Interim City Attorney's Message - City of Sacramento

Document Sample
Interim City Attorney's Message - City of Sacramento Powered By Docstoc
					 Sacramento
City Attorney’s
     Office




  Annual Report
   2011-2012
                                                                                      City Attorney’s
                                                                                           Staff




                                Interim City Attorney’s
                                       Message


                                It is an honor to serve as your Interim City Attorney. I am pleased to present the City
                                Attorney’s Annual Report for fiscal year 2011-2012. This report is published each year to
                                show the citizens of our community how public resources are spent on legal services in the
                                City of Sacramento.

                                In this report, you will find a review of our current resources, and a comparison of changes in
                                use of and demand for these resources over time.
Mission Statement:              The city continues to face significant challenges in returning to a long-term structurally
The mission of the              balanced General Fund budget. As part of this process, the City Attorney’s Office has been
Sacramento City                 challenged to reduce its budget further each year. Since our budget is primarily salary, this
                                typically results in a reduction in staffing. In fiscal year 2011-2012, this challenge was
Attorney’s Office is to
                                addressed through mandatory furloughs, elimination of two FTE’s, and a $100k reduction to
provide the highest quality     the litigation fund. We continue to make difficult decisions regarding the continued operation
legal services to the City of   of non-mandatory services.
Sacramento.
                                The dedicated staff of the City Attorney’s Office has worked hard to provide timely and
                                competent legal advice and is committed to providing our client, the City of Sacramento, with
                                quality legal services.




                                                             2
                               Administration Team


City Attorney’s Clients and Roles:
The Office of the City Attorney provides legal counsel to
the Mayor and City Council. In addition, the office is
legal counsel to those persons—such as the City
Manager, City Treasurer, City Clerk, City Auditor, and
Department Heads—empowered by the City Council, the
City Charter, or state law, to act on the city’s behalf. The
City Attorney’s Office does not represent citizens in
private matters.
                                                                            (From left to right)
The City Attorney’s Office also serves as the City                          Gustavo L. Martinez, Matthew D. Ruyak, Angela
                                                                            Kolak, Brett M. Witter, Gerald C. Hicks, Sandra
Prosecutor for misdemeanor and infraction violations of
                                                                            G. Talbott, Kathy Montgomery
the city code. Violations of the California Penal Code
and other state laws remain the prosecutorial
responsibility of the District Attorney.

                                                 New Assignments/Cases by Clients


                                                                          FY 2009-   FY 2010-        FY 2011-
                                                                           2010       2011            2012
                         City Attorney's Office                                   26    38              24
                         City Auditor                                              8    25             30
                         City Clerk                                               49   232             136
                         City Manager                                             89   106             105
                         City Treasurer                                           46    73              85
                         Community Development                                  713    837             757
                         Conv., Culture & Leisure                               343    263             184
                         Development Services                                   104     10               0
                         Economic Development                                   182    254             128
                         Finance                                                137    316             251
                         Fire                                                   118    217             191
                         General Services                                       773    727             680
                         Human Resources                                        221    388             347
                         Information Technology                                 121     88              77
                         Library Authority                                      443    427             316
                         Mayor and Council                                      105    146              75
                         Outside Agency Referral                                   7    18             115
                         Parks and Recreation                                   493    654             313
                         Police                                                1284   1596            1883
                         Public Works                                           578    984             969
                         Utilities                                              956    954             815
                         Boards & Commissions, Other Jurisdiction
                         Agency                                                    54       114         62
                         TOTALS                                                  6850      8467        7543

                         The above chart reflects the City's new organiza onal structure.


                                                            3
Budget                                                                      Fiscal Year 2011‐2012 Budget Funding Sources
                                                                                                                         General Fund
                                                                                3%     1%
                                                                           7%
    The operating budget in fiscal year 2011-2012 was                                                                  Interdepartmental Service
                                                                                                                         Fund
      $6,440,585, of which $3,810,142 was derived from the                                                               Risk Management Fund
      city’s general fund.                                                                                               Water Fund
                                                                            30%
                                                                                                 59%
                                                                                                                         General Revenue
                                                                                                             General Revenue  collected offsets the General Fund 
                                                                                                             contribution 




    Approximately 94% of the City Attorney’s Office
      annual budget is for personnel-related costs.




