25 ---------- $ 8.25 8.25 ---------- $ 8.25 * 8.25 Rourke & Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1100-00026-000 JGR City of Tustin Attn: Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward POUCE DEPARTMENT Fu...#tOFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/03/91 DAD Re: Bail Schedule Review City Code re degree of offenses. 06/04/91 DAD Final memo to P. Sargent and bait schedule revisions. 06/11/91 JGR Telephone message from/telephone call to Captain Wakefield; memo to file. 06/12/91 JGR Review Health Department Contract; telephone message to Captain Wakefield. 06/17/91 JGR Telephone message from/telephone call to J. Weaver re Ben Warner's Garage; memo to file; telephone call to Clark Galliher (will call back). 06/18/91 JGR Review and revise memo to Officer Galtiher re Ben Warner's Garage; memo to file. 06/19/91 JRS Re: Bail Schedule Call from Chief Franks re pending bail schedule. 06/19/91 JGR Office conference. with John R. Shaw/James G. Rourke re bail schedule; telephone message to Chief Franks. 06/20/91 JGR Out of office conference at Tustin Police Department re bait schedule; telephone call to Chief Franks; telephone call from Chief Franks; memo to file. * * bitting timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 921.00 * 544-8890 * $ 921.00 $ 921.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * matter 00026 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * DAD 06/03/91 .20 110 22.00 * * DAD 06/04/91 .20 110 22.00 * * JGR 06/11/91 .30 120 36.00 * * JGR 06/12/91 .30 120 36.00 * * JGR 06/17/91 .90 120 108.00 * * * * JGR 06/18/91 .40 120 48.00 * * JRS 06/19/91 .20 120 24.00 * * JGR 06/19/91 .40 120 48.00 * * * JGR 06/20/91 .70 120 84.00 * * * City of Tustin PAGE 2 * CONTINUtD Statement Number 1100-00026-000 JGR * 0' 191 JRS Re: Loitering Sign * JRS 06/20/91 .50 120 60.00 Review draft sign prohibiting loitering; telephone comments to Lt. Wedenmeyer. 06/25/91 JRS Telephone call from Sgt. Zicarelli. * JRS 06/25/91 .20 120 24.00 06/25/91 JGR Fax from S. Frazier re subpena duces tecum; * JGR 06/25/91 1.30 120 156.00 review of law; memo to file; telephone call to Frazier; telephone message from Frazier; memo to Frazier. 06/26/91 JRS Re: Code Violation - R.V. Parking * JRS 06/26/91 .50 120 60.00 Review Municipal Code Section 9271(x) re R.V. parking violations; telephone call to Sgt. Zacarelli re infraction procedure. 06/28/91 JRS Re: Bail Schedule * JRS 06/28/91 .50 120 60.00 Telephone call from Chief Franks re code enforcement. * Total fees for this matter S 7$8.00 * * * 6.60 788.00 BILLING SUMMARY * * JGR 4.30 120 516.00 * JRS 1.90 120 228.00 * * DAD .40 110 44.00 _ TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH S 7$8.00 * * 6.60 788.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- $ 788.00 * 788.00 TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE ---------- S 788.00 * 788.00 Rourke & wuodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Bitted through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1100-00027-000 JGR City of Tustin Attn: Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward PLANNING COMMISSION ROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/10/91 JRS Attend 6-10-91 Planning Commission meeting. 06/10/91 JRS Review Planning Commission agenda in preparation for 6-10-91 meeting. 06/14/91 JRS Research Vehicle Code re warrants required for stop sign violations per Planning Commission request. 06/24/91 JRS Review agenda package. 06/24/91 JRS Attend 6-24-91 Planning Commission meeting. 06/24/91 DMC Pick up agenda package. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * * 120 days .00 * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 43.00 * * 544-8890 S 43.00 $ 43.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * matter 00027 * * tmkp date hours rate amount * JRS 06/10/91 1.80 120 216.00 * * JRS 06/10/91 1.00 120 120.00 * * JRS 06/14/91 .50 120 60.00 * * JRS 06/24/91 1.00 120 120.00 * JRS 06/24/91 1.80 120 216.00 * * DMC 06/24/91 .90 20 18.00 $ 750.00 * * * * 7.00 750.00 * * JRS 6.10 120 732.00 * * OMC .90 20 18.00 S 750.00 * * 7.00 750.00 ---------- S 750.00 * 750.00 ---------- $ 750.00 * 750.00 Rourke & Wuodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1100-00028-000 JGR City of Tustin Attn: Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward PUBLIC WORKS F xOFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/03/91 DAD Re: Cable Television * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency K-01 * last payment * bitting realization 100 % * fees bitted to date 2666.00 * 544-8890 * $ 2,666.00 $ 2,6166.00 CR ---------- .00 --- ---- .00 * * * matter 00028 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * DAD 06/03/91 .40 110 44.00 * * * JGR 06/06/91 .90 120 108.00 * * * JGR 06/17/91 1.10 120 132.00 * * * * * * DAD 06/21/91 .60 110 66.00 * * * JRS 06/24/91 .20 120 24.00 * * JGR 06/25/91 1.30 120 156.00 * * * * * * Review status of SS 12 on standards of service implemented by franchising authority. 06/06/91 JGR Review contract and insurance certificate for consultant (soils engineer); review and approve all entry permits for Orange Avenue. 06/17/91 JGR Telephone message from/telephone call to W. Hallman re White Construction Co.; memo to file; memo from F. Page re Prescott property; telephone message to and memo to Page; telephone message from/telephone call to R. Westrick; telephone message to R. Westrick. 06/21/91 DAD Re: Cable Television Act Revise memo to R. White re Cable Television Act of 1991. 06/24/91 JRS Re: Foy Subpoena Review subpoena served on building department. 06/25/91 JGR Letter from public works re intersection signalization; review of file; receive and review contracts, bonds, etc. re sidewalks, curbs and gutter contracts; memo to W. Hallman; telephone message from/telephone call to N. Mondok; office conference with Susan R. Medwied/James G. Rourke re CalTrans. * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency K-01 * last payment * bitting realization 100 % * fees bitted to date 2666.00 * 544-8890 * $ 2,666.00 $ 2,6166.00 CR ---------- .00 --- ---- .00 * * * matter 00028 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * DAD 06/03/91 .40 110 44.00 * * * JGR 06/06/91 .90 120 108.00 * * * JGR 06/17/91 1.10 120 132.00 * * * * * * DAD 06/21/91 .60 110 66.00 * * * JRS 06/24/91 .20 120 24.00 * * JGR 06/25/91 1.30 120 156.00 * * * * * * City of Tustin PAGE 2 * CONTINUED Statement Number 1100-00028-000 JGR * V -191 DMC Deliver agreement to Sam Altowaiji. * DMC 06/25/91 1.10 20 22.00 91 JGR Telephone message from/telephone call to D. * JGR 06/27/91 .30 120 36.00 Kasdan re signal controller locations. * Total fees for this matter S 588.00 * * 5.90 588.00 BILLING SUMMARY * * JGR 3.60 120 432.00 * JRS .20 120 24.00 * DAD 1.00 110 110.00 * * DMC 1.10 20 22.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH S 5$8.00 * * 5.90 588.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- S 5$8.00 * 588.00 TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE ---------- $ 5$8.00 * 588.00 Rourke & Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1100-00029-000 JGR City of Tustin Attn: Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward SOLID WASTE F. ROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/03/91 JGR Telephone call from attorney Jensen; memo to * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/c reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * bitting realization 100 % * fees bitted to date 403.00 * 544-8890 * $ 403.00 $ 403.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * matter 00029 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * JGR 06/03/91 1.10 120 132.00 * * * * JGR- 06/06/91 2.60 120 312.00 * * * * JGR 06/07/91 2.30 120 276.00 * * * JGR 06/10/91 1.30 120 156.00 * * * * * * JGR 06/11/91 1.10 120 132.00 * * * * JGR 06/12/91 3.10 120 372.00 * * * file; telephone call to W. Huston; telephone message from W. Huston; review -of file; memo to file. 06/06/91 JGR Out of office conference at Tustin City Hall with W. Huston, C. Shingleton, R. Nault and James G. Rourke; memo to file; telephone call to attorney Jensen (will call back). 06/07/91 JGR Telephone message from/telephone call to attorney Jensen; memo to file; telephone call to R. Nault; memo to file; telephone call to attorney Jensen; memo to file; letter to J. Stevens. 06/10/91 JGR Review of file; review and revise letter to J. Stevens; telephone call to R. Nault; memo to file; telephone message from/telephone call to R. Nault; memo to file; letter from attorney Jensen; fax to W. Huston, R. Nault and C. Shingleton; review of file; memo to file. 06/11/91 JGR Telephone message from/telephone call to R. Nault; memo to file; review of file; telephone message to/telephone call from R. Nault; memo to file. 91 JGR Review of files; memo to file; prepare draft addendum to Solid Waste Contract; fax from C. Shingleton; telephone message to/telephone call from W. Huston; memo to file. * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/c reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * bitting realization 100 % * fees bitted to date 403.00 * 544-8890 * $ 403.00 $ 403.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * matter 00029 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * JGR 06/03/91 1.10 120 132.00 * * * * JGR- 06/06/91 2.60 120 312.00 * * * * JGR 06/07/91 2.30 120 276.00 * * * JGR 06/10/91 1.30 120 156.00 * * * * * * JGR 06/11/91 1.10 120 132.00 * * * * JGR 06/12/91 3.10 120 372.00 * * * City of Tustin PAGE 2 * CONTINUED Statement Number 1100-00029-000 JGR * 0' 'i91 JGR Review and revise solid waste contract. * JGR 06/13/91 5.60 120 672.00 91 JGR Telephone message from/telephone call to attorney * JGR 06/17/91 5.10 120 612.00 Jensen (will cat( back); review and revise amendment to solid waste agreement; telephone call from Jensen; memo to file; review and revise agreement; telephone call from Jensen; memo to file. 06/18/91 JGR Review and revise contract; review of file; * JGR 06/18/91 4.10- 120 492.00 review and revise contract; memo to R. Nautt, C. Shingleton and W. Huston; review of'files memo *. to file. 06/24/91 JGR Review of files; memo to file; out of office * JGR 06/24/91 4.90 120 588.00 conference at Tustin City Hall with W. Huston/C. Shingleton/R. Nautt/James G. Rourke; memo to file; review and revise agreement. 06/25/91 JGR Review and revise Solid Waste Agreement; * JGR 06/25/91 4.90 120 588.00 telephone call to R. Nautt; fax to C. Shingleton; R. Nautt and W. Huston; telephone call to R. Nautt. 06/26/91 JGR Fax from R. Nautt; review and revise agreements; * JGR 06/26/91 3.40 120 408.00 telephone call to R. Nautt; memo to file; review and revise agreements; telephone call to R. Nautt; memo to file; telephone call from R. Nault; memo to file. 06/27/91 JGR Review latest revised draft of contract; letter * JGR 06/27/91 1.30 120 156.00 to attorney Jensen. C 91 JGR Telephone call to R. Nault (will call back); * JGR 06/28/91 .90 120 108.00 telephone call to W. Huston; memo to file; review of file; memo to file. * Total fees for this matter $ 5,004.00 * * * 41.70 5004.00 BILLING SUMMARY * * * JGR 41.70 120 5004.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 5,004.00 * * 41.70 5004.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- $ 5,004.00 * 5004.00 TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE ---------- $ 5,004.00 * 5004.00 Rourke 8 ...,odruf f * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 * date of last bill * date of last reminder Orange, CA 92668 * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 (714) 558-7000 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only Federal ID No. 95-3678827 * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses July 9, 1991 current .00 * 30 days .00 Billed through 06/30/91 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 Statement Number 1100-00030-000 JGR * * 120 days .00 City of Tustin * billing frequency M-01 Attn: Finance Director * last payment 15222 Del Amo Avenue * billing realization 0 Tustin, California 92680 * fees billed to date .00 * 544-8890 VIOLATIONS * matter 00030 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED * * tmkp date hours rate amount 06/03/91 JRS Attended meeting on 6-3-91 with C. Shingleton, P. * JRS 06/03/91 1.90 120 228.00 _ Sargent, D. Fox re tire center CUP issue and code enforcement re Perfit property. 91 JRS Assemble inspection warrant package/field report * JRS 06/03/91 1.00 120 120.00 form and send to Paula Sargent. 06/05/91 JRS Re: Perfit Property JRS 06/05/91 .30 120 36.00 Telephone call to set site inspection re Perfit violation; telephone call to M. Montgomery; telephone call to R. Ledendecker. 06/12/91 JGR Office conference with Wayne W. Winthers/James G. * JGR 06/12/91 .30 120 36.00 Rourke re code enforcement; memo to file. 06/18/91 JGR Telephone call from Ralph Lovett, Allstate Signs; * JGR 06/18/91 .90 120 108.00 memo to file; telephone call to Dan Fox; memo to file; telephone call to Lovett; memo to file. * Total fees for this matter $ 528.00 * * * 4.40 528.00 BILLING SUMMARY * * JGR 1.20 120 144.00 * * JRS 3.20 120 384.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 528.00 * * 4.40 528.00 ---------- TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH $ 528.00 * 528.00 Rourke & Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1100-00031-000 JGR City of Tustin Attn: Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward WAIER DEPARTMENT F ROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/03/91 JRS Telephone call with John Donahue re appraisal report/right of entry issue. 06/06/91 JRS Re: Vandenberg Well Site Prepare letter to appraiser re need for supplemental report. 06/06/91 JRS Re: Perfit Property Prepare letter to Perfit's attorney re appraisal and eminent domain hearing. 06/06/91 JRS Re: Perfit Property Telephone call to Mike Montgomery's office. 06/06/91 JRS Telephone conference with R. Ledendecker re staff report for Perfit eminent domain hearing; Vendenberg negative declaration. 06/06/91 JRS Re: Perfit Property Confer with city attorney re site inspection on Perfit property. 06/06/91 JRS Re: Perfit Property Met with Tom Whisler and fire inspector to inspect Perfit property for possible code violations; discuss inspection warrant procedure. 06/10/91 JRS Re: Perfit Property Telphone conference with Katie re noticing of Negative Declaration. * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 384.00 * 544-8890 * $ 384.00 $ 384.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * matter 00031 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * JRS 06/03/91 .50 120 60.00 * * JRS 06/06/91 .50 120 60.00 * * JRS 06/06/91 .40 120 48.00 * * * JRS 06/06/91 .20 120 24.00 * * JRS 06/06/91 .20 120 24.00 * * JRS 06/06/91 .30 120 36.00 * * * JRS 06/06/91 1.60 120 192.00 * * * * JRS 06/10/91 .20 120 24.00 * city of Tustin PAGE 2 * CONTINUED Statement Number 1100-00031-000 JGR * r '91 JRS Re: Perfit Property * JRS 06/11/91 1.00 120 120.00 Revise staff report re eminent domain hearing by R. Ledendecker; check CCP Section 1240.030 re correct legal procedure. 06/12/91 JGR Office conference with John R. Shaw/James G. * JGR 06/12/91 .70 120 84.00 Rourke re Perfit; telephone message from/telephone call to M. Nicolosi; memo to file. 06/12/91 JRS Re: Perfit Property * JRS 06/12/91 .20 120 24.00 Telephone call to confirm that staff report now in final order/ready for distribution. 06/12/91 JRS Re: Perfit Property * JRS 06/12/91 1.00 120 120.00 Review and approve Perfit staff report by R. Ledendecker; telephone call with R. Ledendecker re revisions to his staff report on Permit eminent domain hearing; confer with James G. Rourke re wording of staff report and telephone call back to R. Ledendecker re final wording on staff report. 06/17/91 JRS Re: Perfit Property * JRS 06/17/91 .20 120 24.00 Telephone call from Rita re notice -warrant procedure to inspect this property. 06/17/91 JGR Re: Perfit Property * JGR 06/17/91 1.00 120 120.00 Memo from John R. Shaw re Perfit; office conference with John R. Shaw/James G. Rourke; memo to file; telephone message from/telephone __ call to attorney Mike Baruch; memo to file; office conference with John R. Shaw/James G. Rourke; memo to file. 06/18/91 JRS Re: Perfit Property * JRS 06/18/91 .30 120 36.00 Draft Notice of Continued Eminent Domain Hearing per James G. Rourke's request. 