Laserfiche WebLink
Legal Services Analysis and Report City of San Leandro <br />February 2013 Municipal Resource Group <br /> <br /> <br /> 29 <br />V. OPTIONS FOR LEGAL SERVICES <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> There are several legal services options available to the City of San Leandro, <br />discussed in this Chapter. <br /> <br />Option 1: Continue to Contract with Meyers Nave for City Attorney Services: <br /> Continuing to contract for City Attorney services with Meyers Nave has the <br />following attributes: <br /> <br /> The estimated annual cost of contracting for services is likely to be less than an in‐house <br />City Attorney Office. <br /> The City would not incur additional one‐time start‐up costs that would be required to <br />establish an in‐house City Attorney Office. <br /> The City would not incur the additional in‐house personnel management costs and long‐ <br />term legacy OPEB costs that would be incurred with an in‐house City Attorney Office. <br /> There would be no potential detrimental impacts of a transition, including the direct <br />and indirect cost of transition, loss of institutional knowledge or loss of experienced <br />staff resources. <br /> The City has experienced recent executive transitions (new City Manager, Police Chief, <br />Human Resource Manager, Finance Director, Library Director and Interim Community <br />Development Director, as well as the recent resignation of the Public Works Director); <br />additional changes to the City Attorney staffing would further impact key departmental <br />staffing resources. <br /> <br /> If the City determines that it is in its best interest to continue to contract with <br />Meyers Nave for legal services, the City should promptly negotiate and enter into a new <br />Legal Services Agreement that considers the following recommendations: <br /> Eliminate the use of the current retainer and the distinction between “Basic Level of <br />Service” and “Additional Legal Services” and replace it with a fee‐for‐service <br />arrangement. The existing practice has resulted in complaints that too much City