    In 2011-2012, the City Attorney’s Office achieved a                              City Attorney FTEs
      budget reduction of $588,921 through staffing reduc-                           Attorneys         Support Staff             Totals
      tions, mandatory furloughs, and permanent reductions
      to the litigation fund.                                              58
                                                                                            53
                                                                                                             49                     48                      46


                                                                   30 28          28
                                                                                       25          27                   27                      27
                                                                                                        22                    21                      19




                                                                   2007/2008      2008/2009       2009/2010             2010/2011              2011/2012



    Additional net savings of $450,876 were recognized at year end and returned to the general fund. Savings
      were achieved through the following proactive measures:
           Conscious effort toward fiscal conservatism
                                                                              Year End Savings
                                                                                YEAR                                       TOTAL
             Organizational reallocation of resources that re-
               duced support staff in the offices’ Neighborhood             FY 07-08                                      $410,840
               Safety and Nuisance Abatement section                        FY 08-09                                      $436,595
             Acquiring new services and supplies only when                FY 09-10                                      $554,400
               crucial                                                      FY 10-11                                      $534,082
                                                                            FY 11-12                                      $450,876
             Better utilization of technology
             Aggressively negotiating discounts for services and supplies with existing vendors


                                                        4
                                                          Office Overview

                                   Litigation Section attorneys represent the city, the city council, and city staff in all
 Litigation                        litigated matters brought by or against the city. In fiscal year 2011-2012, the City
                                   Attorney’s Office remained committed to                New Li ga on Ma ers 
                                   maintaining a strong litigation unit capa-                      FY     FY         FY
                                   ble of practicing in all areas of the law                    2009‐ 2010‐ 2011‐
                                   with sustained success. As in years past,                     2010 2011         2012
                                   the litigation section continued to assume Bankruptcy           0       1          1
                                   litigation responsibility for cases involving Civil Rights      7       6         23
                                   tort, civil rights, employment, labor, envi- Contract           9       7          3
                                   ronmental, subrogation, collections, con- Employment            2       1          1
                                   tract, and strictly municipal issues, such Labor               21      28         32
                                   as writs under the Public Records Act. As Property              3      13          6
                                   is typically the case, no litigation matters Li ga on           7      19         20
                                   were sent to outside counsel in fiscal year Review
Attorneys                          2011-2012 except those handled at the         Subpoena         14      14          2
Brett M. Witter, Supervising DCA
Sheri Chapman
                                   expense of another party.                     Subroga on ‐      6      15         15
Sari Myers-Dierking                                                              Collec on
Michael Fry                        Some benefits of a strong in-house litiga- Tax                  1       1          0
Kathleen Rogan
Chance Trimm                       tion unit include the following:              TRO/              6       2          4
                                    A budget savings over the cost of pay- Injunc on
Paralegals                              ing outside attorneys.
Norma Florendo
                                                                                 Tort/Appeal      35      42         45
Lynette Fuson                                                                    Writ              5       8          7
                                    In fiscal year 2011-2012, the city paid TOTALS              116    157        159 
Legal Secretaries                       nothing in 63% of the closed cases in
Jamie Gifford, Supervising LS           which the primary remedy sought was money.
Colleen Clay
Erica Dillard
Paula Lockard                       Regular contact with city staff allows attorneys to handle cases more efficient-
Cleo Morris                            ly, as they are familiar with city policies and practices and know where to lo-
                                       cate information needed for successful outcomes.

                                    Familiarity with the various city departments and their staff builds a comforta-
                                       ble relationship between staff
                                       and counsel.
                                                                      City Payouts on All Litigated Risk Cases
                                                                            Year            Cases Closed           Payouts
                                                                           FY 07-08              68              $3,328,319*
                                    Payouts for the year also re-
                                       mained consistent with prior        FY 08-09              56              $1,487,720
                                       years, as is indicated in the       FY 09-10              54              $1,346,438
                                       table.                              FY 10-11              42              $1,864,069
                                                                           FY 11-12              59              $3,184,220*
                                                                       *The table does not include the full payout for one case
                                                                       settled in fiscal year 2007-2008 and an adverse verdict in
                                                                       2011-2012. In both cases, one handled by outside counsel
                                                                       and the other by the litigation section, the amount paid
                                                                       exceeded the city’s self-insured retention of $2,000,000.
                                                                       The table includes only the $2,000,000 paid by the city in
                                                                       these two cases.