06/25/91 JGR Telephone call from W. Carroll; memo from W. * JGR 06/25/91 .90 120 108.00 Altowaiji; review contracts 12011 and 12088 re telephone call to water main relocations; memo to Altowaiji. 06/27/91 JGR Telephone call from D. Kasdan re Perfit * JGR 06/27/91 .30 120 36.00 acquisition; memo to file. 06/28/91 JGR Telephone message from/telephone call to Officer * JGR 06/28/91 .90 120 108.00 A. Kiilehua; telephone message from/telephone call to/telephone call to G. Veeh re Vandenberg well site; telephone message to John R. Shaw; memo to file. * Total fees for this matter * $ 1,248.00 * * 10.40 1248.00 DISBURSEMENTS * 06/06/91 Extraordinary photocopy charges 28.75 * CY 06/06/91 28.75 06/06/91 Postage/Express Mail charges 2.90 * PS 06/06/91 2.90 06/18/91 Executive Express charges incurred for city * EE 06/18/91 10.00 council document delivery to Valerie Whiteman, c/o Tustin Police Dept on 5-20-91 10.00 Total disbursements for this matter ---------- $ 41.65 * * 41.65 City of Tustin PAGE 3 * CONTINUED Statement Number 1100-00031-000 JGR F 'G SUMMARY * * JGR * JRS * TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH S 1,24$.00 * TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ 41.65 ---------- TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH $ 1,289.65 ---------- TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE $ 1,289.65 3.80 120 456.00 6.60 120 792.00 10.40 1248.00 41.65 1289.65 1289.65 Rourke & Wuudruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 11, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1100-00032-001 JGR City of Tustin Attn: Finan -,e Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86-2: BONDS DEFERRED FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/27/91 JGR Fax from S. Coma (Merrill Lynch); memo to Alan R. watts; review of file; telephone message to Merril Lynch. 06/28/91 JGR Fax from attorney Cole; review and revise opinion for conversion; fax to J. Blakely; telephone call to attorney Cole; telephone message to/telephone message from Barry Fisher; memo to file; Total fees for this matter $ 468.00 BILLING SUM"ARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 468.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH $ 468.00 * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code C-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 0 y * fees billed to date .00 * 544-8890 * * * * matter 00032 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * JGR 06/27/91 .80 195 156.00 * * * JGR 06/28/91 1.60 195 312.00 * * * * * * * 2.40 468.00 * * * * JGR 2.40 195 468.00 * * 2.40 468.00 * * * 468.00 Rourke 8 W —jruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 10, 1991 Bitted through 06/30/91 Client number 1101 JGR CITY OF TUSTIN Redevelopment Agency c/o Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 RE: CIVIC CENTER PROJECT TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES FOR THESE MATTERS CREDIT BALANCE APPLIED TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE PREPAID BALANCE BROUGHT FORWARD * * bitting timekeeper James G. Rourke * cover page * client 1101 Tustin - Redevelopment Agency * matter 00000 * * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment 06/26/91 6569.50 * billing realization 100 * fees billed to date 13820.10 * 544-8890 * * RE: CIVIC CENTER PROJECT - DEFERRED - $195/ALL * matter 00012 $ 1,920.00 * fees 1920.00 $ .00 * expenses .00 * * * * JGR 3.60 120 432.00 * JRS 12.40 120 1488.00 * $ 1,920.00 * 1920.00 * ---------- $ 1,920.00 * 1920.00 * $ $0.00 CR * 30.00 CR ---------- $ 1,840.00 * 1890.00 * $ 30.00- * 30.00- Rourke & a_ _.,ruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 10, 1991 Bitted through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1101-00012-000 JGR CITY OF TUSTIN Redevelopment Agency c/o Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 RE: CIVIC CENTER PROJECT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/03/91 JRS Telephone call to E. Elowe re Builder's All Risk insurance issue. 06103/91 JRS Two telephone calls with Thomas Barrett re insurance requirements on City Hall project. 06/03/91 JRS Telephone call from E. Elowe re Barrett insurance issue. L �1 JRS Telephone call from Barrett insurance that All Risk policy will be supplied. 06/03/91 JRS Telephone call with E. Elowe confirming status of all risk policy. 06/03/91 JRS Call from E. Elowe re start of construction. 06/03/91 JRS Review final insurance certificate for Builder's All Risk insurance. 06/03/91 JGR Memo from R. Nault; telephone call to W. Huston; telephone call to R. Break; telephone call to R. Nault (will call back); telephone call from Break; telephone call to W. Huston; out of office conference with R. Nault/James G. Rourke; memo to file. 06/03/91 JRS Review 5-29-91 ten page letter from MW Builders re City's bid specifications for remodel project. 06/03/91 JRS Telephone conference with E. Elowe re Barrett insurance police building work. 06/03/91 JRS Review final construction contract re police building and execute agreement; review insurance certificates and make suggestions to E. Elowe; telephone call to contractor's insurance agent. * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill * 5 = summary w/expenses * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days * .00 * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 0 y * fees billed to date .00 * 544-8890 * * RE: CIVIC CENTER PROJECT - DEFERRED - E195/ALL * matter 00012 * tmkp date hours rate * amount * JRS 06/03/91 .10 * 120 12.00 * JRS 06/03/91 .50 * 120 60.00 * JRS 06/03/91 .10 120 12.00 * * JRS 06/03/91 .10 120 12.00 * * JRS 06/03/91 .10 * 120 12.00 * JRS 06/03/91 .10 120 12.00 * JRS 06/03/91 .30 * 120 36.00 * JGR 06/03/91 1.50 * * * 120 180.00 * * * JRS 06/03/91 1.00 120 120.00 * JRS 06/03/91 .10 * 120 12.00 * JRS 06/03/91 1.10 * * * * 120 132.00 CITY OF TUSTIN PAGE 2 * CONTINuLU Statement Number 1101-00012-000 JGR * 01+-tn4/91 JRS Telephone call from E. Elowe re demand for law * JRS 06/04/91 .20 120 24.00 bid contract; interpretation of G.C. 6250, et * 06/04/91 JRS seq. Review 5-13-91 Crabb letter raising delay damage * JRS 06/04/91 .20 120 24.00 issue. * 06/05/91 JGR Review of file; telephone call from attorney * JGR 06/05/91 .40 120 48.00 Break; memo to file. 06/06/91 JRS Prepare written response to MW Builders analysis * JRS 06/06/91 2.00 120 240.00 of agency's project specifications. 06/07/91 JRS Review and approve final insurance certificate * JRS 06/07/91 .20 120 24.00 for police building. 06/11/91 JRS Telephone call re interpretation of Public JRS 06/11/91 .50 120 60.00 Contracts Code Section 10365.5; research code section and call E. Eldwe back re interpretation; also answered question re delay damages. 06/12/91 JGR Telephone call from Norm Smith; memo to file. * JGR 06/12/91 .30 120 36.00 06/13/91 JRS Telephone call from E. Etowe re bid specs for * JRS 06/13/91 .20 120 24.00 City Hall. 06/14/91 JRS Review plan from E. Elowe; telephone call from * JRS 06/14/91 4.00 120 480.00 Elowe re plans sent to this office. 06/17/91 JRS Telephone call from E. Elowe re bid * JRS 06/17/91 .20 120 24.00 forms -subcontractors. 06/18/91 JRS Telephone call from E. Elowe re amount of * JRS 06/18/91 .30 120 36.00 Builder's All Risk insurance to require. 06/18/91 JRS Telephone call to E. Elowe re Builder's All Risk * JRS 06/18/91 .20 120 24.00 insurance. * 06/24/91 JGR Letter from E. Elowe; telephone call to E. Elowe; * JGR 06/24/91 .40 120 48.00 memo to file. 06L25/91 JRS Two telephone calls from E. Elowe re bid errors; * JRS 06/25/91 .40 120 48.00 research public contracts Code Section 5103. L /91 JRS Telephone call from E. Elowe re low bid - * JRS 06/25/91 .20 120 24.00 Dillingham issue. 06/25/91 JRS Confer with James G. Rourke re low bid error. * JRS 06/25/91 .30 120 36.00 06/25/91 JGR Office conference with John R. Shaw/James G. * JGR 06/25/91 .70 120 84.00 Rourke; review of law; memo to file; office conference with John R. Shaw/James G. Rourke; memo to file. 06/26/91 JGR Telephone call from E. Elowe; memo to file. * * JGR 06/26/91 .30 120 36.00 Total fees for this matter * $ 1,920.00 * * 16.00 1920.00 BILLING SUMMARY * * JGR 3.60 120 432.00 * JRS 12.40 120 1488.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH * $ 1,920.00 * * 16.00 1920.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- $ 1,920.00 * * 1920.00 CREDIT BALANCE APPLIED $ 30.00 CR * 30.00 CR TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE ---------- $ 1,890.00 * 1890.00 Rourke 8 Woodruff * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 * date of last reminder . * last bill through 1-,:, 1-- CA 92668 Orange, *bill type codeaction ataken (714) 558-7000 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 4 1 = a/r reminder = full detail Federal ID No. 95-3678827 * 2 = expense only bill 5 ex enses = summary w / p * .00 * current .00 July 91 1991 * 30 days .00 * 60 days Billed through 06/30/91 * 90 days .00 .00 * 120 days Statement Number 1101-00012-000 JGR * billing frequency M-01 CITY OF TUSTIN * last payment 0 % * realization billing Redevelopment Agency * fees billed to date .00 c/o Finance Director * :544-8890 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 CENTER PROSECT - DEFERRED - $195/ALL * RE: CIVIC RE: CIVIC CENTER PROJECT * matter 00012 hours rate amount * tmkp date FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED * 120 12.00 * JRS 06/03/91 -10 th E. Elowe re Barrett of -1-0-1191 JRS Telephone conferee` a !� * 1.10 120 132.00 insurance police rk- «� �!� p oli * JRS 06/03/91 OoivS/91 JRS Review final construction contract, * and execute agreement; review insurance certificates and make suggestions to E. Elowe; 12.00 telephone call to contractor's insurance agent. * JRS 06/03/91 .10 120 06/03/91 JRS Telephone call to E. Elowe re_Builder's All Risk 120 60.00 insurance issue. * JRS 06/03/91 .50 06/03/91 JRS Two telephone calls with Thomas Barretect. Hall p 1 * 120 12.00 uirements on City insurance req * JRS 06/03/91 .10 Barrett insurance 06/03/91 JRS Telephone call from E. Elowe re ance * 120 12.00 issue. that All * JRS 06/03/91 .10 06/03/91 JRS Telephone call from Barrett insurance 120 12.00 Risk policy will be supplied.* JRS 06/03/91 .10 06/03/91 JRS Telephone call with E. Elowe confirming status of 120 12.00 all risk policy. * JRS 06/03/91 .10 120 36.00 06/03/91 JRS Call from E. Etowe re start of construction. Builder's * JRS 06/03/91 .30 06/03/91 JRS Review final insurance certificate for * 1.50 120 180.00 All Risk insurance. * JGR 06/03/91 - 06/03/91 JGR Memo from R. Nault, telephone call to W. Huston; to R. telephone call to R. Break; telephone call Nault (will call back); telephone call from Break; telephone call to W. Huston; out of office conference with R. Nault/James G. Rourke; memo to * 120.00 file. JRS 06/03/91 1.00 120 —4/03/91 JRS Review 5-29-91 ten page letter from MW Builders project. 120 24.00 re City's bid specifications for remodel * JRs 06/04/91 -20 vo/04/91 JRS Telephone call from E. Elowe re demand for law 6250, et bid contract; interpretation of G.C. seq. CITY OF TUSTIN PAGE 2 * CONTINU, Statement Number 1101-00012-000 JGR * 06'-01191 JRS Review 5-13-91 Crabb letter raising delay damage * * JRS 06/04/91 .20 120 24.00 06..,/91 JGR issue. Review of file; telephone call from attorney * JGR 06/05/91 .40 120 48.00. Break; memo to file. 06/06/91 JRS Prepare written response to MW Builders analysis * JRS 06/06/91 2.00 120 240.00 of agency's project specifications. 06/07/91 JRS Review and approve final insurance certificate * JRS 06/07/91 .20 120 24.00 for police building. 06/11/91 JRS Telephone call re interpretation of Public * JRS 06/11/91 .50 120 60.00 Contracts Code Section 10365.5; research code section and call E. Etowe back re interpretation; also answered question re delay damages. 06/12/91 JGR Telephone call from Norm Smith; memo to file. * JGR 06/12/91 .30 120 36.00 06/13/91 JRS Telephone call from E. Elowe re bid specs for * JRS 06/13/91 .20 120 24.00 City Hall. 06/14/91 JRS Review plan from E. Elowe; telephone call from * JRS 06/14/91 4.00 120 480.00 Elowe re plans sent to this office. 06/17/91 JRS Telephone call from E. Elowe re bid * JRS 06/17/91 .20 120 24.00 forms-subcontractors. 06/18/91 JRS Telephone call from E. Elowe re amount of * JRS 06/18/91 .30 120 36.00 Builder's All Risk insurance to require. 06/18/91 JRS Telephone call to E. Elowe re Builder's All Risk * JRS 06/18/91 .20 120 24.00 insurance. * 06/24/91 JGR Letter from E. Elowe; telephone call to E. Elowe; * JGR 06/24/91 .40 120 48.00 memo to file. 06/25/91 JRS Two telephone calls from E. Elowe re bid errors; * JRS 06/25/91 .40 120 48.00 research public contracts Code Section 5103. 01. A JRS Telephone call from E. Elowe re low bid - * JRS 06/25/91 .20 120 24.00 Dillingham issue. 06/25/91 JRS Confer with James G. Rourke re low bid error. * JRS 06/25/91 .30 120 36.00 06/25/91 JGR Office conference with John R. Shaw/James G. * JGR 06/25/91 .70 120 84.00 Rourke; review of law; memo to file; office conference with John R. Shaw/James G. Rourke; memo to file. 06/26/91 JGR Telephone call from E. Elowe; memo to file. * * JGR 06/26/91 .30 120 36.00 Total fees for this matter * $ 1,920.00 * * 16.00 1920.00 BILLING SUMMARY * * * JGR 3.60 120 432.00 * JRS 12.40 120 1488.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH * $ 1,920.00 * * 16.00 1920.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- $ 1,920.00 * * 1920.00 CREDIT BALANCE APPLIED $ 30.00 CR * 30.00 CR TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE ---------- $ 1,890.00 * 1890.00 Rourke & w, _ruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1101-00013-005 JGR CITY OF TUSTIN Redevelopment Agency c/o Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 002 dated 05/09/91 BOND ISSUE 1991 - DEFERRED STATEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 5 2,730.00 0' '91 ARW Telephone conference with J. Rourke re The Irvine Company funding of City Hall. 05/02/91 ARW Preparation for meeting on 1991 bonds with financing groups. 05/03/91 ARW Review of docs relating to The Irvine Company contribution of $2,000,000 for City Hall. 05/10/91 ARW Review of bond documents to discuss in conference call on 5-13-91. 05/13/91 ARW Preparation for and hold conference call on documents among the finance group. 05/13/91 ARW Telephone conference with James G. Rourke/ D. Hunt/B. Freer re arbitrage on bonds to fund City Hall by the Irvine Company. 06/27/91 JGR Fax from S. Coma (Merrill Lynch); memo to Alan R. Watts; review of file; telephone message to Merril Lynch. 06/28/91 JGR Fax from attorney Cole; review and revise opinion for conversion; fax to J. Blakely; telephone call to attorney Cole; telephone message to/telephone message front Barry Fisher; memo to file; 06/28/91 ARW Review of Katz -Hollis report for Preliminary Official Statement. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY 5 2,457.00 * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 05/09/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date 04/30/91 * bill type code C-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill * 5 = summary w/expenses * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days 2730.00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days * .00 * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 2730.00 * 544-8890 * * * * DO NOT CONSOLIDATE THIS MATTER - DEFERRED. * matter 00013 * tmkp date hours rate * amount * ARW 05/01/91 .20 195 39.00 * * ARW 05/02/91 4.00 195 780.00 * * ARW 05/03/91 .50 195 97.50 * * ARW 05/10/91 2.20 195 429.00 * * ARW 05/13/91 2.20 195 429.00 * * ARW 05/13/91 .40 * 195 78.00 * * JGR 06/27/91 .80 * 195 156.00 * * JGR 06/28/91 1.60 * * 195 312.00 * * ARW 06/28/91 .70 * 195 136.50 * * * 12.60 * * 2457.00 CITY OF TUSTIN Statement Number 1101-00013-005 JGR TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH PLUS BALANCE FORWARD TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE PAGE 2 * CONTINL_U * * JGR 2.40 195 468.00 * ARW 10.20 195 1989.00 * $ 2,457.00 12.60 2457.00 * ---------- S 2,457.00 * 2457.00 * S 2,730.00 * 2730.00 ---------- S 5,187.00 * 5187.00 Rourke & Wooaruff * billing timekeeper James G. Rdurke 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 * date of last bill 05/09/91 _ * date of last reminder Orange, CA 92668 * last bill through date 04/30/91 * bill type code C-01 (714) 558-7000 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only Federal ID No. 95-3678827 * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill * 5 = summary w/expenses July 11, 1991 * current .00 * 30 days .00 Billed through 06/30/91 * 60 days 2730.00 * 90 days .00 Statement Number 1101-00013-007 JGR * 120 days * .00 * billing frequency M-01 CITY OF TUSTIN * last payment Redevelopment Agency * billing realization 100 y c/o Finance Director * fees billed to date 2730.00 15222 Del Amo Avenue * 544-8890 Tustin, California 92680 * Salance forward as of bill number 002 dated 05/09/91 a 2,730.00 * * DO NOT CONSOLIDATE THIS MATTER - DEFERRED. BOND ISSUE 1991 - DEFERRED STATEMENT * matter 00013 * t�.kp date hours rate amount FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED * 0! 