Laserfiche WebLink
<br />$151,908 <br />$148,887 <br />$160,912 <br />$176,455 <br />$159,027 <br />$204,850 <br /> <br />Revenue <br />(Cost) <br />for Prosecuting <br />$111,584 <br /> <br />$109,826 <br /> <br />$83,416 <br /> <br />($21,884) <br /> <br />$24,581 <br /> <br />($10,291) <br /> <br />($16,134) <br /> <br />($37,558) <br /> <br />($49,850) <br /> <br /> Court Fine <br />Year Revenue <br />1999 $111,584 <br />2000 $109,826 <br />2001 $83,416 <br />2002 $130,025 <br />2003 $173,467 <br />2004 $150,621 <br />2005 $160,321 <br />Ytd 2006 $121,469 <br />Budgeted 2007 $155,000 <br /> <br />Prosecuting <br />Costs <br /> <br />This financial issue is one of the main reasons this item came up for discussion again in 2006. We. <br />have heard from Mr. Johnson that his department cannot continue to operate as it currendy is. There <br />are coverage and workload issues that need to be addressed. In order to function well, he agrees that <br />change needs to take place. The need to eventually add staff so that there was someone to cover <br />prosecuting when prosecutor Chris Johnson is gone and someone to cover office functions when the <br />legal secretary is gone causes the budget to increase even more; adding an attorney will cause an <br />immediate and drastic increase the budget. These issues lead to several questions the Committee <br />researched. Is having a prosecuting department the best option for the city? If status quo is not <br />acceptable, how do we best address the city's needs? Is it more expensive to provide the services <br />through in-house staff than to have a contracted prosecutor? Do the benefits of having in-house staff <br />outweigh the additional costs? Could we get the same or similar quality of services at a reduced cost <br />by contracting? <br /> <br />J <br /> <br />Initially the Committee reviewed the options available to deal with coverage issues. The Committee <br />did not feel that adding another attorney was the best option so the Committee recommended to the <br />Council that RFP's be requested to determine if the service from a contracted prosecutor would be <br />cost effective and deliver similar results. Two RFP's were received and the Council directed the <br />Committee to interview the two firms and report back to the Council. The Committee has <br />interviewed both firms, and feels that the city's needs can be met using a contracted prosecutor. With <br />that the knowledge that quality prosecuting services are available to the city on a contractual basis, the <br />discussion returned to the Committee's main questions; which option is the best financially and which <br />best meets the city's needs? <br /> <br />First, although it is difficult to estimate precisely what the costs will be for contractual prosecution <br />services, the Committee felt it may be considerably less than the cost of providing the service in- <br />house; at a minimum savings would be at least $50,000 per year and could be substantially more. The <br />2007 legal budget for prosecuting services is $204,850. This includes two full time employees, one <br />attorney, one legal secretary, and a part-time clerical position (which was also included in the 2006 <br />budget but has not yet been filled). The cost for consulting services is estimated to range from <br />$110,000-$130,000; of course this is a very rough estimate and will change based upon how cases are <br /> <br />s: \Council\Lori\2006\Attomey Recommendation Revised.doc <br />