                                                           5
Neighborhood
Safety and                             Diligent and comprehensive enforcement of
Nuisance                               the Sacramento City Code is essential to
                                       achieving the city council’s goal of making
                                                                                            New NSNA Assignments/Matters FY 2010‐2011


Abatement                              Sacramento the most livable community in
                                                                                                   183
                                                                                                                 339
                                                                                                                         Code Enforcement and
                                                                                                                         Community Development

                                       the country. The Neighborhood Safety and                                          ‐Building and Code
                                                                                                                         Police
                                       Nuisance Abatement (NSNA) Section
                                       advances that goal by improving both                          1055                All Departments

                                       public safety and the quality of life in our
                                       city. Through the Justice for Neighbors
                                       (JFN) Program and the Problem Oriented
                                       Policing and Legal Action Workforce
                                       (POPLAW) Program, NSNA attorneys
                                       partner with police officers, enforcement            New NSNA Assignments/Matters FY 2011‐2012
Attorneys
Gustavo L. Martinez, Supervising DCA
                                       officers from various city departments (e.g.,                173         303
Michael Benner                         park rangers, solid waste code officers,
Gary Lindsey
Susan Hayes                            zoning investigator), and the community to                                         Community Development

Steven Itagaki                         address crime and nuisance problems                                                Police

David Womack                                                                                                              All Departments
                                       proactively and to implement innovative                           1631

Legal Secretaries
Phyllis Zakrajsek, Supervising LS
                                       and comprehensive legal actions that create
Tammara Cheung                         safer, stronger neighborhoods.
Desiree Stockton

Paralegals
Norma Florendo
Lynette Fuson

Investigator                                                            New NSNA Ma ers 
David Dunlevy
                                                                                          FY                FY            FY
                                                                                       2009‐2010         2010‐2011     2011‐2012
                                            Administra ve Assignments                     5                      0         1
                                            Administra ve Appeals                         7                     10        13
                                            Advice                                       208                    338       559
                                            Collec ons                                    1                      0         0
                                            Criminal                                     618                    860      1089
                                            Defacement of Vehicle Iden fica on             0                   0            3
                                            Drug Evic ons                                 8                  51           18
                                            Gun Evic ons                                  9                  15            9
                                            Ordinance                                     9                   5            6
                                            Physical Nuisance Abatement                   2                   6            3
                                            Pitchess Mo ons                               39                 25           35
                                            Public Records Act Request                   106                 185          89
                                            Social Nuisance (Li ga on)                    38                 25           11
                                            Subpoena                                      27                 28           252
                                            Warrants                                      3                   9            4
                                            Weapons Cases                                 15                 20           15
                                            Writ (Li ga on)                               1                   0            0
                                            TOTALS                                       1096               1577         2107


                                                                  6
                                        The Transactional/Advisory Section provides comprehensive legal advice and service
Transactional/                          to the city council; to city boards, commissions, and committees; and to city
Advisory                                departments and personnel. The 12 attorneys of the Transactional/Advisory Section
                                        have a combined 246 years of practice and 132 years of practice in the City Attorney’s
                                        Office. This experience reflects both the breadth and depth of knowledge required of
                                        an attorney practicing municipal law. Each attorney must possess a significant
                                        amount of both generalized legal knowledge (e.g., torts, contracts, constitutional law,
                                        real property, etc.) and specialized knowledge of areas of municipal law (e.g., water
                                        law, land use, zoning and planning; elections, and redistricting, bonds, taxes,
                                        assessments, and fees) in order to serve their respective clients.

                                        The myriad services provided by the section’s attorneys include providing written and
                                        oral legal opinions; preparing and assisting with the preparation of ordinances and
Attorneys                               administrative policies; negotiating, drafting, and reviewing contracts; reviewing staff
Matthew D. Ruyak, Assistant CA          reports; aiding staff in responding to subpoenas and requests under the Public Records
Gerald C. Hicks, Supervising DCA
                                        Act; and staffing the numerous city boards and commissions.
Grace Arupo          Sheryl Patterson
Kourtney Burdick     Joe Robinson
Joseph Cerullo       Janeth San Pedro
Paul Gale            Michael Sparks
Sabina Gilbert       Lan Wang
Jeffrey Heeren