1 ARW Telephone conference with J. Rourke re The Irvine * ARW 05/01/91 .20 195 39.00 Company funding of City Hall. * * ARW 05/02/91 195 780.00 05/02/91 ARW Preparation for meeting on 1991 bonds with ,4.00 financing groups. * * ARW 05/03/91 .50 195 97.50 :5/03/91 ARW Review of docs relating to The Irvine Coa any contribution of $2,000,000 for City Hall. 05/10/91 ARU Review of bond documents to discuss in conference * ARW 05/10/91 2.20 195 429.00 call on 5-13-91. 35/13/91 ARW Preparation for and hold conference call on * ARW 05/13/91 2.20 195 429.00 documents among the finance group. * ARW 05/13/91 .40 195 78.00 35/13/91 ARW Telephone conference with James G. Rourke/ D. Hunt/B. Freer re arbitrage on bonds to fund City Hall by the Irvine Company. * 36/28/91 ARW Review of Katz -Hollis report for Preliminary * ARW 06/28/91 .70 * 195 136.50 Official Statement. * Total fees for this matter * S 1,9$9.00 * 10.20 * 1989.00 31LLING SUMMARY * * * ARW 10.20 195 1989.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH * S 1,989.00 * 10.20 1989.00 CITY OF TUSTIN PAGE 2 * CONTINUED Statement Number 1101-00013-007 JGR * * ---------- TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH $ 1,989.00 * 1989.00 * PLUS BALANCE FORWARD S 2,730.00 * 2730.00 ---------- TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE S 4,719.00 * 4719.00 Rourke 8 Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1101-00013-004 JAR CITY OF TUSTIN Redevelopment Agency c/o Finance Director 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 002 dated 05/09/91 * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 05/09/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date 04/30/91 * bill type code C-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days 2730.00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 billing frequency M-01 last payment billing realization 100 % fees billed to date 2730-00 544-8890 * DO NOT CONSOLIDATE THIS MATTER - DEFERRED. BOND ISSUE 1991 - DEFERRED STATEMENT j * matter 00013 * tmkp date hours rate amount FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED ,�� 0 1 ARW Telephone conference with J. Rourke re -'The Irvine * * ARW 05/01/91 .20 195 39.00 Company funding of City Hall. * ARW 05/02/91 4.00 195 780.00 05/02/91 ARW Preparation for meeting on 1991 bonds with * financing groups. ARW OSI03/91 .50 195 97.50 05/03/91 ARW Review of docs relating to The Irvine Company contribution of 52,000,000 for *City Hall. 05/10/91 ARW Review of bond documents to discuss in conference * * ARW 05/10/91 2.20 195 429.00 call on 5-13-91. * ARW 05/13/91 2.20 195 429.00 05/13/91 ARW Preparation for and hold conference call on * documents among the finance group. * ARW 05/13/91 .40 195 78.00 05/13/91 ARW Telephone conference with James G. Rourke/ D. Hunt/B. Freer re arbitrage on bonds to fund =-'_—T1�' City Hall by the Irvine Company. _ * JGR 06/27/91 .80 195 156.00 06/27/91 JGR Fax from S. Coma errs Lynch); memo to Alan R. _ J.C/ Watts; review of file; telephone message to ` �a-✓ Merril Lynch. y;C. J f J * V'/ * JGR 06/28/91 1.60 195 312.00 06/28/91 JGR revise opinion D'I"p f� Fax from attorney Cole; review and I for conversion; fax to J. Blakely; telephone call to attorney Cole; telephone message to/telephone message from Barry Fisher; memo to file; ARW 06/28/91 .70 195 136.50 06/28/91 ARW Review of Katz -Hollis report for Preliminary * Official Statement. * Total fees for this matter * 5 2,457.00 * * 12.60 2457.00 BILLING SUMMARY * * CITY OF TUSTIN PAGE 2 * CONTINUED Statement Number 1101-00013-004 JGR * * JGR 2.40 195 468.00 * ARW * 10.20 195 1989.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH i 2,452.00 * * 12.60 2457.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- $ 2,457.00 * * 2457.00 PLUS BALANCE FORWARD $ 2,730.00 * 2730.00 TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE ---------- $ 5,187.00 * 5187.00 Rourke & Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Client number 1102 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 GENERAL CLAIMS MATTERS TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH ZUI►SKY, ET AL. v. TUSTIN l TION TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH BEGEL, SAMUEL/Claim # 85-38 LITIGATION TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH FIFE, DONALD/Claim # 8710 LITIGATION TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH STOEHR, ANTHONY & ANGELA/Claim # 87-19 LITIGATION TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH REESE, DORIS/Claim #87-25 L I T-LAAT I ON TOTAL -FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * cover page * client 1102 Tustin - Litigation/Claims * matter 00000 * * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment 06/26/91 16859.31 * billing realization 100 y * fees billed to date 73799.00 * 544-8890 * * * matter 00001 $ 252.00 * fees . 252.00' $ .00 * expenses .00 * * Relates to Claim 90-26, Rezai re Pasadena * apartment building * matter 00003 $ 146.00 * fees 146.00 $ .00 * expenses .00 * * * * matter 08538 $ 33.00 * fees 33.00 $ .00 * expenses .00 * * * * matter 08710. $ 213.00 * fees 213.00 $ .00 * expenses .00 * * * * matter 08719 $ 33.00 * fees 33.00 $ .00 * expenses .00 * * * * matter 08725 $ 121.00 * fees 121.00 $ .00 * expenses .00 * City of Tustin client number 1102 JGR M' 4, DEBORAH/Claim #87-46 L PION TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH LOPEZ, MARIA/Claim #88-24 LITIGATION TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH HAMPSON, GREGORY J./Claim #88-65 LITIGATION TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH ROBINSON, CARL LEE/Claim #89-02 LITIGATION TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH COASTLINE CONST./UNDERGROUND/Claim #89-22 LIT NATION TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH LEWIS, SHIRLEY/Claim #89-31 LITIGATION TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH HARRIS, JOHN NATHAN/Claim #89-38 LITIGATION TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH LEWAND, WILLIAM SEAN/Claim #89-44 LITIGATION TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH PAGE, GERTRUDE/Claim #90-13 LITIGATION TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH PAGE 2 * CONTINUED * * * * matter 08746 .00 * fees .00 $ .50 * expenses * * .50 * * matter 08824 $ 55.00 * fees 55.00 $ .00 * expenses * * .00 * * matter 08865 $ 99.00 * fees 99.00 $ .00 * expenses * * .00 * * matter 08902 $ 234.00 * fees 234.00 $ .00 * expenses * .00 * Related to Claim nos. * 89-17 and 89-18 * matter 08922 $ 22.00 * fees 22.00 $ .00 * expenses * * .00 * * matter 08931 $ 121.00 * fees 121.00 $ .00 * expenses * * .00 * * matter 08938 $ 21.00 * fees 291.00 $ .00 * expenses * * .00 * * matter 08944 $ 33.00 * fees 33.00 $ .00 * expenses * * .00 * * matter 09013 $ 921.00 * fees 921.00 $ .00 * expenses * .00 City of Tustin client number 1102 JGR ', JON\Claim #90-20 kT I ON TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH REZAI, FERIDOUN/Claim #90-26 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH RE: OIKEEFE, W. PATRICK, JR./Claim No. 90-38 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH DE LA RIVA, JOSEPH, SR./Claim #90-40 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH LEE, KENNETH/Claim #90-45 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH r. .RT, DENNIS/Claim #90-46 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH Baldera, Martin & Ledezma, Maria TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH RE: AYALA, RAMON/CLAIM NO. 91-31 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH PAGE 3 * CONTINUED * * * * * matter 09020 S 176.00 * fees 176.00 S 22$.86 * expenses * 225.86 * Relates to Zukowsky v. Tustin (Pasadena * Apartments) * matter 09026 S 1,628.00 * fees 1628.00 S .00 * expenses * .00 * * matter 09038 S 314.00 * fees 314.00 S 152.90 * expenses * 152.90 * * matter 09040 S 216.00 * fees 216.00 $ .00 * expenses * .00 * * matter 09045 S 2,571.00 * fees 2571.00 S Y8.75 * expenses * 28.75 * * matter 09046 S 486.00 * fees 486.00 S .00 * expenses * .00 * * matter 09125 S 48.00 * fees 48.00 S .00 * expenses * .00 * * matter 09131 S 96.00 * fees . .96.00 S .00 * expenses * * .00 * * LEJ .30 120 36.00 * JGR 5.20 120 624.00 * DKS 4.60 120 552.00 * CGF 4.30 110 473.00 * RWL 24.40 110 2684.00 * CXL 22.20 110 2442.00 * SRM 2.70 110 297.00 * WWW 5.20 110 572.00 * BAF 8.10 50 405.00 City of Tustin PAGE 4 * CONTINUED * client number 1102 JGR * * DMC 1.20 20 24.00 * TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 8,109.00 * 8109.00 * TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ 408.01 * 408.01 TOTAL CHARGES FOR THESE MATTERS $-6-511 * 8517.01 CREDIT BALANCE APPLIED $ 129.00 CR * 129.00 CR ------•--- TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE $`8;8�-Q1* 8388.01 PREPAID BALANCE BROUGHT FORWARD $ 124.00- * 129.00- . d1l Rourke & Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-00001-000 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward GENERAL CLAIMS MATTERS t_ eROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/19/91 JGR Re: Claim Nos. 91-24, 91-25 and 91-26 Two memos from W. Carol(; review of file; memo to file; memo from City Clerk re denial of claim. 06/24/91 JGR Process six claim rejections; four letters from Carl Warren & Company; memo to litigation section; memo to file; memo to J. Blakely. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH CREDIT BALANCE APPLIED TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 516.00 * 544-8890 * $ 516.00 $ 516.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * matter 00001 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * JGR 06/19/91 .60 120 72.00 * * * JGR 06/24/91 1.50 120 180.00 * * * * $ 252.00 * 2.10 252.00 * * * * JGR 2.10 120 252.00 * $ 252.00 * 2.10 252.00 * ----.----- $ 252.00 * 252.00 * $ 129.00 CR * 129.00 CR ---------- $ 123.00 * 123.00 Rourke 8 Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-00003-000 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward ZUKnWSKY, ET AL. v. TUSTIN I TION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/07/91 RWL Receipt and review of court order re brief. 06/10/91 LEJ Confer with Robert W. Lucas; memo to James G. Rourke. 06/11/91 RWL Conference with James G. Rourke re appeal dismissal and extension to file opening brief; prepare application to extend brief filing date. 06/25/91 RWL Review correspondence to Stephen Johnson from James G. Rourke re settlement of case. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE * * bitting timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * bitting realization 100 % * fees billed to date 5766.00 * 544-8890 * S 5,980.50 S 5,980.50 CR ---------- .00 * * Relates to Claim 90-26, Rezai re Pasadena * apartment building * matter 00003 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * RWL 06/07/91 .20 110 22.00 * LEJ 06/10/91 .30 120 36.00 * * RWL 06/11/91 .60 110 66.00 * * * RWL 06/25/91 .20 110 22.00 * * * S 146.00 * 1.30 146.00 * * * * LEJ .30 120 36.00 * RWL 1.00 110 110.00 * S 1146.00 * 1.30 146.00 * ---------- S 146.00 * 146.00 ---------- S 146.00 * 146.00 Rourke & Wr,vdruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-08538-000 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward SEGEL, SAMUEL/Claim # 85-38 1T I ON FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/20/91 CGF Preparation of quarterly status report. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill # 5 = summary w/expenses * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days # .00 * billing frequency M-01 * last payr,+ent * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 33.00 * 544-8890 # $ 33.00 $ 33.00 CR ---------- $ .00 # # * matter 08538 * tmkp date hours rate amount # * CGF 06/20/91 .30 # 110 33.00 $ 33.00 # * .30 # 33.00 # * CGF .30 110 33.00 $ 33.00 * .30 # 33.00 ---------- $ 33.00 * 33.00 ---------- $ 33.00 33.00 Rourke & Wuudruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-08710-000 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward FIFE, DONALD/Claim # 8710 MON FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/02/91 DKS Review maintenance agreement with State; draft memo to file. 06/07/91 BAF Draft Request for Admissions. 06/17/91 DKS Review correspondence from Robert Sanregott. 06/19/91 DKS Review discovery motion of State of California; draft correspondence to plaintiff's attorney. 06/21/91 BAF Granted extension to State on discovery re telephone call with Carol Duan. 06/26/91 DKS Review correspondence from Carol Quan. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 * fees billed to date 1254.00 * 544-8890 * $ 1,254.00 $ 1,254.00 CR $ .00 * * * * matter 08710 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * DKS 06/02/91 .50 120 60.00 * BAF 06/07/91 .70 50 35.00 * DKS 06/17/91 .20 120 24.00 * DKS 06/19/91 .50 120 60.00 * * BAF 06/21/91 .20 50 10.00 * * DKS 06/26/91 .20 120 24.00 * * $ 213.00 * 2.30 213.00 * * * * DKS 1.40 120 168.00 * BAF .90 50 45.00 * $ 213.00 * 2.30 .213.00 * $ 213.00 * 213.00 ---------- $ 213.00 * 213.00 Rourke & uuudruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-08719-000 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward STOEHR, ANTHONY & ANGELA/Claim # 87-19 TION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/20/91 CGF Preparation of quarterly status report. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 594.00 * 544-8890 * $ 594.00 $ 594.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * * matter 08719 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * CGF 06/20/91 .30 110 33.00 * * $ 33.00 .30 33.00 * * * CGF .30 110 33.00 * $ 33.00 .30 33.00 * ---------- $ 33.00 33.00 ---------- $ 33.00 33.00 Rourke & woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-08725-007 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 007 dated 04/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward RU— E, DORIS/Claim #87-25 ,TION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/07/91 RWL Receipt and review of Notice of Taking Deposition of plaintiff. 06/12/91 RWL Receipt and review of deposition notices for depositions of Anelia Barrera and Chet Gallart. 06/18/91 RWL Telephone conference with Raymond Mosler re Lopez Complaint; draft letter to Raymond Mosler re same. 06/25/91 RWL Receipt and review of Signal Maintenance Answer to Reese Amended Complaint and 998 Offer to Compromise; draft correspondence to Raymond Mosler re Lopez complaint. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 04/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date 03/31/91 * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 679.00 * 544-8890 * $ 524.75 $ 524.75 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * * matter 08725 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * RWL 06/07/91 .20 110 22.00 * * RWL 06/12/91 .20 110 22.00 * * RWL 06/18/91 .30 110 33.00 * * * RWL 06/25/91 .40 110 44.00 * * * * * $ 121.00 * 1.10 121.00 * * * * RWL 1.10 110 121.00 * $ 121.00 * 1.10 121.00 * ---------- $ 121.00 * 121.00 $ 121.00 * 121.00 Rourke & Woodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-08746-000 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward MARTIN, DEBORAH/Claim #87-46 \TION DISBURSEMENTS 06/18/91 Fees paid to All Counties Attorney Service for obtaining -copy of request for dismissal from Central O.C. Municipal Court (court destroyed file -obtained copy of register instead), on 5/10/91 Total disbursements for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE * * biLling timekeeper James G. Rourke * tete of last bill 01/12/91 * c_te of last reminder * iast bill through date * till type code S-01 * action to be taken * 1 = no bill 3 = summary only * = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * =filling frequency M-01 * past payment * tilling realization 100 * 'e -es billed to date 33.00 * 514.4-8890 * $ 33.00 $ 33.00 CR $ .00 * * * * natter 08746 * .00 .00 * * AS 06/18/91 .50 * * * .50 * * * * $ .50 .50 $---- .50 * .50 $----- .50 .50 Rourke & Woudruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No.95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-08824-000 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward LOPEZ, MARIA/Claim #88-24 1 TION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/25/91 RWL Telephone conference with Superior Signal counsel re depositions. 