Laserfiche WebLink
Legal Services Analysis and Report City of San Leandro <br />February 2013 Municipal Resource Group <br /> <br /> <br /> 8 <br /> This Chapter provides a summary description of the services provided by each city, <br />and how those services differ from those provided by San Leandro. The services provided <br />are important as there tends to be a correlation between the breadth of services and the <br />need for legal services. <br /> This Chapter also summarizes the City Attorney services provided in each city. <br />There are differences in the City Attorney Office responsibilities among the nine cities, as <br />compared to San Leandro. While all cities provide general City Attorney services, six City <br />Attorney Offices have direct responsibility for risk management and one City Attorney <br />Office (Alameda) has responsibility for the workers compensation program. Most cities <br />contract with outside counsel for some or all litigation defense work. <br /> Finally, this Chapter summarizes the number of attorneys and support staff in <br />benchmark cities with in‐house City Attorney Offices. Two of the benchmark cities, Union <br />City and Pittsburg, contract for City Attorney services (with Meyers Nave). <br /> The benchmark analysis utilizes FY 2012‐13 City Attorney Office budgets. Two <br />caveats are offered regarding the benchmark cities’ budgets: the responsibilities of City <br />Attorney Offices vary among the benchmark cities, and city budgets vary in the way in <br />which City Attorney Office General Services, litigation, risk management, workers <br />compensation, third party administrators, allowances for claims and judgments, and <br />insurance costs are budgeted. In some of the benchmark cities, all of these costs are <br />included in the City Attorney’s Office budget; in other cities, none of these costs are included <br />in the City Attorney’s Office budget. In an effort to provide the most relevant comparison, <br />the benchmark analysis has attempted to segregate the basic City Attorney Office General <br />Services/Successor Agency costs from all of these other costs. <br /> The benchmark analysis provides the City Attorney Office General Services / <br />Successor Agency cost per capita for those cities in which the budget segregates these costs <br />from other costs. The benchmark analysis does not include the per capita costs for the <br />other related services, such as tort litigation, workers compensation, claims, insurance <br />premiums and other related costs, because the differences among benchmark cities’ <br />budgeting practices makes these per capita comparisons less relevant. <br /> Table II‐1 provides a summary of the key benchmark data. It includes population, <br />City budget, FTE, City Attorney Office staff levels, City Attorney Office budgets and General