Legal Secretaries
Phyllis Zakrajsek, Supervising LS
Tammara Cheung
                                                                  New Transac onal/Advisory Ma ers 
Cleo Morris                                                                         FY          FY          FY             
Desiree Stockton
Di Walters
                                                                                 2009‐2010  2010‐2011  2011‐2012 
                                                   
Paralegal
Cindy Head                                       *General Advisory Assignments         2823          3256 2617
                                                 Staff Report Review/Approval            695           999  853
                                                 Contract Review/Approval              1631          1976 1547
                                                 Ordinances                             30            23    22
                                                 Public Records Act                     162           251  215
                                                 **Subpoenas                            297           223   23
                                                 TOTALS                                5638          6733 5277
                                                 *Contains all other ma ers not individually listed below
                                                 **Police—department ma ers including subpoenas were reassigned to
                                                 NSNA during FY 2011‐2012




                                                                   7
                                   Notable Achievements
                                  For Client Departments

Mayor and Council

  Public Records Act Writ: The Sacramento County Superior Court agreed with the city’s
      argument that emails between council members regarding redistricting are exempt from
      disclosure under the California Public Records Act, recognizing, without explicit precedent, that
      the deliberative-process principle applies in the public-records context.

  Redistricting: The city drew new council-district boundaries in 2011, as a result of the 2010
      decennial census. The City Attorney’s Office staffed the Sacramento Citizens’ Redistricting
      Advisory Committee, which submitted boundary recommendations to the city council. The
      office also drafted the redistricting ordinance adopted by the city council.

  Proposed Charter Changes: For the third time in as many years, the city council debated
      proposed charter changes. In late 2011, the city council received the proposed “Sacramento
      Checks and Balances Act of 2012.” In January and February 2012, our office made
      presentations at city council meetings analyzing the proposal and presenting various options for
      specific charter provisions.

  Charter Commission: Our office presented to the city council a primer on the creation,
      operation, and other details of an elected charter commission. The city council approved the
      placement of a question on the November 2012 ballot regarding the election of a charter
      commission—only the third time in state history that this has been done.


City Auditor

   Audit Review: The City Auditor annually conducts numerous internal-operation audits. As in
      past years, our office staffs the Audit Committee and frequently provides comments and input
      on draft audits before publication.



City Clerk

    Landowners Election: Our office revised the city’s assessment-ballot ordinance to bring the
      procedure for verification of the party authorized to cast a ballot in line with best the practices
      of other cities in the state.

    Public Records: The City Clerk hosted the California City Clerk’s Association conference in
      Sacramento. As part of the multi-day conference, the City Attorney’s Office presented:
      “Learning to Love the California Public Records Act, or Want to Ease Your Public Records
      Act Workload? Start with Better Records Management.”


                                                             8
    Elections: In election year 2012, our office assisted the City Clerk with the myriad issues that
      arise before the primary and general elections, including writing initiative ballot titles and
      summaries, reviewing ballot designations and candidate statements, and preparing election-
      related resolutions.


City Manager

     Monetizing City Parking Assets: Exploration of making the most of city assets gave our
       office the opportunity to advise on the legal and practical issues with monetizing city parking
       assets, the legal distinctions between on-street parking and off-street parking facilities and
       revenue, and the drafting of an Request For Quotation (RFQ) targeting private companies
       with experience administering municipal parking systems. Understanding these issues
       helped decision-makers make informed and legally defensible choices on parking
       monetization.

     Railyards Track Relocation: Our office helped negotiate and draft multiple agreements
       necessary to relocate Union Pacific Railroad Company’s tracks within the downtown
       Railyards. Relocating the tracks serves as a catalyst for development of the Railyards.

     Railyards Pedestrian Tunnel: To complete the pedestrian tunnel that will connect Old
       Sacramento and the Central Shops in the Railyards, our office assisted in acquiring the
       necessary property rights.

     Railyards Electric Power Cabinets: Our office assisted in negotiating and drafting an
       agreement with the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority to help it secure $320,000 in
       grant funding for purchasing electric-power cabinets to supply energy to Amtrak train cars
       while they idle at the new passenger platforms in the Railyards. Replacing power from diesel
       locomotives with electrical power improves the quality of life in Sacramento by reducing air


City Treasurer
  Special Taxes and Assessments: Delinquency of special taxes and assessments spiked in the city
      with the economic downturn. Our office responded by helping update administrative
      procedures and giving focused advice on the strict requirements for collection and the legal
      complexities added when there are bankruptcy proceedings. This is necessary work for the city
      to fulfill its bond-payment obligations, protect its credit rating, and ensure adherence to the rule
      of law.