06/28/91 RWL Receipt and review of Notice of Taking Plaintiff's Deposition by defendant Doris Reese. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 cat's .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 121.00 * 544-8890 * $ 121.00 $ 121.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * * matter 08824 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * RWL 06/25/91 .30 110 33.00 * * RWL 06/28/91 .20 110 22.00 * * * $ $5.00 .50 55.00 * * * * RWL .50 110 55.00 * $ 55.00 .50 55.00 * $ 55.00 55.00 $ 55.00 55.00 Rourke 8 W ,.,.,ruf f 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-08865-007 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 007 dated 04/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward HAMPSON, GREGORY J./Claim #88-65 t TION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/23/91 WWW Preparation of quarterly status report. 06/26/91 WWW Telephone conference with Kathleen Braden, attorney for Macco Constructors. 06/26/91 WWW Telephone call from attorney for Maaco Constructors tendering defense of City of Tustin. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 04/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date 03/31/91 * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 341.00 * 544-8890 * $ 77.00 $ 77.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * matter 08865 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * WWW 06/23/91 .30 110 33.00 * WWW 06/26/91 .20 110 22.00 * * WWW 06/26/91 .40 110 44.00 * * $ 99.00 * .90 99.00 * * * * WWW .90 110 99.00 * $ 99.00 * .90 99.00 * ---------- $ 99.00 * 99.00 ---------- $ 99.00 * 99.00 Rourke & Wuodruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-08902-006 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 006 dated 03/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward RO3INSON, CARL LEE/Claim #89-02 (TION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/04/91 WWW Telephone call to John Depko. 06/05/91 WWW Telephone call to John Depko (no answer). 06/06/91 WWW Telephone conference with John Depko, public defender investigator, re case investigation. 06/11/91 WWW Receive and review report from John Depko, public defender investigator, and memo to Daniel K. Spradlin. 06/12/91 DKS Review memo from Wayne W. Winthers. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE * * billing timekeerer James G. Rourke * date of last b'LL 03/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill throLgh date 02/28/91 * bill type code S-01 * act:an to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r remincer 4 = full detail * 2 = expense or!y bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing freque^cy M-01 * last payment * billing realiza-tion 100 % * fees billed tc date 36.00 * 544-8890 * $ 36.00 $ 36.00 CR ---------- ----- --- .00 .00 * * * * matter 08902 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * WWW 06/04/91 .20 110 22.00 * WWW 06/05/91 .10 110 11.00 * WWW 06/06/91 .60 110 66.00 * * WWW 06/11/91 * .90 110 99.00 * * DKS 06/12/91 * .30 120 36.00 $ 234.00 * * * 2.10 234.00 * * * DKS .3o 120 36.00 * WWW 1.80 110 198.00 $ 234.00 * * * 2.10 234.00 ---------- $ 234.00 * 234.00 ---------- $ 234.00 * 234.00 Rourke & Wovuruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-08922-000 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward COASTLINE CONST./UNDERGROUND/Claim #89-22 t TION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/06/91 CGF Review of notices from court re motions to dismiss. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE * * bitting timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * bitting frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees bitted to date 33.00 * 544-8890 * $ 33.00 $ 33.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * Related to Claim nos. 89-17 and 89-18 * * matter 08922 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * CGF 06/06/91 .20 110 22.00 * * * $ 22.00 * .20 22.00 * * * * CGF .20 110 22.00 * $ 22.00 * .20 22.00 * ---------- $ 22.00 * 22.00 ---------- $ 22.00 * 22.00 Rourke & Woodruff * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 * date of last bill -- * date of last reminder Orange, CA 92668 * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 (714) 558-7000 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only Federal ID No. 95-3678827 * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary u/expenses July 9, 1991 * current .00 * 30 days .00 Billed through 06/30/91 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 Statement Number 1102-08931-000 JGR * * 120 days .00 City of Tustin * billing frequency M-01 Litigation/Claims * last payment 15222 Del Amo Avenue * billing realization 0 % Tustin, California 92680 * fees billed to date .00 * * 544-8890 LEWIS, SHIRLEY/Claim #89-31 LITIGATION * matter 08931 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED * * tmkp date hours rate amount 06121/91 WWW Receive and review request for pleadings. * WWW 06/21/91 .20 110 22.00 '91 WWW Receive and review correspondence from * WWW 06/21/91 .30 110 33.00 co-defendant's attorney. 06/23/91 WWW Preparation of quarterly status report. * WWW 06/23/91 .30 110 33.00 06/24/91 WWW Receive and review pleadings from Enterprise * WWW 06/24/91 .30 110 33.00 Rent-A-Car. * Total fees for this matter * $ 121.00 * * 1.10 121.00 BILLING SUMMARY * * * WWW 1.10 110 121.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 121.00 * * 1.10 121.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- $ 121.00 * 121.00 Rourke 8 G, ,ruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-08938-000 JGR City of Tustin litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward HARRIS, JOHN NATHAN/Claim #89-38 ' `TION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/04/91 CXL Memo to client per discussion with Daniel K. Spradlin; memo re interrogatories. 06/13/91 CXL Receive/review stipulation re discovery; recieve/review special interrogatories; process assignment memo and calculate and calendar due dates; prepare correspondence to opposing counsel. 06/17/91 CXL Telephone conference with attorney Traut re motion for special preference; brief reserch re amendments to statutory requirements for special setting motions. 06/24/91 BAF Respond to Special Interrogatories; telephone call to R. Ledendecker; fax material to R. Ledendecker; review file. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 263.00 * 544-8890 * S 263.00 S 263.00 CR ---------- S .00 * * * * matter 08938 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * CXL 06/04/91 .80 110 88.00 * * CXL 06/13/91 .80 110 88.00 * * * * * CXL 06/17/91 .50 110 55.00 * * * * BAF 06/24/91 1.20 50 60.00 * * * * S 291.00 3.30 291.00 * * * * CXL 2.10 110 231.00 * BAF 1.20 50 60.00 * $ 291.00 * 3.30 291.00 City of Tustin Statement Number 1102-08938-000 JGR TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH CONT I �t—u 291.00 TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE S 291.00 * 291.00 Rourke 8 k.- ,druf f * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder Orange, CA 92668 * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 (714) 558-7000 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only Federal ID No. 95-3678827 * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill * 5 = summary w/expenses July 9, 1991 * current .00 * 30 days .00 Billed through 06/30/91 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 Statement Number 1102-08944-000 JGR * 120 days * .00 City of Tustin * bitting frequency M-01 Litigation/Claims * last payment 15222 Del Amo Avenue * billing realization 100 % Tustin, California 92680 * fees billed to date 154.00 * 544-8890 * Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 $ 154.00 A/R Adjustments made since last bill • $ ---------- 154.00 CR Net balance forward $ .00 * LEWAND, WILLIAM SEAN/Claim #89-44 ' \TION * matter 08944 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED * tmkp date hours * rate amount 06/20/91 CGF Preparation of quarterly status report. * CGF 06/20/91 .30 * 110 33.00 Total fees for this matter $ 33.00 * * .30 * 33.00 BILLING SUMMARY * * CGF .30 * 110 33.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 33.00 * .30 * 33.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- $ 33.00 * 33.00 TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE ---------- $ 33.00 * 33.00 Rourke & G..,,druf f 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-09013-000 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward PAGE, GERTRUDE/Claim #90-13 \TION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/12/91 DKS Review motion of G. for r 9 ecords. 06/13/91 RWL Review assignment memo from Daniel K. Spradlin, along with attached Motion to Compel, to prepare opposition to motion. 06/14/91 DKS Telephone conference with Jerry Steering. 06/17/91 DKS Review correspondence from J. Steering. 06/18/91 RWL Begin legal research re opposition to plaintiff's Motion to Compel discovery of internal affairs report. 06/19/91 RWL Continued legal research and preparation of opposition to motion to compel internal affairs report. 06/20/91 RWL Review file; continue drafting opposition to motion to produce internal affair reports. 06/30/91 RWL Finish drafting opposition to motion to compel investigatory reports. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 3.00 * 544-8890 * $ 3.00 $ 3.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * * matter 09013 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * DKS 06/12/91 .30 120 36.00 * RWL 06/13/91 .30 110 33.00 * * * DKS 06/14/91 .30 120 36.00 * DKS 06/17/91 .20 120 24.00 * RWL 06/18/91 2.10 110 231.00 * * * RWL 06/19/91 2.00 110 220.00 * * * RWL 06/20/91 1.00 110 110.00 * * RWL 06/30/91 2.10 110 231.00 * * * $ 921.00 8.30 921.00 * * * * DKS .80 120 96.00 City of Tustin PAGE 2 * CONTINutD Statement Number 1102-09013-000 JGR * -- * RWL * 7.50 110 825.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 921.00 * * 8.30 921.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- S 921.00 * 921.00 TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE ---------- $ 921.00 * 921.00 Rourke & ►.__huff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-09020-000 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward MOORE, JON\Claim #90-20 1 _ 'TION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/17/91 CGF Review of At -Issue Memorandum and meeting with Wayne W. Winthers. 06/17/91 WWW Counter At -Issue Memorandum; receive and review letter from co-defendant's counsel, Champion Development. 06/23/91 WWW Preparation of quarterly status report. 06/25/91 WWW Telephone conference from Compex re copying numerous records. 06/28/91 WWW Receive and review medical records from Western Medical Center. Total fees for this matter DISBURSEMENTS 06/17/91 Fees paid to Compex for duplicate copies of records 06/17/91 Fees paid to Compex for duplicate copies of records 06/17/91 Fees paid to Compex for duplicate copies of records * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detait * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 * fees billed to date 72.00 * 544-8890 * $ 72.00 $ 72.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * * matter 09020 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * CGF 06/17/91 .20 110 22.00 * * WWW 06/17/91 .50 110 55.00 * * * WWW 06/23/91 .30 110 33.00 * WWW 06/25/91 .20 110 22.00 * * WWW 06/28/91 .40 110 44.00 * * * $ 776.00 * 1.60 176.00 * * * * MI 06/17/91 42.81 :2.81 * MI 06/17/91 106.29 ?06.29 * MI 06/17/91 39.23 39.23 City of Tustin PAGE 2 * CONTIkuED Statement Number 1102-09020-000 JGR 04J17/91 Fees paid to Compex for duplicate copies of * * MI 06/17/91 records 37.53 Total disbursements for this matter ---------- $ 225.86 BILLING SUMMARY * * * CGF * WWW TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 176.00 * TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ 225.86 * TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- $ 401.86 TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE ---------- $ 401.86 .20 110 1.40 110 1.60 37.53 225.86 22.00 154.00 176.00 225.86 401.86 401.86 Rourke 8--Jruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-09026-000 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward REZAI, FERIDOUN/Claim #90-26 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/03/91 SRM Brief review of plaintiff's document request and interrogatories propounded by plaintiff to Orange Coast Title Co. and to Tustin City Hall. 06/03/91 RWL Review assig mo rom Susan R. MedwieET discovery reponse preparation;.review form supplemental interrogatories and request to 06/10/91 RWL Begin drafting responses to Rezai discovery. 06/12/91 RWL Review extensive administrative record in Zukowsky for document production; continued preparation of discovery responses. 06/13/91 RWL Review file; continue preparation of responses to interrogatories. 06/20/91 SRM Brief review of Orange Coast Title document production written responses. 06/20/91 RWL Draft response to Request to Produce. 06/25/91 RWL Review interrogatories propounded by Orange Coast Title on plaintiff. 06/27/91 RWL Conference with Susan R. Medwied re case status and attending status conference; review file re status conference; court appearance re status conference. * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 282.00 * 544-8890 * $ 282.00 $ 282.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * Relates to Zukowsky v. Tustin (Pasadena * Apartments) * matter 09026 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * SRM 06/03/91 .60 110 66.00 * * RWL 06/03/91 .20 110 22.00 * * * * RWL 06/10/91 2.30 110 253.00 * RWL 06/12/91 2.50 110 275.00 * * RWL 06/13/91 2.10 110 231.00 * * SRM 06/20/91 .30 110 33.00 * * RWL 06/20/91 .50 110 55.00 * RWL 06/25/91 .20 110 22.00 * * RWL 06/27/91 4.10 110 451.00 * * * City of Tustin Statement Number 1102-09026-000 JGR 06-127/91 SRM Conference with Robert W. Lucas re discovery. '91 RWL Draft memo to Susan R. Medwied re status conference. 06/28/91 SRM Brief review of Carl Warren report; preparation of quarterly status report. 06/28/91 SRM Draft Answer to Orange Coast Title Cross -Complaint. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE PAGE 2 * CONTINucU * * SRM 06/27/91 .50 110 55.00 * * RWL 06/28/91 .20 110 22.00 * * SRM 06/28/91 .70 110 77.00 * * * SRM 06/28/91 .60 110 66.00 S 1,628.00 * * * * 14.80 1628.00 * * RWL 12.10 110 1331.00 * * SRM 2.70 110 297.00 S 1,628.00 * * 14.80 1628.00 ---------- $ 1,628.00 1628.00 ---------- $ 1,628.00 1628.00 Rourke 8 6, -oruf f 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-09038-000 JGR City of Tustin litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 RE: O'KEEFE, W. PATRICK, JR./Claim No. 90-38 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/07/91 RWL Receipt and review of letter from O'Keefe re judgment. C '91 RWL Review Notice of Entry of Judgment; conference with Susan R. Medwied re steps to take re payment of judgment and obtaining money from Sully -Miller. 06/11/91 RWL Conference with James G. Rourke re payment of judgment; telephone conference.with R. Nault's office; draft intercom to R. Nault. 06/11/91 JGR Review of file; telephone call to Robert W. Lucas; memo to file. 06/14/91 RWL Conference with James G. Rourke; review letter from William O'Keefe re Irvine Ranch Water District payment; revise memo to R. Nault to reflect IRWD payment. 