7.3. SR 12-18-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Elk River REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Agenda Section Meeting Date Administration December 18, 2006 Item Description Recommendation from Prosecutin Item Number 7.3. Prepared by Lori ohnson, Ci Administrator Reviewed by Introduction In May of this year, the Council directed a Prosecuting Attorney Committee made up of Counci1m.ember Paul Motin, Councilmember Larry Farber, Police Chief Jeff Beahen, City Prosecutor Chris Johnson, and me to evaluate the method in which the city provides for its prosecution services. The Committee has thoroughly researched and reviewed all the information and is prepared to make a recommendation to the City Council for discussion and consideration. Discussion --~~~,~~ The idea of having an in-house prosecuting department first was discussed by the Council in July, 2001 during budget discussions. At that time Sherburne County provided prosecuting services and received a portion of the City's fine revenue as payment. The city received approximately $112,000 in fine revenue after Sherburne County took its share. However, many of the cases did not get processed in a timely manner creating a substantial backlog of Elk River cases. Based on a recommendation from the police chief, the Council determined that the best way to eliminate the backlog was to hire an attorney to handle prosecuting city cases. The Council discussed the fact that no other cities our size have a prosecuting attorney on staff. There are six large cities, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Bloomington, Duluth, Coon Rapids, and Minnetonka that have on-staff attorneys. These cities also have civil attorney services in-house allowing for shared clerical staff and providing coverage in the absence of the prosecuting attorney. The Council also discussed the possibility of contracting the service but decided in-house was the best option. On July 2, 2001, the City Council approved proceeding with hiring prosecuting attorney Chris Johnson and legal secretary Jennifer Johnson to begin prosecuting services in-house effective January, 2002. The financial information presented from the Police Department indicated fine revenue would increase substantially, and the cost to have an in-house prosecuting attorney department would result in a net operating loss of $35,000 in the first year. The information suggested that fine revenues would increase to cover all costs of the prosecuting department. As you can see from the summary of fine revenue and prosecuting costs listed below, the budget impact the changed prosecuting from a revenue generating function to one that costs more than the fine revenues received. S:\Council\Lori\2006\Attomey Recommendation Revised.doc