  2012 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes: Our office assisted the City Treasurer’s Office in
      selling short-term notes in the principal amount of $36,585,000. The proceeds from the sale are
      used to finance cash-flow deficits that result during the year. Those deficits occur because the
      city’s expenditures tend to be fairly constant month to month whereas its receipt of revenue
      tends to be uneven. In particular, property taxes are paid twice a year, in December and April,
      and reimbursements from state and federal agencies have no fixed schedule.




                                                             9
Community Development

   Medical Marijuana: Our office continued to adapt to new case law in response to
     evolving medical-marijuana laws and helped draft ordinance amendments to
     protect the city from legal challenges and find neutral ground where the city is able
     to restrict unregulated dispensaries while at the same time providing a safe and
     secure place for qualified patients to obtain their medicine.

  Climate Action Plan: The adoption of the Climate Action Plan in February 2012 was the
     culmination of a multi-year effort to adopt a comprehensive plan for reducing greenhouse gases
     and adapting to climate change. The office advised staff on the legal aspects and scope of the
     plan, as well as on associated environmental issues.

  Green Development Code Project: This project is a comprehensive, multi-phased update of the
     zoning and subdivision titles of the city code, aimed at facilitating sustainable infill development
     as envisioned by the 2030 General Plan. Our office assisted with the development and drafting
     of a completely reorganized zoning title, including new permitting and processing procedures
     and updated development standards.

  Hearing Examiners: The city recently appointed three new hearing examiners to consider
     appeals of property owners, businesses, and animal owners who received citations for violation
     of the city code. Our office drafted a new manual for these hearing examiners to explain due-
     process hearing procedures and their authority to set aside citations, reduce the proposed fines,
     and order appellants to take actions to come into compliance with the code requirements.

  Code Enforcement: The Code Enforcement division ordered a substandard and dangerous
     mobile home removed from a property and the cessation of all unauthorized commercial
     activity at the property. The owner filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging liability against the
     city and several employees in the Code Enforcement and Police Departments. The city filed a
     motion for summary judgment to have the matter dismissed, but while the motion was pending
     the court ordered the case dismissed because of the owner’s failure to cooperate and participate
     in good faith in the action.

  Recovery of Development Fees: As a result of our office’s filing of a lawsuit, a developer
     executed a promissory note to pay the city $19,000 in delinquent development fees.




Convention, Culture, and Leisure

  California State Bar Claim: The claim by the California State Bar over alleged interruption
     of the bar exam at the Convention Center was resolved with the assistance from our office.

  Crocker Café by Supper Club: Our office assisted in the preparation of an operating
     agreement for the re-opening of the café.




                                                           10
  Operation of City’s Golf Courses: Our office helped draft and negotiate a ten-year agreement
     authorizing Morton Golf to operate Haggin Oaks, Bing Maloney, and Bartley Cavanaugh Golf
     Courses. The arrangement will ultimately save the city hundreds of thousands of dollars each
     year.

  Dangerous Condition Defense Verdict: The plaintiff sustained severe injuries as a result of
     being struck by a large limb that fell from an oak tree at Alister McKenzie Golf Course. The
     plaintiff claimed that the tree was a dangerous condition and sought damages in the seven-
     figure range for medical expenses, loss of past and future income, and pain and suffering.
     Following a three-week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the city.



Economic Development

  Local Business Enterprise (LBE) Program: Our office drafted an ordinance
     authorizing adoption of a LBE Program and assisted city staff in implementation of
     the program, including development of the LBE Preference Program Requirements.
     The program reflects the importance of promoting and bolstering the local economy.

  Township 9: The industrial area north of downtown has been underutilized and in need of
     redevelopment. The city was successful in receiving a $30 million grant from the state to fund
     infrastructure improvements and affordable housing at Township 9, which is a 65-acre site
     planned for 2,350 residential units and over a million square feet of office and retail uses. Our
     office drafted multiple agreements to help obtain this funding, which the developer needs to
     construct streets, parks, a light-rail station, and a parking garage.