06/26/91 RWL Receipt of check for settlement; draft letter to O'Keefe; telephone call to O'Keefe's office re receipt of check. Tot -at fees for this matter DISBURSEMENTS 06/18/91 Fees paid to All Counties Attorney Service for service of Cross -Complainants Claim and Order to Cross -Defendant, on Sully -Miller Contracting Co., on 5/9/91 Total disbursements fof this matter * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 0 % * fees billed to date .00 * 544-8890 * * * matter 09038 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * RWL 06/07/91 .20 110 22.00 * * RWL 06/10/91 .30 110 33.00 * * * * RWL 06/11/91 .60 110 66.00 * * * JGR 06/11/91 .60 120 72.00 * * RWL 06/14/91 .40 110 44.00 * * * * RWL 06/26/91 .70 110 77.00 * * * * S 314.00 2.80 314.00 * * * * AS 06/18/91 152.90 * * 152.90 ---------- S 152.90 152.90 * City of Tustin PAGE 2 * CONTIn__v Statement Number 1102-09038-000 JGR * BILLING SUMMARY * * JGR * RWL * TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 314.00 * TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ 152.90 ---------- TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH $ 466.90 .60 120 72.00 2.20 110 242.00 2.80 314.00 152.90 466.90 Rourke & ... ,jruf f * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 * date of last bill * date of last reminder Orange, CA 92668 * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 (714) 558-7000 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only Federal ID No. 95-3678827 * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses July 9, 1991 * current .00 * 30 days .00 Billed through 06/30/91 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 Statement Number 1102-09040-000 JGR * * 120 days .00 City of Tustin * billing frequency M-01 Litigation/Claims * last payment 15222 Del Amo Avenue * billing realization 0 % Tustin, California 92680 * fees billed to date .00 * * 544-8890 DE LA RIVA, JOSEPH, SR./Claim #90-40 * matter 09040 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED * * tmkp date hours rate amount 06/03/91 DKS Telephone conference with Diane Marlow. * DKS 06/03/91 .20 120 24.00 06/.27/91 DKS Telephone conference with R. Gilbert; draft * DKS 06/27/91 1.60 120 192.00 Answer to First Amended Complaint; draft Cross -Complaint; draft Interrogatories; draft Request to Produce. * Total fees for this matter * $ 216.00 * * 1.80 216.00 BILLING SUMMARY * * * DKS 1.80 120 216.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 216.00 * * 1.80 216.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- $ 2'16.00 * 216.00 Rourke 8 a,__jruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-09045-000 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 LEE, KENNETH/Claim #90-45 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/11/91 CXL Review file to prepare opposition to application for date claim relief; telephone call to central; Express Mail department of post office; telephone calls to Hawthorne and Redondo Beach offices; research/outline opposition and declarations. 06/11/91 DKS Review of file; draft memo to file. 06/18/91 CXL -Draft opposition with points and authorities to petition for late claim relief; discussions with James G. Rourke and Daniel K. Spradlin; draft declarations of deputy city clerk, police deputy clerk, postal clerks, Bouza, and Gutierrez and Cheryl Lynn re date of mailing issue. 06/19/91 CXL Revise/finalize declaration of S. Gutierrez; telephone call with Manhattan Beach post office and draft declaration of J. McLauphlin; telephone call with supervisor at central Express Mail Unit and draft declaration of T. Rizer; telephone calls to post office at Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach and Long Beach Unit to coordinaate review and execution of declarations; discussions with Daniel K. Spradlin and Barry Fisher; prepare instructions and compile exhibits; telephone call 06/19/91 CXL (Continued description) with deputy city clerk and finalize declaration of B. White; supplement/finalize declaration of Cheryl Lynn; additional review of Government Code sections; prepare evidentiary objections and demand to produce original documents at hearing. * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 0 * fees billed to date .00 * 544-8890 * * * matter 09045 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * CXL 06/11/91 2.80 110 308.00 * * * * DKS 06/11/91 .30 120 36.00 * CXL 06/18/91 3.50 110 385.00 * * * * * * CXL 06/19/91 7.10 110 781.00 * * * * * * * * * * CXL 06/19/91 .10 110 11.00 * * * * City of Tustin PA:E 2 * CONTIh-_.. Statement Number 1102-09045-000 JGR * 06.0-0/91 BAF Telephone call to post office personnel at * BAF 06/20/91 4.50 50 225.00 Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach and Long Beach post offices; meet with officials at those respective post offices to review documentation and execute their declarations. 06/20/91 CXL Review final drafts of declaration of Beverly * CXL 06/20/91 .50 110 55.00 White and Cheryl Lynn; review index to exhibits; discussions re calculation of attorney fees; finalize evidentiary objections and demand to produce originals. 06/21/91 CXL Review executed declarations of postal employees; * CXL 06/21/91 .80 110 88.00 discussion with Barry Fisher re field interviews; telephone conference with B. White and revise/finalize declaration; finalize various portions of opposition to application. 06/24/91 CXL Additional research; finalize points and * CXL 06/24/91 3.30 110 363.00 authorities; telephone conference with Captain Wakefield re his recollection of receipt of claim. 06/25/91 CXL Finalize opposition. * CXL 06/25/91 1.00 110 110.00 06/25/91 BAF Meet with Deputy City Clerk - have declaration * BAF 06/25/91 1.50 50 75.00 signed. 06/26/91 CXL Telephone conference with attorney Gray's office; * CXL 06/26/91 1.00 110 110.00 prepare Rule 504 Statement; telephone conference with attorney Gray. 06/26/91 DMC File documents at Orange County Superior Court. * DMC 06/26/91 1.20 20 24.00 Total fees for this matter $ 2,571.00 * * * 27.60 2571.00 DISBURSEMENTS * 06/25/91 Extraordinary photocopy charges 28.75 ---------- * CY 06/25/91 28.75 Total disbursements for this matter $ 28.75 * * 28.75 BILLING SUMMARY * * DKS .30 120 36.00 * CXL 20.10 110 2211.00 * BAF 6.00 50 300.00 * * DMC 1.20 20 24.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 2,571.00 * * 27.60 2571.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ 28.75 * 28.75 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- $ 2,5;9.75 * 2599.75 Rourke & Wu -,,ruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-09046-000 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Claims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 McCOURT, DENNIS/Claim #90-46 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/10/91 JGR Letter from Carl Warren & Company; telephone call to R. Nautt; telephone call to P. Rodriguez (will call back). OL 91 JGR Telephone message from/telephone call to P. Rodriguez; memo to file. 06/28/91 CGF Initial review of new file; preparation of Answer, Cross -Complaint, evaluation letter, and Tender of Defense. Total fees for this matter S 4166.00 BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH S 486.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH S 486.00 * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 0 % * fees billed to date .00 * 544-8890 * * * matter 09046 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * JGR 06/10/91 .70 120 84.00 * * * JGR 06/11/91 .60 120 72.00 * * CGF 06/28/91 3.00 110 330.00 * * * * * 4.30 486.00 * * * * JGR 1.30 120 156.00 * CGF 3.00 110 330.00 * * 4.30 486.00 * * * 486.00 Rourke & W.._ -ruff * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 * date of last bill -- * date of last reminder Orange, CA 92668 * last bill through date * bill type code S-03 (714) 558-7000 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only Federal ID No. 95-3678827 * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses July 9, 1991 * current .00 * 30 days ..00 Bitted through 06/30/91 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 Statement Number 1102-09125-000 JGR * * 120 days .00 City of Tustin * billing frequency M-01 Litigation/Claims * last payment 15222 Del Amo Avenue * billing realization 0 % Tustin, California 92680 * fees billed to date .00 * * 544-8890 Baldera, Martin & Ledezma, Maria * matter 09125 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED * * tmkp date hours rate amount 06/17/91 JGR Memo from W. Carroll; review of file; memo to * JGR 06/17/91 .40 120 48.00 _ file. * Total fees for this matter * $ 48.00 * * .40 48.00 BILLING SUMMARY * * * JGR .40 120 48.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 48.00 * * .40 48.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- $ 48.00 * 48.00 Rourke & uu,,,jruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange,'CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1102-09131-000 JGR City of Tustin Litigation/Ctaims 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 RE: AYALA, RAMON/CLAIM NO. 91-31 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/26/91 JGR Telephone call from C. Luymes (Carl Warren & _. Co.); memo to file. ( a1 JGR Telephone message from Stewart; review of file; telephone call to Stewart; memo to file. Total fees for this matter $ 96.00 BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 96.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH $ 96.00 * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-03 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 0 % * fees billed to date .00 * 544-8890 * * * matter 09131 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * JGR 06/26/91 .30 120 36.00 * * JGR 06/26/91 .50 120 60.00 * * * * .80 96.00 * * * * JGR .80 120 96.00 * * .80 96.00 * * * 96.00 Rourke & W,,-,jruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 Juty 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Client number 1103 JGR City of Tustin 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 FRAZIER, RONALD TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 1,941.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ .00 HIGGINS, ANDREW TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 108.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ .00 RE: MOSQUEDA TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 506.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS CURRENT MONTH $ .00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 2,555.00 TOTAL CHARGES FOR THESE MATTERS $ 2,555.00 TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE $ 2,555.00 * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * cover page * client 1103 Tustin - Worker's Comp./Claims * matter 00000 * * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment 06/26/91 1524.25 * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 3607.00 * 544-8890 * * * matter 00004 * fees 1941.00 * expenses .00 * * * matter 00005 * fees 108.00 * expenses .00 * * RE: MOSQUEDA * matter 00010 * fees 506.00 * expenses .00 * * * * JGR 1.60 120 192.00 * DKS .20 120 24.00 * RWL 16.10 110 1771.00 * WWW 4.60 110 506.00 * BAF .80 50 40.00 * DMC 1.10 20 22.00 * * 2555.00 * * * 2555.00 * * 2555.00 Rourke & 6 _ruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Bitted through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1103-00004-000 JGR City of Tustin 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward FRAZIER, RONALD i .<OFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/03/91 BAF Conference with James G. Rourke; telephone conference with L. Strang; letter to R. Nault re items needed for trial. 06/03/91 JGR Office conference with B. Fisher/James G. Rourke re expense prove -up. 06/04/91 BAF Revise letter re documents and witnesses. 06/10/91 RWL Legal research re admissibility at trial of Karwellis driving record. 06/17/91 RWL Draft response to Request to Produce. 06/18/91 RWL Draft responses to Form Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Special Interrogatories. 06/25/91 RWL Review bills for auto repair, wage loss and veterinarian bill provided by City; begin preparation of trial brief and outline of direct examination of Officer Frazier. 06/26/91 RWL Receipt and review of defendant's response to Request for Witnesses documents; continue preparation of trial brief and examination of Ron Frazier; review file for evidence re defendants' witnesses Robin Tupper and Karwellis' parents. 06/27/91 RWL Office conference with Ron Frazier re testimony. 06/28/91 RWL Finish compiling trial notebook; telephone conference with Ron Frazier; meet with Ron Frazier at Tustin Police Department re documents on accident he was backup on. * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 % * fees billed to date 33.00 * 544-8890 * $ 33.00 $ 33.00 CR ---------- .00 * * * matter 00004 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * BAF 06/03/91 .70 50 35.00 * * * JGR 06/03/91 .90 120 108.00 * * BAF 06/04/91 .10 50 5.00 * RWL 06/10/91 2.10 110 231.00 * * RWL 06/17/91 .30 110 33.00 * RWL 06/18/91 .90 110 99.00 * * RWL 06/25/91 3.50 110 385.00 * * * * RWL 06/26/91 6.00 110 660.00 * * * * * RWL 06/27/91 .80 110 88.00 * RWL 06/28/91 2.50 110 275.00 * * * City of Tustin PAGE. 2 * CONTINucu Statement Number 1103-00004-000 JGR * C61 -'Q/91 DMC Pick up records from storage. * * DMC 06/28/91 1.10 20 22.00 Total fees for this matter S 1,941.00 * * * 18.90 1941.00 BILLING SUMMARY * * * JGR .90 120 108.00 * RWL 16.10 110 1771.00 * BAF .80 SO 40.00 * DMC 1.10 20 22.00 TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 1,941.00 * * * 18.90 1941.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH ---------- $ 1,941.00 * 1941.00 TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE ---------- S 1,941.00 * 1941.00 Rourke & Wuudruff 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1103-00005-000 JGR City of Tustin 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Balance forward as of bill number 901 dated 01/12/91 A/R Adjustments made since last bill Net balance forward HIGGINS, ANDREW F .OFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/03/91 JGR Telephone call from attorney Filarsky; memo to file; telephone call to Daniel K. Spradlin; telephone call to Filarsky; memo to file; letter from attorney Kegel; memo to file; telephone call to attorney Filarsky. 06/12/91 DKS Review correspondence from attorney Kegel. Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill 01/12/91 * date of !ast reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail * 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 100 y * fees billed to date 144.00 * 544-8891 * $ 144.00 $ 144.00 CR ---------- $ .00 * * * matter 00005 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * JGR 06/03/91 .70 120 84.00 * * * * * DKS 06/12/91 .20 120 24.00 * * $ 108.00 * .90 108.00 * * * * JGR .70 120 84.00 * DKS .20 120 24.00 * $ 108.00 * .90 108.00 * ---------- $ 1108.00 * 108.00 ---------- $ 108.00 * 108.00 Rourke & w.,,druf f 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 558-7000 Federal ID No. 95-3678827 July 9, 1991 Billed through 06/30/91 Statement Number 1103-00010-000 JGR City of Tustin 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 RE: MOSQUEDA FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 06/12/91 WWW Research and drafting of letter to O.C. District Attorney re filing criminal charges. r '91 WWW Telephone conference with Terrie Richardson, Tustin Court Liaison. 06/26/91 WWW Telephone conference with Terrie Richardson, Tustin Court Liaison. 06/27/91 WWW Draft criminal complaint. 06/28/91 WWW Telephone conference with court liaison Terri Richardson re complaint and drafting complaint. Total fees for this matter $ 506.00 BILLING SUMMARY TOTAL FEES CURRENT MONTH $ 506.00 TOTAL CHARGES CURRENT MONTH $ 506.00 * * billing timekeeper James G. Rourke * date of last bill * date of last reminder * last bill through date * bill type code S-01 * action to be taken * 0 = no bill 3 = summary only * 1 = a/r reminder 4 = full detail 2 = expense only bill 5 = summary w/expenses * * current .00 * 30 days .00 * 60 days .00 * 90 days .00 * 120 days .00 * * billing frequency M-01 * last payment * billing realization 0 * fees billed to date .00 * 544-8890 * * RE: MOSQUEDA * matter 00010 * tmkp date hours rate amount * * WWW 06/12/91 2.50 110 275.00 * * WWW 06/26/91 .20 110 22.00 * * WWW 06/26/91 .30 110 33.00 * * WWW 06/27/91 1.10 110 121.00 * WWW 06/28/91 .50 110 55.00 * * * * 4.60 506.00 * * * * WWW 4.60 110 506.00 * * 4.60 506.00 * * * 506.00 . RSA _6..ST FOR CITY COW 'L ACTION- . , ccwcz'r 2MZTING DATE: JANUARY St 19911 RECR.IIi... � NT OF =N-j?4JS£ CITY A''"'_'ORN�'Y ci ty Manha ge J. RIE90MIIENDEl _x9TTON 1, Request City Council to review whether or not to begin the recruitment of a full-twxe, in-house City Attorney CO'�TSSTcN �C �NDATT4N Not aapiicable. Cz J uiy 2 Y , :.99 0 , �.'