AI- 5383
1.
Special / Executive Session Board of Supervisors Mtg-2:00pm
- Meeting Date:
- 08/06/2020
- Title:
- Proposed Amendments to the City of Sierra Vista Court Consolidation Agreement
- Submitted By:
- Britt Hanson, County Attorney
- Department:
- County Attorney
Presentation:
No A/V Presentation
Recommendation:
Document Signatures:
# of ORIGINALS
Submitted for Signature:
Submitted for Signature:
NAME
of PRESENTER:
of PRESENTER:
Ed Gilligan
TITLE
of PRESENTER:
of PRESENTER:
County Administrator
Mandated Function?:
Source of Mandate
or Basis for Support?:
or Basis for Support?:
Information
Agenda Item Text:
Discussion and Possible Direction regarding the Proposed Amendments to the City of Sierra Vista Court Consolidation Agreement.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.03((A)(3) and (4), the Board may go into executive session for legal advice with its attorney or to discuss or consult its attorneys of the public body in order to consider its position and instruct its attorneys regarding the public body's position regarding contracts that are the subject of negotiations,
Pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.03((A)(3) and (4), the Board may go into executive session for legal advice with its attorney or to discuss or consult its attorneys of the public body in order to consider its position and instruct its attorneys regarding the public body's position regarding contracts that are the subject of negotiations,
Background:
The County, courts and five cities have been negotiating new court consolidation agreements that would allow for continued consolidated court operations in each of the cities. After negotiating a draft Agreement with the City of Sierra Vista, the draft went to the Council for possible approval. Before approving it, the Council made two substantive modifications.
The first was to add a reporting requirement in III.D, which states that the County will "Provide a quarterly report with caseload and revenue information."
The second, in IV.D, added the following underlined language: "Subject to the County's obligations herein, and specifically those outlined in Section III, subsection D, the CITY agrees to pay the COUNTY $100,000 for municipal court services for FY2020-21, and $61,000 to pay for a part-time pro tem, with no obligation on the part of the COUNTY to contribute any amounts towards paying for a pro tem. Said payment shall be payable quarterly, in advance, or payment may be made in one lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year."
The Board will be discussing the implications of these proposed modifications and whether to agree to them.
Because this contract is the subject of negotiations, the Board may elect to go into executive session to discuss the matter with its attorneys.
The first was to add a reporting requirement in III.D, which states that the County will "Provide a quarterly report with caseload and revenue information."
The second, in IV.D, added the following underlined language: "Subject to the County's obligations herein, and specifically those outlined in Section III, subsection D, the CITY agrees to pay the COUNTY $100,000 for municipal court services for FY2020-21, and $61,000 to pay for a part-time pro tem, with no obligation on the part of the COUNTY to contribute any amounts towards paying for a pro tem. Said payment shall be payable quarterly, in advance, or payment may be made in one lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year."
The Board will be discussing the implications of these proposed modifications and whether to agree to them.
Because this contract is the subject of negotiations, the Board may elect to go into executive session to discuss the matter with its attorneys.
Department's Next Steps (if approved):
Depending on the direction coming out of the work session, either set the Court Consolidation Agreement for approval at a regular Board meeting or direct the County Administrator and legal counsel to negotiate with the City.
Impact of NOT Approving/Alternatives:
N/A
To BOS Staff: Document Disposition/Follow-Up:
N/A