  Powerhouse Science Center: The city-owned site along the Sacramento River near downtown
     contains the historic PG&E powerhouse building. The Discovery Science Museum will be
     located on this site. Predevelopment work has been on-going. Our office assisted this project in
     preparing agreements with state agencies regarding the residual soil contamination and
     rehabilitation of the building, as well as with Native American tribes concerned about cultural
     and prehistoric resources being unearthed during construction.

  Redevelopment Agency Dissolution: State legislation required the city to manage the
     dissolution of the city’s redevelopment agency and to manage the payment of debts and the
     implementing of contracts affecting 11 projects areas. Our office provided opinions interpreting
     the new law and agency agreements to assist staff in meeting their obligations. Our office also
     prepared a conflict-of-interest code and rules of procedure for the new Oversight Board, and
     assisted in selecting independent counsel for the Board.




  Finance

 Tax Exempt Property: Our office advised staff on handling ad valorem tax-exempt property
    within city property and business improvement districts.




                                                          11
 Fire

        Fire Code Update: Our office drafted an ordinance adopting by reference the 2010 California
          Fire Code, with local amendments. The ordinance is an integral part of local efforts to
          provide a reasonable level of life-safety and property protection.

        Wrongful Death Defense Verdict: The plaintiff filed wrongful death claim on behalf of her
          daughter who was killed in an auto accident with a city fire truck in downtown Sacramento.
          She argued both that the driver of the truck was negligent and that the intersection where the
          accident occurred was a dangerous condition of public property. Following a four-week jury
          trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of both the city and the driver of the fire truck.




     General Services

        Sutter’s Landing Park: Our office provided legal support in connection with the tree
          -restoration project at the former 28th Street Landfill, now part of Sutter’s Landing
          Park.

        Collection Services: Staff and our office worked in developing a business-plan strategy for the
          way the city handles and delivers garbage, recycling, and yard-waste collection services.

        Recovery for Breach of Contract: The city obtained a judgment in excess of $200,000 against a
          company that failed to remit the proceeds from sales of surplus vehicles.




Human Resources

        Denial of Labor Grievance: A group of supervisors in the Solid Waste Department filed a
          grievance claiming certain job functions they were performing were in a higher job
          classification and required out-of-class pay. The tasks had in fact previously been performed
          by staff in a higher classification, and, when initially called upon to perform the tasks, the    Human Resources
          supervisors received out—of—class pay for several months. The city argued that the
          responsibilities being performed overlapped and were included in several job classifications
          and that the work did not involve any supervision of other supervisors within the affected
          class. The matter was arbitrated, and the arbitrator denied the supervisors’ grievance.

        Restraining Order: The office obtained a restraining order to protect an employee from
          workplace violence.

        Unfair Labor Charge: Our office defended an unfair-labor-practice charge before the Public
          Employee Relations Board (PERB), successfully preventing an injunction against layoffs.




                                                     12
   Subrogation Recovery: Our office recovered $14,000 in a subrogation action for workers-
     compensation benefits paid to a city employee as a result of an auto accident.

   Collective Bargaining Agreements: Our office assisted staff in the negotiation and drafting of
     new collective-bargaining agreements with five of the unions that represent city employees.




Information Technology
                                                                                                         Information
   311 Mobile Application: This project will provide more self-service web and mobile-              Technology
     application tools for citizens to report non-emergency issues to the city’s 311 call center. The
     city’s 311 call center handles approximately 1,300 calls each day and processes an average of
     1,400 emails monthly. Because of limited staff resources, approximately 100,000 calls are
     dropped annually. The office provided legal support to staff in developing this project designed
     to improve efficiency and customer service.

   PeopleSoft™ System Upgrade: This system for eCAPS is to ensure that the city maintains the
     level of support required for the finance, payroll, human resources, benefits, and budget systems
     and continues to comply with reporting requirements that include processing federal and state
     payroll changes, direct deposits and paychecks, and accounts payable/receivable
     transactions. Our office worked with staff in formulating, negotiating, and drafting an agreement
     with the contractor to implement the system upgrade.




Parks and Recreation

  Special Event Ordinance: Our office drafted a comprehensive ordinance to address the
     permit requirements for parades, concerts, marathons, and other types of special events,
     including free-speech assemblies, held in city streets and parks. The new ordinance will
     allow for better enforcement of permit requirements, and encourage more community
     events.