.. ty council d r este the City Ma:'jager to establish an in-house City Attorney prccram as part of the 1991 93 budget and begin a for- re+C'^sitmant to _iii the City . A4. 1r ^JLi:ey' S Position. Since that action was taen, several cour.ci? men.bers have raised , �► --� T wr�eth er or not, ��:.,de� the current 2ccao3.c he gaes L. 00.". o,. conditions, the _ City should ca=encie a recrui..mert at this time C . c: n. - inue to con tract with Rutan and Tucker for ;.egal services. Before 1 begin a formal recruitment in January 2.9 9 Z , I wanted the on�ortunity to discuss this with this council and receive your a=rection. The cost consideration has rana-fined unchanged _roa th at outlined .n. stn -F ' s j u? y analysis. The cost to est.ab 1 ish an in-house City A`tcri-�ey 044 f ice is now comparable to the contract cost with Rutan and Tucker. ,j,he ccst to retain. the services cf a cont=act rec,-,-; %- to begin the 'search is $20,000. =f a search is delayed, say for one year, a savings would occur. Attached for Council's in_ornation :.s the city Attorney Study r. -i 1 Iii _ 1 L ` 'i MEMORANDUM JULY 24 , _319 9 0 TO: CITY FULVAGER. FROM ASSISTANT CITY M"AGMR EALL SUELTECT : CITY AZTORYE. STUDY ST T24?fr OF 1SS7 S On December 12, 1984, the City Councilreview•ed, the various alternatives for the provision o= City �ttor.:ey sAt'~f_ces . The ^ounc .1 adopted the alternative to continue to c=t=act act for City *� 4„� _ - a �.T I. • `1~« n/�. �_ Vim... r..r ♦ M... ��i , and r.� �dr:ey �exL ices � t,`; :.he i d � directed staff to return in July 1990, with an updated report. Specifically, Council requested that staff review the concerns of tinely response, accessibility, conflict of :.merest, and the cost effectiveness of City At-ozney services. The previous staff repc r-, indicated broad satisfaction; with the quality of se vices provided by Rutan and Tucker.. This quality r ¢ma ns '.:igh and is not an issue here. Accessibilitv: _ march 1990, access to C:.tv Atto_nev services was ..:ncr eased ui t_. Ru man and Tacke_ sc' �edu? ira o; l`_ce , c = Community Development on vonaays Lion 2 :00 to 5: 0a p.zt. , In ad i tion to t.te ^uesdav afterroo:% sc edule. Rlzzan and Fucker azt.:�rneys are also available for telephone corfa;ences and by snecial a "ointment. , one-third of the time.) Timely response to w itten requests remains Tangly Response: Staff reviewed the response to crritten Re��ests for City Attorney Services for the period Ncvembe? 1989 throuch Mar--'- rev ea �OC� • '1t� �.t� , a r- a .ai 6.•1`W. w4 r .. �. / requests were processed with an average ^ equested t::rnar ourd tine of 17.4 days,, and an actual turnaround tine of 2-9.2 days. (The City appears to require a due date of ten c: fewer days apprcx.Lmazely one-third of the time.) Timely response to w itten requests remains a concern because more than half of the responses were zwc or more days late. These data ad^'ress only wha response time an writ ken revues is and do not ad dress the services provided in otter ways, such as phone responses or rescorses to urgent issues. conflict g f Interest: Rut -an and Tucker conduct a regular conflict of interest check on clients in the :.rvine 3usi.nes5 Complex and all Comauri ty Development apnlicetions to avoicl any prcb?,eats. When Rutan and Tucker ::as discovered a canfli= of .1 i'. l � 1 _ � tri i 1 _ L i �'f � •_ _' 1 r . t , CDTNCT .:._. _7 G DATE! =LY 24, 190 0 TT C=fid Ai'i'ORIZLY ST=Y Assistant Ci ay Manager .Mal? e +C ty Manager' 1. Direct - he city ?Manager to establish an :.:t-hac:se Cit; At=a=ey pregr= in t e ? 9 91 9 3 budget . 2. Authorize '"he C:.ty Manager to sign an ac:.-ee ent to $djust the bill; ng = a to with+. Rutan and T-acker f= cn $115 for ganaral legal counsel and S 12 5 � or specialized and complex lit+Qazion with a $4,000 .onth1v, ratainer to 5:.50, x":.80, and $7, 000, respect vel y- 3: Appoint John Fellows as City AttOrnl ey fox t,`1e period Auc_rsst ,'T 0 ,asp g.c 0 t,= �uah � 'Tune C0�211:SS;:QN R^COiKMF=1101 Not Applicable. r X _ r"LT'Y' 'VWE =22 Ry On December 12e 19891 the City Council reviewed alternatives for the provision of City Attorney se3'vices. The Council decided to conui.nue to contract for City Attorney services with Ratan and T•scker in lieu of cr eatira an =n -house City Attorney's The Ci tv Council also directad sta�f to '-'sem=m in � my ? 990 ori: h a repot z : eeva' uati.na he, issues 0Z the cir�es.y response, ., ' • ^^nf' icr c inter es and cost effectiveness• of ac..essibi+_..�, ccnuz ac m At zornev sere'; cas . . Tb a r a �, r.yr O f sem v :CeS r.� .^.L':GEL: :t:. �.cP. andir,.Ker =eM.M -•S Z{5h and c t an issue. Tissues c f t; neiy response and 'ty of services co:nz+nue to be of ca ncarn. In accessi.bi? .� addition, Rutan and T"scker has provided tje Ca. ty with a prOpcsal which s ign 12 ican=ly increases the costs fer contract Services. Rutan and 'tucker' s proposal inc+eases the cost : or azto'•eY services by $152,000 or 36%. A�.s a. V V V w... cossaar zble to the cost of ccntra�i nor- w.�ii th Rutar. an PIT"' 4" te.,�. • r+ .. Yom.. -ice � T aSTjC,M+2...�C• �.w . r e �.r .., r s a � �. ,. h a ...... e...s `i 1.�` S.n yvS V� VrviiS�.^.re�a}.rry w contact .nq far sere+ccs generally staff rec6.0 "�h a tha ' - souse C4ty Attorney frnction City create a general counsel in h .� with the 1.99i-93 budget. Th., s ac tion will arse s�..a-- adecsc:ate A�{'orney In ye to plan the operation and recru.:t a new C..ty - . with Katals. and the intert.m, the City should continue. to cDnt.""aC4- �ucker under rhe Hatt- bil..incl rata.. Ruta=.. and. , Tuckazr - also r e�ests' appointed:: ' as. Czar At'•_arney 1991. effective August 11 1990 t.hrauCh lune 30, c ..v Avaa.nace= SL'ly 24, 1990 ?aae -2- occas ion s�' when a cor4f l lc`_ eview by Ru an and Tucker has avoided this prchlem. Ci an ..Q���r' V V�r� Ve�, �^\.► ..�.e Ye •�. +.►� ri or for Lo acceoti.nc new legal na tte, s , Cost Effectiveness: Present C_ty At:.o�ey fees az_ased on a $4, 000 per month retainer fee plus a co=posite ::c•,:=' y _atia. fcz work outside the retainer of $115 per hour for n=zl ' eaal work and $125 per hour for st_aeeiali2ed or complex litication. C:.ty Atto� :ey ser-f�.ces costs for Rutan and Tucker, rct inc? tiding litigation, are estimated tc be $428,000 tar thef__st half of the 1989-9. biennial.budget. The Decembe-. 2.9,39 repvr v to Council showed "m a : co::t+ acting f o _ legal services is more cost e f : eGt i ve than hi_ ;nc a:': in-house z ttcr:zey . c-:cweve_ , as parr o f 'the cont=act : eneual process , putan and Tacker ras requested a rate increase whwch c .-ar.ges the cost. -issue. - Ne�uzaand "'wr gkeYrcpq ._. Tre C" -V attorney has w ^ subm�.t^ ea a proposal to adjust their fees to a S7,000 mont;2ly retainer plus a $2.50 per hour fee for general aover:^.nert services and i ticatio. Certain Spec .al er complex l::tigat_or, would be sub�ecc to ar. :.^creased hourly rate of not none than. $180 per hour. As i g the case cur=ertlyj any increase to the highs: rate _s s'� j ect to -z.)-le C=t�' Manager's approval . '.:.1e _.= �pt�5a! a 50 inc+eases the nunber of hours that can be charged ::n3ex' the retainer from the City average of 0_0 hours per month to o^ hours per month. rrn conjunction wit:: the fee changes , Rutan ' and Tucker proposes th az josan : Q11ows be appointed as C;tv ttor=ley. s nssistaZt City A t tor.�ev _ oz �he past t'ao yea= s , Mr . el' ous as esn tha =IzJ;,.nr_.4naI attorney providing services to the Planning Comaiss_on and -Z --he c0=unity Development Depart=ert. 'ro address the cancers cf tins? y^ess and access:btv, the Rutan and Tucker oroposai i ncluders p; ovJ.s ions to have a City Attoz,.ney ava it a.b l e aL the City Hall site a win In= o 2 0 hours _ aer week, _n addit:cn to scheduled meet nos. :eta:: a::^ Tucker a? so promises to work more closely �wi�,..Y: t�.e C1 ty tc i^s�vLr e: y i. service ,. -- ice improved response to rrrz. 6ten se.,:. • ice ,. equ@IS �.5, and to Azov on -s.. telephonic and teleponic access to atr toey sevices.e Heti oSal aISO aids - eSpors:. +y.]. : i .te5 ,scr :.ZB Cr.t-y c.pto.-:;ev to rote closely review the necessity of se --v ce requests tc =n a4 m COS�s most Con;Ljj 'icon Betw.,mn Contract and in-jigug2 Servi ces. yxh:.byt j 1 shows a compar meson cf City At -M ilCy costs .^.7: 2-979-80 =o 1.989-90, and the cos t* of Ru -tan and Tucker's p ::posed= fees based or. estazed 1989-90 CJ.ty Attorney costs. The p=Qposed fe+�s for e see a eun= cf ' lega? ` worst i.^.' 395 -�34' '�i+l rss¢3.t in C+ty Atuorney costs of $s8c', 00o, arr increase of 36-1 or 5152, 000. -0-v Ma -;ager , Duly 24, 1990 ?age -3- Staff 3- Staff identified costs in ' the Decelz.�-*er 12, 1989 report to CJ' -y of 5 8? , 00o for an in-house C:;.ty A:.�a�ney proV Council '' including $?50,000 for contract lecz= services. At she t_ma that rQpo?-t was ssbnittad to Councl ► =he costs to the CJ.ty mer cont -act City ALtorr:ey services were less than the in-house City tttoIIMey costs. However, the cu,—en-. proposal by Ruffin and Tucker now results ; n costs for contr act services which are comparable to an in --house operation, shown asfollows: �nwncuse annual cos -ts SSS+, 000 c1"..a?• t_U0 C :n tract costs esti:-aated under .-.W-I .18 0 , 000 proposed fee schedule (excluding i.�t gat -..on) Sum,-►�ary : Access to the C. -y- Attor neo and ti,�e? y response to +en requests for seg -vice continue to be concerns . Due to wr1�.: +.1, Grvi,.*'.= ac t�rc f cr Services , ;; p+nb? e�:s hese assoc� ated wi�... _ General, s taf r ecn=ended n Dece�er chat the city initiate an in-house Ci46,,.y Attorney operat on t however, because of higher costs, the City Council decided to ccrt�.nue with the Rutan and =ticker contract. Since Rutan and j;:c!cer's new proposal _ncreaseS e -1 s costs to cont= act for se=-vicas , `.�.e 4 ec=s ion to czeata an _n -house City At}o=ey function is new more feas::.bie. r T.,,-c•QhtAT�xc 1- 0 N ST 0ERE 0 •-4: .,-ssad in the last nq are t.,je •» Three alter: ves �.�s�.. study and staff's recoamendaticns: Atte aZ4._v_e, - continue to c...,.& for Citi' Alto="ney R:::.an a -d i::cr.zr � V The City could choose to continue cont;:actino fo= • 11 C4 �y A pt.ornev seY-vi ces with R:: wan =nd .`:'tacker. J_ The advantages • to ti,.is option are zt.at a large J_ law ?u tan and Tucker has . a concr e_^Ie^s _ve municipz= ... �+,� «..� .. c r ,--- 7�7.,.. G r ..., s ecz,' �e=-._"as v v �./ . i and i L. V L e r .,1 n LI /1 G v w .,• 0 .` • w Or `=C generally found in smaller in-house city attorney 'long and .og=rms. Ru -"an and Fucker also has a tenure In nvaluable experience with the City of .T..^�:.ne. addition, under their new prcPosa? City Manager July 24, 1990 Page -4 - fact that service is not by the ti•aca tip:: and sick leave days afforded to in --house staff . Staff does not r ecom'mend this alternative because .-.he City would continue to face the d'-fficulties associated wi'h contracting f or services. For example, t:.e:e are communication delays associated with routing raQuas: s and responses to an organiza tion outside the City. S taf deals with a variety Of attorneys at a contract legal f _rm and must insure that the opinion received by a staff attorney is consistent with the opinion of the appointed City Atto^�e�. A cent=act attorney, must deal wi _: th t'e co=ue`i::g demands of a variety Of. clients, only one cf w::ic:: i.s the City of 1 --vine. In addition, a contract attol-MeV. may not be perceived by the organization; as an I.ntearal part c the manaaement team, and Mav not' have the- same orcanizationa1 perspect- ivethaw one has when one is a full -tine employee. B. Alternative 2_ - Bid the City AttOrneY contract The C_tv could choose to bid the City AtterZey contract- T::e . -advantage Of tris alternative =s the opportunity to �d,,etermine wha♦t� other law f .rms can offer 61"hr Cit w+� GVr.Z %.0 ` and i.�yQ�Yr oA. Sey�/�+ce• This alta native• is not recommended because this alternative does not resolve the problems associated with conmrac- services genera? wy. In addition, . because RutZn and Tucker's Tates are comae ti tive with ......s Similar Caliber, b idd_ng the contract may not substantially =educe contract costs. C. klternat_ve 3 - staff recoa�ends the alternative to implement- a : ene= al.. cotinsel i. -&"-house Cy��.,' ntto=:iEy cce:: =iGn l my 2.1 199i: Under the general counsel et , the C;aY r ti -- ,-ovidj ng the ce.n . . Attorney would have ., esponsib:.l:t,' �o� p.. - r •ligation services government legal services and general 1: curnently covered by the Rutan and Fucker retainer. In addit.J on to providing direct .legal se="v=ces to. the C-;-'Yl *.he in-house attorney would manage and supervise cont+act Because cf t:Ze wide, range cf �.ega�. :eros, :;.e C+ty would out of necessity contnue to cont e�ract for ce_.air. ~LaV. r. w-i�i.••�� legal sez-iicas . Under tae proposed appy `�, _ Q City Attcrney would not -only provide direct s e. -vises , but would act as an intermediary, or "broker" of legal services. This approach is likely to be =Ore cost effective because i t insures that work requested is nec,assarv. and that it is properly completed. This reco=endaticn f cr an in -douse operat4 on 4.s based on �o the f allowing assunptiors : t� c 1 (= I=:FP'! CITY -DF TUST I N A.1 City Manager . -ruly 2 4 , 19 9 0 .Paget -�- 1, The costs for an in-house operation erre cotapar azole to the new ccs is proposed by Rutan and Tucker. z. Because an in -reuse City Attorney would be available foi-t��-plus hours per week, staff believes that legal sarviCes requests will be more easily managed and that access of staff and Council mFmbers to le?al serv;ces will increase. 3. Hiring a City Attorney to actively "broker„ legal services W..1� City maximi z ing the use Of ; is resources bel+eves that careful Lev.,.ew of the necessity and scope -of legal, reg'aests may keep legal services costs under control. - 4. The C'_ ty has crown to a point where daily, S access to attorney sewices _e :.ikely to -improve our e- ±ectiveness . wvire is cur-rently the only city in orange County with a population. over 100,000 that does not have its own in-house city Attorney's office. . A ull_time City Attox'nev, •4eil-versed in f 1 M1Ln c:*=aJ yaw, Will U -0 -Vide a consistent ozganiz :tionas verspectiVe and can. become an essenz1al member of the sanaaeraent team. The cost of Rutan and Tucker's proposed fees in the 11989-91 budget is an additional $1-52,000. Currently funds are avai+able 4n the City's Non --Departmental �i t�.gat=on Reserve to off Se.- these j, -,,creased Rr,C3?CmMI M A= -ONS 1. C_rect the C:�ty ?,apace_ t0 ester: 14 sh an-.-� Attorney pzogram in the 1991-93 budget. 2. Author the City Manager to sign an .agreement to adjust she billing rate wit.�z Ru tan and Tucker from $115 for gensral. 1ega1 counsel and $125 for specialized and comIIlex _ iitication with a $4,000 monthly retainer to Y150, $100, and j7, 000, respect+•1eiy. rp +. .,e.. r i Cd AuCUs ows as�..r;,ev _o the : �•����.,� 1 ` , ,� 1 e1�-* ' 1.aPrl 1_.1 ; it I u'_ 7 r'a 14 ' •1 DECEMSER 12, 1989 TO: CYTy COLT CIL FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FOR: CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OECE4.3ER 12, 1989 SUBJECT: CITY ATTORNEY STUDY Bz&OMHENflAT ONS 1, Select one of the following options: Alternative 1 - Continue to contract for City Attorney services with Rutan and Tucker, Alternative 2 -- Rebid .the City Attorney contract, ernative - Es tabs �.5h 1990, and direct thean in -House Ci Attorney FirlancE program effective July 1;, ' sion to work with s.tatf to develop. and Comms appropriate funding r ecornmendatz.ons . STA E F ISSUE: - 's stud is to review the provision f Cind The purpose of thl Y Attorney services under the current cont me tuathe rcives future A Y to make recom-nendations on how best to ' eds. 