Approve Extension of Contract for Civil Legal Services with the Firm of Ratwik, Roszak, & Maloney, P.A.

Purpose:  To extend the contract for Civil Legal Services with the law firm of Ratwik, Roszak, & Maloney, P.A.

Background:  The City has retained the law firm of Ratwik, Roszak, & Maloney, P.A. (RR&M) since July 2013 to provide professional civil legal services.  Attached for Council review is a two-year extension of the contract with RR&M.   Most of the language is the same as before, however, all references to the HRA were removed as well as any costs for faxes and long distance phone calls.  The hourly rate remains the same as in the original contract.  The annual retainer, which was fixed at $48,000 per year for the last two years was increased by 2 percent per year for 2016 and 2017. 

Alternative:
When the City Council last reviewed this contract, it was requested that the City consider whether the attendance at all Council meetings is required, and if an alternative retainer could be considered in the event Council meeting attendance was not required.   Based upon discussion with the City Attorney, he has proposed the following alternative:
 
A reduction of the retainer from $4,083/month to $3,000/month ($36,000/year) retainer that includes one staff meeting (currently it is two) and no Council meetings.  Currently, attendance at two staff meetings and all Council meetings are in the retainer.  The type of work done under the retainer otherwise would remain the same.
 
A $500/meeting flat fee for regular Council meetings would be charged for those meetings that the attorney is requested to attend, which would include same night work sessions at no additional cost.  Special meetings would also be charged the flat rate.
 
The City would realize a savings of $1,083/month for every month it was decided not to have the Attorney attend any meetings, compared to the proposed 2016 rate, or a potential savings of $13,000 per year in 2016.  It is likely that the Attorney will be asked to attend 50% or more of Council meetings, cutting the savings at least in half, but this all depends on the type of issues being addressed.  If the Council ran into a situation where it had a number of special meetings, requiring the City Attorney’s attendance, any savings could evaporate, and it is possible that the cost could exceed the previous retainer.  However, this scenario is unlikely and the Council has a high degree of control over when, and how many, meetings to convene.
 
Issues include: 

• Administration.  Generally, under this alternative, I would propose that the Attorney not attend meetings unless specifically requested by the City Administrator or Mayor.  The City should also consider the ability of Council Members to request the Attorney’s attendance.
• Minimum Attendance.  The Council should consider whether the Attorney should be required to attend a minimum number of meetings (e.g., at least (1-4) annually).
• Work flow/continuity Issues:   The Attorney recognizes that non-attendance may create some issues if he is not present to hear the discussions, the tone of the conversations, staff’s reactions and responses, etc.  The Attorney will be more reliant upon information received from staff to interpret the direction of Council. Recordings of the meetings will assist this effort as needed.  The majority of controversial issues are predictable and the Attorney can be asked to attend in advance.  However, some unanticipated legal issues will undoubtedly occur and may result in delayed responses if the Attorney’s input is needed.
• Legal Liability:  The Attorney is often helpful in crafting motions or providing legal advice to Council at meetings that may prevent the Council from having legal issues down the road.  Again, most of these issues can be anticipated in advance of the meeting and the Attorney invited to attend.  Other city professional staff in attendance also will offer responses based upon their training and expertise in their relative field (e.g., City Administrator, City Clerk, Finance Director, HR Manager, City Engineer, City CD Director/Planner, Police Chief, and Fire Chief).
• Relationship.  What kind of relationship does the City Council want with its Attorney? If the Council has limited contact with the Attorney, the relationship becomes different, and more of a distant, outside consultant type. 
• Flexibility.  The City Attorney is open to either the original proposal, or the alternative.  The Attorney has also indicated the willingness to review the agreement as necessary to have a workable solution for the contract.  In other words, the City could try the alternative, as a “pilot” effort to see if it meets the City’s needs, needs adjustment, or revert back to the previous contract.  The City is currently working on a 30-day contract, so the Council may adopt the original contract proposal, adopt the proposed alternative, or postpone the contract to the next meeting to allow additional time to review.

Note, the City's Purchasing Policy provides that an RFP will be solicited every three years for standard city services related to such professional services, unless specifically extended by City Council.  Approval of this contract extension will specifically extend the contract up to four years, however, the contract may be terminated by either party with a 30-day notice. 
 

Staff is recommending Council approve the extension of the contract for civil legal services with the law firm of Ratwik, Roszak, & Maloney, P.A. .  The term of the agreement will be from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017.

Motion to approve extending the contract for civil legal services with the law firm of Ratwik, Roszak, & Maloney, P.A. for the term January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017.