  Community Centers: Because of budget constraints, the city had to close some of its
     community centers. Citizens were concerned over the loss of the recreation, enrichment, and
     education programs that the city previously offered at such centers. Our office drafted
     agreements to allow non-profit organizations to assume operation of the centers so that the
     centers could remain open to the public for some portions of the day or week for programs and
     rental.




                                                         13
   Pools: This summer the city was facing closure of almost all of its swimming pools because of
     funding cuts. The City Council’s Sponsorship Program and Advertising Policy, adopted in
     2010, was implemented this past year through agreements drafted by the office with Save Mart,
     YMCA, and neighborhood groups to conduct campaigns and solicit donations to keep the pools
     open.

   Shasta Park Shade Structure: Without initiating litigation, our office brought five outside
     vendors to the table to resolve design and construction deficiencies that resulted in the failure of
     the shade structure. Under the resulting settlement agreement, the parties will repair the shade
     structure and pay for those repairs. The city will pay only $2,500 toward the $50,000 repair




Police

 Dismissal of Personal Injury Claim: The plaintiff sued to recover for personal injuries following
     an intersection accident with a police officer on patrol. The plaintiff dismissed the action in
     response to the city’s demurrer to the complaint based on the statute of limitations.

  Summary Judgment in Civil Rights Case: The plaintiff sued the city and members of the
     police department, alleging wrongful arrest and constitutional violations arising from his arrest
     for theft. The court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment, resulting in judgment
     being entered in favor of the city and staff.

  Drug and Gun Evictions: The office is authorized to evict tenants in possession of illegal
     firearms and persons possessing illegal narcotics. In calendar year 2011 the office successfully
     prosecuted nine gun and 26 drug evictions. The chart below reflects the activity level of all
     authorized jurisdictions.


                                      Drug and Gun Evictions in California during 2011
                             120
                                          106
                             100
                                                                                                            GUN
                              80
                                                       62
                              60
                                                                                                            DRUG
                              40
                                                                    26
                                     19
                              20                  13            9
                                                                            0 0       0 0        0 0
                               0
                                   Los Angeles   Long Beach   Sacramento   Oakland   Palmdale   San Diego




  California Welfare and Institutions Code section 8102 requires that whenever law-
     enforcement officers detain persons because they have a mental condition that makes them a
     danger to themselves or others, the officers must confiscate any firearms or other deadly
     weapons. It further provides a procedure for the office to petition the court for destruction or
     disposal of the firearms if returning them is likely to endanger anyone. Our office filed 15
     petitions resulting in at least 49 firearms removed from mentally unstable individuals deemed
     a threat to themselves or others.


                                                                     14
                                Weapons and Pitchess Matters
                                        15
                    FY 2011‐2012
                                                             35
                                                                                     Weapons
                                             20
                    FY 2010‐2011
                                                  25
                                                                                     Pitchess

                                        15
                    FY 2009‐2010
                                                        39

                                   0         10    20             30   40     50



    Pitchess Motions: A pitchess motion is for the discovery of peace-officer personnel records.
      Sometimes the only purpose of these motions is to conduct fishing expeditions into an officer’s
      personnel file, hoping to find anything to smear the officer’s reputation. Given the sensitive
      nature of peace-officer personnel records, NSNA attorneys vigorously oppose unjustified
      motions, seeking appellate review if necessary.

    Dismissal of “Occupy” Lawsuit: When the Occupy Sacramento movement began in October
      2011, members of the movement indicated that they planned to “occupy” Cesar Chavez Plaza
      continuously. The Police Department advised the members that the parks closed at 11:00 p.m.
      and warned that arrests would be made of anyone who refused to disperse. The office
      successfully opposed the group’s attempts to obtain a temporary restraining order from both the
      state and federal courts, which would have prevented the city from enforcing the park—closure
      ordinance. Both courts agreed with the city that the ordinance was a reasonable “time, place,
      and manner” regulation of speech.