'T_'he issue is how tea continue to prorows legal services needs. quality, timely, and cos - effective services as the city and demands for legal servIces rise* BACKGRO The City Cha rter (Section 7Q1)specifies. that a City Attorney ' ted b y - the City Council under the administrative shall be appa�n Y .� • t ;.tanager. The City Attorney serves as chief city direction of the City CityManager, and legal advisor to the . Council, the the City in all legal The Citti A _ Corney p departments. `-her duties as prescribed by Council. �c.. proceedings and pe'"fo _s The contract legal Services provided include: 1• Attending City Council and Planning Cog= ission maet_nys - • •' staff reports presented to the City Council. 2. Reviewing s 'reports 3• Reviewing wing and preparing c=tY contracts and agreements. 1� J1 .0= ==r `� -' F TU=_TIN City Council December 12, 11.989 Page Two P.16 4. Reviewing and preparing city ordinances and resolutions. S. Representing the city in litigation (except personal injury). ing the city in meet and confer negotiations and g. Assist preparing related memoranda a understanding. 7. Advising the city on personnel matters and representing the city before the Fair Employment Practices Co 8, Advising the city on financing issues. g. Advising the city on land use and code enforc-ement issues. 10. Researching legal issues as requested. legal services with the The City of irvi ne has caner actedasince ythe City's incorporation in law firm of Rutan and Tuck time for 1971. The City also uses other law f ixms from timea toe pertise matters in which Rutcan and Tucker may not have sp gal �� 6 or where they have a conflict ot .. interes. ices required -as a result of liability and workers' compensation .L ims claims are handled through the City s C°naw szw th special aftiristrators who assign oases to outsisealstandard practice for claims experience and expertise. This �. most self-insured 01ties and is a requirement of the excess insurance carrier when losses exceed theCity's self -in sured retention level. Legal services for special financing - sures such as industrial development bonds, assessment districts, tare are generally handled on a project -by -project basis and incorporated as part of the bond insurance cost. The staff periodically reviews contract services to nsided to ure that hat the highest quality legal services are being pro cit . Tn 1976 the City Manager's t s%W f reviewesideredthe Cthe Y est, con Attorney contract, and at the Council s request, City Attorne services. feasibil+ty Of implement_: -:g in-house Cit Y +- were that contract legal services The conclusions of that study are generally more cost-effective and are easier to c -than in-house nrog= alas . The CounC 1. expressed an interest reviewing the issue again once the move QCtober J. , the new � in nl response was completed. This study was begun _n to that request. I- ''11 i_i�' 1bPf'1 CIT'.. '":�F TI L'=TIt'� city council December 12, 1989 Page Three ANAI,y�.� 806 The staff collected information on the city's legalcounsel needs, concerns and alternatives through the Following methods; o Interviews with the City Council and City Manager o Interviews With selected members of the City staff o Inter -view with the contract City Attorney G InteY-views with City Attorneys active in the LeagueOf California Cities, and currently directing in-house Operations in other cities o ' f , relevant documents ­and -.written materials Review o o Review of City Council reports and notes regarding City Attorney services o Survey of 25 Orange County cities O Cost comparison of contract services and in-house sereices in Irvine and 25 other cities. The staff analyzed City Attorney services in four areas, eas,sThese are l) service level, 2) quality Of services, 3) timand eliness, collected from 4) cost effectiveness. Additionally, orange county cities was used to evaluate City Attorney services - A. a Lev - The total number of service hours billed as A• was 3,418, distributed the past 12 months (10/88 lb/89} follows: TOTAL HO HW 806 99-36 General 169 58/0 Public safety Code Enforcement (not including nr specifis 28 14/0 litigation) --Irvine Transportation Authority 78 35� 30/0 138/0 CFC Ordinance 81 gf2 City Clerk 63 11/1 City Manager Administrative Services - General 2i9 156 33/5 39/1 Community Services - General General 11155 187/19 -- Community Development - 60 27/0 City Council 3,418 City Council December 12, 1989 page Four Current usage of City Attorney hours equivalent to two full-time stat f . is approximately Individuals f;�terviewed for the study � a= e . 1 --e�ue �swate the level of services provided, i.e. , ,...at a_ handled. There is an indication} that de=an on1egwith services is rising, as the City Attorney +s to review staff reports, prepare greater frequency ' ordinances and resolutions, and- consider larbeuee ec?Ea issues. As the City grows, this demand can � to ..rise even more. • ' t - Results of interviews. suggest that the quality of $, oL,ality services provided by Rutan and Tucker is o ons' s n` suc high. Some pro, were cited by those inzery-ewe , occasional -lack bf coordination between attorneys at Rutagiven to stcff . There. is and Tucker regarding opini.on�s g general consensus, however, that Rutan and Tucker's services are first rate. Timeliness - In 1980 the City and Rutan and Tucker C. -he acceptable established. a ten-day turnaround altsee`��Ces �¢r orz the City . standard for most requests g years, the City has Over the past three and one-half �. L� and the City processed a totl v� aE 4 a *Corney _ e .,_s �-_ Attorney has been two or more days lappeate to with Sa°due about 471% of the ti0e . The City e - date of less than ten -days about one-third of the time. T ividuals intez-yjewed for this study indicated that timely -nd es onse is of major concern and that accessib �e li associated y is also resp a problem. In s onse respects these problems a - services can with the nature of contract services. C°n`raetween the law produce competing priorities and demands b firm (contractor) and the cl i+n t • For exanpie, an important deadline of the City may co :fi ict with clients deadlines of other lents re resented by the firm. To the�exten- that demands compete, problems of ti�ael*ness can rest -t. e cited any major negative consequences as a res u} `.. ow No on -�_�- there is a delays . Several individuals _ s cege because 4there is nc timely aav= probler. receiving 4-A eY o` hou+s the City �...,.. _a ���at:se ..u.. s,.�._., lted. is on the City Hall site is very Attorney ; ..{�,�•• 1 � 1 �_--[I - T 7P. I I P. 1 ti - City Council December 12t 1989 Page Five 0,=`poyiveness - The fig o Rutan and ", scke.r charges the city a $4,000 monthly retainer or $48,000 per year. This fee covers general legal. services, attendance at City Council and Planning Commission meetings, and review of legal documents and staff reports. The retainer fee has increased from $30,000 in 1979 to its current level of $48,000. Rutan and Tucker renegotiated 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. o example, the the city received 806 hours last yeaA. and Tucker. At regular hourly rate hese ou=is would husava vest the city $921690. The retazne_ aper _. _ z'Y f cost-e.e rctive one for the city. Ruta^� and 'fucker rates are competitive, w .th general legal services billed at $115 per .hour. Additional services are billed by Rutan and Tucker at $125per hour. Hourly rates paid by other cities for contract services averages $109. Proportionately, City Attorney services have not been unduly. ;ostly. he cos t yor C; t Attor::ey services in Yrvine has 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 history of rate and expenditures for legal services by department. Table B. depicts graphically these expenditure patterns. The city currently budgets $540,000 annually for legis al services. In 1988-89 the city expended $792, 862. unusually high due to the litigation in which the city was .. involved. in this same year, contracservices, excluding the retainer fee, totalled $370,478. The cost for contract Se"vic-es exclusive of litigation has been gradually increasing. (Table C) It can be assumed that the city will requ re approximately $400,0100 annually, exclusive of the retainer fee, for contract legal services. One consideration concerning the cost-effectiveness of City ,. „�,. ; ; r�-o ; ssue of wteethe: al ? se= -vices A *,tC._..ey Seryices s �.:i_ requested by the city are essential. in 1980 the City Manager's office instituted a cast monitoring process requiring approval of requests by Directors and the City Manager. This practice appears to have been effective; 1:= !,q1 ;=1e.� • i SF'I` i i= I T'' - -:F '', ='S i 111 City Council. December 12, 1989 Page Six howeve- , It I very attorney to properly and scope of work. P.2-111-2.1 difficult for a person who is rot an make decisions regarding the necessity Corp rative Data - Table D reflects the result of the survey of 25 Orange County cites 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 from 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 percent. of budget spent on attorney services, and the type ofservices ofotntrathe scale in-house) provided. Irvine is on the with .65% of total provided.. to City Attorney services of those cities over 100,000 in population, all but the 'C" 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 in-house operation. Some suggested that they would Pre eczl over use aaccess, because they would have more control consistency of se+vices, and timeliness. . A1, ATMs9 CONSIDERS A. Aiternative,-1 - Continue to contract for City Attorney services with Rutan and Tucker The City could choose to continue contracting f eCito Attorney. services with Rutan and Tucker. The ad gcj _ this option are 1) the reasonable rates charged T th has a 1 like Rutan and 2) the fact that a arge fix: comprehensive municipal law section smaller fe nume-houserous ega_ se -vices not generallity y round in Attorney programs, and 3) the invaluable history and experience that Rutan and Tucker has with the CitOf Irvine. The disadvantage to this alternative is that the City -would continue to deal with dif f �cult.es acn�.ev�l:y 1 response to requests and with problems stemming from I mired access to the City Attorney. Should the Council seiecmenh�.s option we recommend that the City Manager reach agree City council De c enbe r 12, 1989 Page Seven with Rutan and Tucker on ways to resolve these problems; suc:: as, contracting for more on --site hours, and reducing the ten-day response time. B. Alternative 2 - Rabid the City Attorney Contract The City could choose to rebind the City Attorney contract. The advantage of this alternative is the opportunity to determine what other law fi=S can offer the city in both cost and level of service. This alternative would give Rutan and Tucker the ability to rebid their existing agreement and would not preclude the city from renewing 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 asscciated witti.contract City Attorney services generally. The City, will also lose the invaluable histo ry Rutan ausand we Tucker brings to the organization. In adaitl , found that Rutan and. Tucker's rates are competitive, rebidding the contract may not substantially reduce ract costs. C. Alternative 3 Establish an In -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 request -S. In addition, 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 suaaested that City Attorneys can be an essential member of the"=anagement team, participating in the daily discussions which lead to sound administrative decisions and Council recommendations. Full-time legal staff can also better respond to those spontaneous and emergency demands for legal assistance which cannot often be suitably handled by phone. .W. full-time addition, full -time legal staff can provide crscial •, *,a C4- 4 ve a-nd complex area of aSs�= ��;,Cc -A ::e i..c.. eas 4 ng�V employee relations. Close and continuous assistance to �j" r4 evances disc- 1inz=-y act_ons, and sta..� �:� :.andl.�.ng of g..+ te=inat ons can avoid costly lawsuits, and assist in `the proper, functioning of the organization. Also, as t Y t �_ . I *51 • 19F.r1 ,`.TT .. C)F T $TIN F. City Council December 12, 1989 page Eight ages and grows, 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 en''orcement staff. The proliferation of legislation, and case decisi o.ns affecting municipal governments, the complexities of lard use laws, and the increased demand for draftin. resolutions, ordinances and agreements support the case for inaugurating a full --tame legal services staff, well -versed in municipal 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, the size of an iz-house operation can range frcm one attorney with a significant amount of . contract support to a large number of legal staff relying very little cn contract attorney 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 to staff services. Should the 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 managing 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 staff. This approach enables the city Attorney to play a crucia? role in cost and aua??ty control by acting as a "broker" for legal services, and by making determinations about the necessity and scope of legal work requested by staff. Costs associated with the proposal include the salary and benefits. for a City Attorney, salary and benefits for a legal secretary, supplies and office operations, start up costs (equipment, space), and costs for contract legal services, as follows: City Council -- December 12, 1989 Page Nine City Attorney (full -tire) Executive secretary Contract legal se=vlces Supplies and office oper a tion Start-up costs - equip.ent TOTAL r L r;rg Year i $122,600 48,000 350,000 30,000 30,000 $580,600 I.& is clear that a transition to . an in�-houseducito Attorney t o hey operation is core cost? y to the City. This is that a full -tine City Attorney, at a cost of $122,6001 will cost provided by $74,600 mare than the retainer services a newrcosts for clerical Rutan and Tucker. In addition, theadditional expense amounts to support, space and equipment.. -• $182,600. cost analysis assumes that special contract services will This Y continue to be approximately $35 l 000 tw, with n� OOn-house year. F.owever, the number of hours avai+able 7. ttorne wJ11 double the amount cf haurs currently provided under ,-y ount of contract t;la retainer. This may reduce �-he am, with an aggressive service which are necessary. in add-1 std, approach to managing legal services,, a staff c attorney may PP play a crucial cost containment role �,n the long The Cit Attorney can make a determination, to hire additional nal Th yon legal staff as needed to decrease the term. s dependence strongly outside contractual. servicesin the sele ted, that. the city Pz°Geed recommended should this option ncrementall carefully evaluating which servces C best be provided in-house, and which are best an C nt act etu ween in-house services basis. Achieving a suitable balance b and cont- services will both meet the legal needs of the city and will control. costs. the We recommend that should the Council select this option tthe new city implement- the in-house proyrar, ire ,:ly 1990, *l fiscal year. T. 1 City council December 12, 1989 Page Ten RECOMMENDED Staff recommends that the city implement an in-house C'ty Attorney operation. This recc=endation is based on the following conclusions: 1. An in -}souse operation will improve the accessibility of Staff and courci' merbers to legal services because a City Attorney will be available forty hours per week. City Attorney operation wiles 2. An in-house improve the many timeliness of the ? egal services prcommuni� ti ri edelays requests will be handled without the associated with contract services. 3 ,- ..Hiring 'a City Attorney . to agg-ressively__ manage legal services ;�; �, l.i ensure the city .s taximiZing the use Of ltsd.. scope Eof We believe careful review of the necessity an p ..legal requests may contain contract services costs. 