Public Works

  Various Projects: Our office assisted staff in contract negotiation and preparation for
      various projects, including the following: Sacramento Valley Depot Retrofit Project;
      Norwood Avenue Bridge Replacement; West El Camino Bridge Tree Maintenance
      Project; Guy West Pedestrian Bridge Project; Center Parkway Bridge Project; I & J and
      Alkali Flat Streetlight Projects; Del Paso Boulevard Streetscape Project; Neighborhood
      Traffic Management Projects; 4th and I Street Intersection Modifications; and street overlay and
      seal projects.

    Cost Sharing Agreement for Delta Shores: Our office assisted staff in negotiating and drafting
      an agreement by which the developer of the Delta Shores Project and the city will share the cost,
      currently estimated to be $95.3 million, of designing and constructing a major freeway
      interchange at Interstate 5 and Cosumnes River Boulevard.




                                                              15
Department of Utilities
   Capital Improvement Financing: Our office assisted the department with development and
     implementation of a multi-year water and sewer-rate increase and capital-improvement
     proposals, including compliance with Proposition 218 and legal advice relative to proposed
     revenue bond financing.

   Settlement of Clean Water Lawsuit: In conjunction with outside counsel, our office
     successfully resolved a lawsuit alleging various Clean Water Act violations arising from
     sanitary sewer overflows (CSOs) from the city’s sanitary-sewer system. The consent decree
     settling this case provides for numerous operational and capital improvements that are expected
     to reduce the rate of CSOs, including more comprehensive inspection and cleaning programs,
     increased enforcement of discharge prohibitions, and capital investment in sewer-system
     facilities.

 Utility Billing and Collection Update: Our office drafted an ordinance comprehensively revising
     city code provisions governing utility billing and collection and the termination of utility services
     to comply with various state laws and update numerous operational provisions.

   Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP): Our office participated in the development of the
     department’s UWMP update, which the Urban Water Management Planning Act requires the
     department to prepare for adoption by the City Council and submission to the State Department
     of Water Resources every 5 years. The UWMP serves as a blueprint for the city’s water-supply
     planning, including demand and supply projections over a 20-year period, planning for water
     shortages, and water-conservation measures to reduce the demand. Our office provided advice
     on legal issues relative to the city’s water rights and water supply for the UWMP update and
     departmental responses to comments received on the draft UWMP update.

 Dismissal of Asbestos Lawsuit: The city was sued for secondary asbestos exposure as a result of
     the plaintiff’s family members working with asbestos-laden products, including sewer/water
     projects for the city. Plaintiff developed peritoneal mesothelioma and was expected to die within
     six months. Trial preference was granted due to her illness, but the office was able to obtain an
     early dismissal from plaintiff before filing a motion for summary judgment.




                                                            16
                                     Office Programs

Law Clerks

Over the past five years, the office’s intern program has expanded from
one summer intern to four interns each semester and over the
summer. We have hosted approximately 12 students each year since
2009. The students apply from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge
School of Law, the University of California at Davis, and occasionally the
University of California at Berkeley. The law clerks are not paid but get a
wealth of experience as they work on issues from all three of the office’s
sections, involving research and writing memoranda, motions, and                Revital Braun        Michael Smith
briefs. They are also able to attend various meetings, ordinance-review sessions, arbitrations, mediations,
depositions, hearings, and trials, all of which help them integrate what they learn in school with how their skills may



City Attorney’s Law Day Event on May 2, 2012: “No Courts, No
Justice, No Freedom”

Adopting the American Bar Association theme, the office focused its third
annual Law Day program on the importance of maintaining adequate fund-
ing for our courts. Keeping courtrooms open ensures access to justice for all
Americans and maintains the checks-and-balances role the courts play in our
governmental system. This important issue was the cornerstone of the Law
Day program this year, which featured a guest speaker, the Honorable Laurie M. Earl, Presiding Judge of the Sacra-
mento Superior Court; a mock trial directed by City Attorney staff and acted out by city employees; and over a dozen
vendors from the courts and legal community.


Summer at City Hall

For the second year, the office mentored four high-school students as summer interns through the Summer at City
Hall Program. The students were given tasks that helped them learn skills needed to work in an office environ-
ment, such as answering the phones, greeting customers and dealing with the public, selecting proper work attire,
entering data into the case-management system, and updating the law library’s publications.




                                                           17
Office of the City Attorney
915 I Street, Fourth Floor
Sacramento, CA 94814

(916) 808-5346 Ph
(916) 808-7455 Fax




                     18

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:12/24/2012
language:Unknown
pages:18