4 • well -versed in municipal law, 4 , A full-time city At Corney, i active and can will provide a consistent organizational perspectiveis - come an essential member of the management team. Thi as be especially important as demands for services rise, • issues requiring legal advice (i.e. enployee relat_c::s an? 1 � code enforcement) become more complex. BUWET MTW= runds in the amount of $800,000 are budgeted for the Citye ear period. Fundsar Attorney services aor the FY89_9�. two y available to cover options 1 and 2. Should an in-house program be implemented July 1, 1990, an $180, 000 `o $200, 000 s estimated to be required. Wow { additional.. recommend. that if the council selects this °p��Oronriate funding with the Finance Cormission to develop app recommendations. CONCLUSI N: m k r T e law L irm of Rutan and ruche_ is that th _ he staff analysis sugges • �.. .,,.�; ine has we;! i served the iega� needs of �-•,a `---� "" etent past eighteen years, and provides a full range of comp .6 p that -^ere a�e Tip 1 , e -s ..s ...:�b+t �••..� quality services. •l.;e an associated with contract problems of accessibility and services gen era? 1Y . Because the City is experiencing a growing a 0o co 1 1 , • ea 1 • . . . . a 1 / 1 1 1 ' as • r 1 1 + ' • . . . . . . . . . . . , 1 1 1 , • • 1 , / '..�- qll� .. .............. ......_...................... a 1 + LM .......... ' ' 1 A X' Im 1 • 1 1 W t - •,• • ,- - -r ' to Ck r + r r 1 1 p� N to to r 1 r 1 1 1 co r• 1 1 1 1 1 r • 1r • M-- • ' ' ' ' to 1 1d• a o Q o �, �y vs an• a/y �? v> El. 1 • d 9 S H to n, cp N rJ O N h c� © C lam. O O iru7 P tr N H � ui n C N h 0. IV ` N n r ^ t� t7 N N eD 0 -C 0 co Q&+ O P N H N N N N N cr LO m C-4 cv0++ �ll N v7r,5i aQ p Q -Z j .•� to � N W UZ Q L r'; P co ... N P N W N N F"�< Q. e" v� semis gg 4 a N G e� 7' N CO N N L�N G7 2 t'Q 2 1. O, NIq !� sh a0 Cl n en W a H N N C j W 3 fl 5 x w c to El. 1 • d 9 H N 64 x ,h O O N y � 11 4 p O c C yr U 01 .i N A O 0 aA D N � N rt C R w �riV7 M H N w o .•i .r y o tD %D 000 v .� t , aoo Q e-1 Ch O O N w In H Aj o o •-i 0+ oov 0 u �r o N Aj O O O 0 N o o o to a gn o► in o w 0 d m N 0 O ti �0 S N . yr u V) H rl N M c in x y o 04 r 0000 v m N U) r- 0 r Hyo, ut 0 mom 0 o .a N u V t` N .-1 N 0 A 0 0 0 h r) O Ota a . 00 0 •.1 11 N • , ► N JC p a C O a or -v H R . . . C4 r. M N h V? ri t? O A y Y v o m O O u W a roam a c IN mVo �+ N h r C t � to 0 W©vr U > yr K y w .� w U a m o y tT n w 0 as 0 �r C lu W a, o e .r ►+ a 41 0 w c u 0 c .; A ++ •0 c 4 C U .y 0 4 y Q 4 ty u W w Gs Pd(!Ue a •� G fn ti m J H N 64 x ,h 0 v 1 T - _ - . _ Z A i .,F.1. N OOON c GOO ' 0 w C ►J C L ♦ v> t1 •� r V N N o c v+ y o r 000N u p O O O C d r- N O Ill la . . rt y u C •ANO 0 0 -e .r o► r+ U o.. .r u rt ooco fd v m .� C N oars N CDCO � U 'j to . yr a o 4 a o O N U T� N OOOr1 � C v •a oar• o »N U F.t • ♦ N O r•t O � �1• � C O Qv r 0OQOM 7 V 000 0 A .0 ce (4 �a co oc� I o ir1 yr N N r! Q h A y L fl P �o"4 0 a0 Ln 0% �n U ♦ vt tc h CD o a to m ev r ONO h t♦ a N 0 d N N N a y L7 1t1 Q H « . . y O C7 N � h N 41 4/ .d W �7 u a o a .: ^ n w M >1 a 0 0 .•t >% b >, d f) y ++ I 0 0 4+ C C y 0 f -t .4 v -A 0 � p .► .G y y t ►1 0 ►+ Ai Aj u o 0 a r► w c U 1 T - _ - . _ Z A i .,F.1. N M y % Ln MND 0 N •� A ri O . O X 4w C 0 R7 . vy 0 e � v; a> V r, r oaou� 0 000to d N O O C :4 C O % .o �J O r N O C .•t %0 N O 0 � ♦N r•t � t? N qw C r -c N N O O. C y ri LA a In C r i N O 0 a d U+ O ri U 0y .y o '1 o • o •-� .. 0 000r n C C in H 000r a d d % .f oov 0 :s cy o o 10 0W4 inm �4 d r., •o d v9 N (j N N h Ch O o ♦ y M a 0 0 0 m v ,ri y . 000 u r� .n N U flr r� V► N M O e♦ s a cit o 000a o 4 %0 tnV4n- a a in N N a 0 ji 0 o oma i4 . at ri N N r( N N a O to 1 e r h o 0 0 0 u M •� 000 a • 0 000 N ! d N 0 o�rN 0 Q �+ r .-i V N ri N ,J 1K i► 0• C 0 f 0 0 H C� e u o -4 U 0 C v s+ a c a f f a w U lr 7 D ri ii M -1 1 ' 10 C V U 0 6 0 L. fl J M G 4 0 ji y V J r-4 a C Cn C Of ro o a dr 41 n m N 0 0 0 N u U) n �'fGON 4 a c► o m k d M V %o y k soh 0 rn m n Me (n h c en N ON u .a 0 m �! 4 O 0 00 w ,,o 41 C !► NNz, A o ar U V a c d N vt � v000 U IN tr 4' O O 9 4 A 0 k 41 �i.NO 0 p, c* a .•t t,? ..N tiC c! N IR th 4� O 3 • JJ nonrq u d D !V an*a C O► • O aj ti a v�ao� C U a o r P m v N c% C r h o00+� N O p o O u •-+ oom t 0 r - W n U aj .� c U u 0 61 � i ii i � d -t � •i s� w ?� i d 11 U k r-4 a C Cn C Of C!c 'cF'M C:I7 - T US TIN P. 3 RS JEST FOR CITY COUI_ JL ACTION- COUNCIL 1EETING DATE: JANUARY 81 1991 TI^LE RECRUITMENT IN. -HOUSE CITY ATTORNEY t+ Aft 11/1 ' Q � JOS/ City M a�e.. RECOMMENOED ACTION 1. Request City Council to review whether or not to bQgin the recruitment of a full-tina, in-house City Attorney Q_QQ=SSION RECOi�lENDATION Not applicable. ExE(7jT1VE SUMWY on July 24, i99o, City council directed the City Manager to establish an in-house City Attorney pragr= as part of the 1991- 93 budget and begin a formal recruitment to fill the City Attorney's position. Since that action was taken, S*vQral councilmembers have raised the question of whether or not, under the current economic conditions, the .City should ca=enca a recruitment at this time or continue to contract with Rutan and Tucker for legal services. Before I begin a formal recruitment in January 1991, I wanted the opportunity to discuss this with this Council, and raceiva your wireczivn. The cosz consideration has remained unchanged from that outlined in staff's July analysis. The cast to establish an in-house City At .erney office is now comparabla• to the contract cost with Rutan and Tucker. The cost to retain 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 paid -1990. P hi=j`-. 1 2� '-41 0- : ZE,PH S=IT - TUST P.34 MEMORANDUM JUZY 24, 1990 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MAMAGER HAT -7. SUBJECT : CITY ATTORNEY STO Y On Dec*mber 1.2, 1989, the City Councii reviewed the various alternativas for t. he provision off' City .Attorney services. The Council adopted the al te:-,.ative to continue to contract for City Attorney servicas w.th she law firm of Rutan and Tuckar, and directed staff to return in July 19901 with an updated report. Specifically, Council requested that staff review the concarns of finely response, accassibility, conflict of interest, and the cost effectiveness of Ci tv Attorney services. The previous staff report indicated broad satisfaction with the quality of services provided by Rutan and Tucker. This quality remains high and is rot an issue dere. ib' v: =n March 1990, access to C4+ -y Attorney sarvices was increased wJ4rh Rutan and Tucker scheduling office hours Lr. Development on Mondays :Cro= 2:00 tz =:00 p. M. , in addition to t.`le Tuesdav afternoon sc aduie. Ruzan and 'Fucker az:to;neys are also avallabla for talephone conferences and by special appoin.Mont. Tigr_. Staff r t reviewed the response to written Reauests for City Attontey Services for the perib period November 1989 through March 1990. During the five month raview period, 68 requests were processed with an average requested turnaround time of 17.4 days, and an actual tur-narourd time of 19.2 days. (The =o r ec%:ire a due date of tent or fewar days approximately one-third of the time.) Timely response to written reaues is remains a concent because more than half of the responses were two or more days lags. These data address only the response time on written requests and do not addraza the services provided in other ways, such as phone responses or responses to urgent issues. f„Dt: Rutan and Fucker conduct a regular ccnfl�.ct of interest c eck on clients in the Irvine Businesa Complex and all Community Developaent applications to avoid -any problems. wizen. Rhear. and '^'sckar has discovered a conflic-t-- of "? 1 01 _-: c 6PH C I T'i 1 +r T! _ T I f A • REC -FORM. - CCU N COUNCIL MZ=G DATE: JULY 24, 1994 TI+Lr: CITY ATTORNEY STUDY zt . As s s.strnz City Manager Hall !"Nd *!! • P. 35 pr �r 14 1�v L ACTION- 6 . i .Gt City Manager-" 1. Direct -the City Manager to astab?ish an in-house city Attorney program in the 1991-93 budget. 2. Authorize the City Manager to sign an agreement to adjust tha billing rate with:. Ru tan and Tucker f r=zt $1 13 f cr Saner al l eca 1 c nuns e 1 and $125 A40r special=zed and complex litigation with a $4, 000 monthly retainer to $150, $180, and $7eoo, :espec`ively. 3: Appoint John Fellows as City Attornay for =a period August 11 1994 Jure 30, 1991. Piot Applicable. can December 12, 1989, the City Council reviewed alternatives for the provision of city Attorney services. The Council decided to continue to contract. for City Attdrney services with Rutan and Tucker in lieu of creating an in-house City At torney.' s off ice . The City Council also directed staf to retu_'�n in July 1940 with a = epor- reevaluating the igyssues or the hely = esponssa, accassibii { ty, conflict' of i.ntarest and const effectiveness of contract City Attorney sarvices. al : C_1 ., tI 1_.I7 T, �'= i It � F • rt J City Manage= Ziuly 24, 1990 Pace -2- occasions when a conflict of inzerast existed, and the ragular eviow by Rutan and Tucker prior to accepting new legal mattars, has avo .d+ed this problem. Cost_f feet iY,er s : Pressnt C �.ty Attorney f ees are based on a $4,000 per monr_h retainer fee piss a composite hourly =ate• far work outside the retainer of $135 per hour for normal lagal work and $125 per hour for specialized cr complex litigation. City Attorney services costs far Rutan and Tucker, not including litigation, are estimated to ba- $428,,000 for the first half of the 1989--41 bionnial budget. The December 1989 report to Council showed that contracting fo, legal. services is tore cost effactive than hiring an in-house attorney.. • However, as part of-`�,..he contract renewal process, Rutart a:rd Tucka+ has requested a r3to increase which changers the cost issue. S2w Rutar- and Tucker , P ^oos�;�. T:ze City Attorney has submitted a proposal to adjust their fees to a $7,040 monthly retainer plus a $150 per hour fee :or general govorrment services and litigation. Certain special o: odnplax litigation would be subject to an increased hourly rate of not more than $180 per hour. As is the case currently, any increase tv the higher rate is subject to the City Manager's approval. The proposal also increases the number of hours that can be charged under the retainer from the City average of 65 hours per month to 88 hours oer month. =n conjunction with the fee chances, Rutan and T4ackar pronosas teat : orn ?e? lows be appointed as C: ty Attorney. As Assisuant City Attorney for the past two year;, --Fellows Zas bacen t.ae principal attorney providing . serrices to the Planning-a=mission and the Community Development Depar tzent . To address the concerns of tireliness and accessibility, the Rutan and Tucker proposal includes provisions to have a City Attorney available at the City Hall site a ainimun of 20 hours per week, in addition tion to scheduled = aatings. Rutan and Tucker also promises to work more closely with the C+ty t7 insure tingly esponse to writtan service requests, and to provide .improved on -s ita and telephonic access to attorney. services. T.�:e new proposal also adds responsibilities for the City Attorney to more closely review the necessity of serzioe requests tC contein :csts to budgetad levels. Cost =12drison Bet -wean Conzrayz and Tri" ;,oiis,s Sal --vices. Exhibit #1 shows a coaparison of C:ty Attorney costs from 1979-80 to 1989-90, and the cosh of Rutan and Tucker's proaosa-d- faces based on- estimated 1989-90 City Attorney Costs. The pr- cpos*d fees. torr the - same ama=t: af' legal wor?: in- !999-90' will rasutt in City Attorney costs of $580; 000 ;* azr increase of 30 or $152 ; 000 . N 05:29 -Ft -1 r_IT`i' "- TUSTIN City Manager July 24, 1990 Page -4 - F' . 31 fact that service is not interrupted -by the vacation and sick laave days afforded to in-house staff. Statt does not reco=end this a? ternat{.ve because the City would continue to face the difficulties associatad with contracting for services. For example, there are communication delays associated with routing requests and responses to an organization outside the City. Staff deals with a variety of attorneys at a cant- act legal firms and must .insure that the opinion received by a staff attorney is consistent with the opinion of the appoi. Led City Attorney. A cent: act attornav must deal with the =ompetirg demands of a variety of.clients, only one of wh:.ch is the City of irvine. In addition, a contract attorney nay not be perceived by the organization as an integral part of the management teamf and may not have. -the same organizational perspec4ive ttlat one has when one is a full-time erp? oyaa. B. Aj tarnative 2 - Bid the City Attorney contract The City could choose to bid the City Attorney contract. The - advantage of this alternative is tha opportunity to determine what other law firns can offer the City in both cost and level of service. This alternative• is not recommended because this alternative does not resolve the problems associated with contract services generally. In addition, because Rutan and Tucker's rates are oomoatit j ve with f inns of s .milar caliber, bidding the conzrac t may not substantially reduce contract costs. C. &It_e_ nat iv$ 3 - Staf f recommends the alternative to =v sment a general counsel ini-house C1::%- Attorney opnrat .on July 1, 1991: Under the general counsal approach, the City Attorney would have responsibility for providing the general government .'*gal. services and general litigation services currently covered by the Rutan and Tucker retainer. In addition to providing direct .legal servicas• to. -•.hs City, the inhouse attorney would manage and supervise contract.. services. Because of the wide range of legal needs, the City would out of necessity continue to contra= for certain legal servieas. Under the proposed approach, the in-house City Attorney would not only provide direct services, but would act as an intermediary, or libroker" of legal services. This approach is likely to be more cost effective because it insures that work requested is necessary anthe � i t qti ys properly completed. This recanmendation for an in-house operation is basad on the fol.lowinc assu=rations : T*,,* r T1l:TIfJ _ r._•: - City Manager wuly 24, 1990 .Page -5- 1. The costs for an 4"n -house operation are comparable to the new costs proposed by Rutan and Tucker. 10 2. Because an in-house City Attorney would ,be availabla forty -plus hours per week, staff believes that legal services requests will., be more easily managed and that access of staff and Courcil ino bers tri legal seryices will increase. 3. Hiring a City Attorney -to actively 'tbroker" legal services will insure the City. :.s maxi=izing the use of its resources. s -aff believes that careful ,review oft'.:e necessity and scope of legal reques is may keep legal services costs under control. - 4. The City has grown to a paint where daily, in-house access to attorney services is likely to improve our effectiveness. lrvine is currently the only city. in orange county with a population over i00, 000 that does not have its own in-house City Attorney's office. 5. A full -ti=e City Attorney, well -versed in municipal law, will provide a consistent organizational perspective and can. become an essentaial member of the manaci=ent team. They cost of Rutan and Tucker's oraposed fees in the 1989-91 budget is an additional $152,000. Currently funds are available in the City's Non -Departmental Litigation Rosa va two offset theza increased cosi-=. +. Direct the City Manager to establ=sh an in-house City Attorney program in the 1991-93 budget. 2. Authozize the City Manager to sign an agreement to adjust the billing rate with Rutan and Tucker from $115 for general legal counsel and $125* for specialized and complex litigation with a $4,000 monthly retainer to $150, $180, and $7, 000, respectively. 3. Appoint John Fellows as City Attorney for the period' August City :tanager _ _ July 24, 1990 Page -6- Report Prepared by: Rick Paikoff Budget Officer Submitted by: Allison Hall,./Assistant City Manager A.c?/ RP/ en At �ach=ant {City Attorney Study) en/di= Olt �. ew r 40iCh g Y ti Olt mot Iry V), M M M a► d N cn LM rt o i5 u f cs We. *0ci 0 °' w 00* MmLq a �3 N V. {O 4 hr. FN.. 44 ep w O Ln 009, M w lV N i14 + ffn+�, p ko w ca co LM �! t0 -; r� r. � N Qf M M M ow � •� M' '60". enLR C* WIF y7 m �. t" s • n. T - Ln N fn •�' M •F M M fA N 0 th .r. M WOO. N +� Q jQ� w�► Ln fin tD e to �: n = .+ a ,�.....+ . a; ... Vv C�ld:;$�x C = m M Ulp LM 712 u'f a W 65 .2 s 2 .',1 i W,: O,_ : :=t i ES : c t A.Cit.1 IN