City Council - Special Meeting

We'll go ahead and call this special meeting of the Campbell City Council to order this morning for Tuesday, March 31st, 2026. And uh we'll start with roll call, please. Council member Lopez, here. Council member Hines, present. Council member Skazola, Vice Mayor By present, Mayor Fado here. Um, we now move to public comment. This will be the time for anyone um who would like to speak to the council on any item of business on today's agenda. We don't have anyone in the room. Anyone on Nope.

No one online. So, there's no public comment. Um we now move to item number three which is new business. There is one item under this topic and that is the city attorney structure. And so first I'll call on council member Hines for a statement.

I just want to disclose as I had done before on the prior topic on this uh one of the examples that's given uh the lawyer is Berlin or Cohen. Berlin or Cohen is a an occasional client, a client of Novatech services and is disclosed on I710. Um, and also one of the lawyers at Berlin or Cohen is the Novatech lawyer. Uh, and there are 200 lawyers, but one that's all. Thank you.

Thank you. So, now we'll go to item 3.1 and I'll call on the city manager. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Uh we're here today uh to consider the future structure of our city man uh city attorney's uh department is the staff report that you have uh in a memo that we uh staff sent you back in December uh elicits uh some of the details of the discussion. But in essence uh the discussion today is really relating to the structure of of that uh arrangement. Currently we have an arrangement uh that is uh both a contract uh and a city and employee arrangement. We refer to it as a hybrid mo model and the city's operated under that model to have legal services uh from the city attorney for many years in that fashion in which the hybrid model uh by contract allows for a certain amount of hours to be spent at a fixed cost under a retainer. And then those services that are required by uh the city attorney uh or his support staff up and above those retaining hours are build on an hourly rate. In addition um the contract requires uh that the city uh treats the position as an employee for purposes of benefits um and um other uh uh employee uh related um cost. So that model is no longer really uh something that the League of California cities is recommending. The staff report speaks to uh the guide that the League of California City puts out on retaining legal services. And the real suggestion is is probably obvious to all of us. Uh

it's either a contract arrangement or an in-house counsel. And both of those models, as the staff report elicits, has several different um uh considerations. And I don't know why this is not um and different costs associated with it. And so, uh, when we talk about those two arrangements, contract and in-house services, staff report sort of goes through a couple of main subject areas. One of which is the relationship and the partnership that you get with your city attorney. And they're different in those two models. And the staff report also goes into details on cost. And there's a lot of different numbers because with any arrangement um that attorneys have different areas of expertise. And so whether it's a contract or an in-house counsel, I think we're going to find ourselves in a position where we're going to need supplemental services in areas that the attorney isn't expert in. Uh currently we get those ext uh additional services uh in specialized litigation uh such as measure K in the litigation the attorney's office is managing on measure K and we also see that uh in uh workers compensation employment risk liability um issues that really come from uh human resources and managing our employees and that's those those costs are managed through my department uh in the city manager's So together um those are the costs that we've summarized here from a budgetary sense on this slide um under the hybrid model. Um I think um as we compare to other cities in these budget costs we have to take this with a grain of salt because anytime we have complex

litigation that we can't anticipate um there's a wild card to this and this can change dramatically based on that. And in fact, what we've seen at midyear budget that the council just approved is we did amend those budgets both in the city attorney's area and in the city manager department um dealing with litigation. Um so these numbers are meant just broadly to understand what what those costs line up but they as I said could change dramatically based on litigation either for us or for states. Um trying to highlight here and I'm not going to all of this. There's a lot on this chart, but we wanted to have one chart that summarized for you the major points of discussion um both under a contract and in-house counsel. So um as you go down um through these different rows they're um speaking to different service areas of different issues and then from left to right comparing uh in the middle column contract services and in the rightmost column what uh we would uh describe as in-house council that would be a full-time employee. Uh and you can see uh the different um u comments on each of those areas in there. And then at the bottom, the very last row, uh, is a summary of what I was just mentioning, the cost both for the city attorney, for the detainer, for additional build services, uh, and for managed litigation uh, outside of those costs. And then below that, the 174,000 is the legal costs budgeted for through my department for workers compensation, employment risk, uh, liability and those other HR related litigation costs.

So total those are um what comprises of those. I um would uh encourage us uh to be thinking about the relationship um as much as the cost. And the reason I say that is because as we go through all of these numbers, it's really easy to mesh numbers. It's it's easy to look at actual costs versus budget costs and it it and it starts becoming um a fruitless exercise because those litigation and those outside costs as I said before can change. We can't control that. But what we can control is the level of service that we ask and the level of engagement that we want with our city attorney. I think uh from my perspective, it's safe to say that we've enjoyed a really positive relationship with the existing city attorney and as a member of our executive team and a contributing member um as with all of our department heads. And I think from my opinion that outweighs the cost because I think when we look at the cost whether we contract or we do it inhouse I doubt that we're going to find that we're going to be able to save money over the existing relationship that we have. It's very likely no matter what cost model we choose it could potentially be more expensive. But rather than trying to focus on those dollars, much of which we can't control uh because of litigation, is focusing on that relationship, the skills, the job set, the level of engagement uh that we would expect from the future city attorney both from a council uh to a direct report level uh because the city attorney does report directly to the council, but also with the exec team

that we get relationship with the city attorney whether it's contract in house that has that level of engagement that all of the department heads need. And when I speak about that, um I I envision the council saying what what is it that staff really needs, what staff want out of this. Um, and I I think with any other position, we're a team and the city attorney is a crucial function in that team. And that all the work that we do, whether it's in public safety or finance, um, or in the city manager's office or in community development, we're only as successful as we can effectively communicate among our departments and work outside of our silos and partner with the city attorney to get concise, quick responses on issues that are really pertinent. Um some of the areas that are increasingly time consuming uh include um all of the uh recent changes in state law with regard to housing and land use and uh we've seen those issues even come up recently um with the council and questions of the community uh on some streets in our community with regard to the city's interpretation of of some of those state laws including uh Senate Bill 1123. Um, and those demands that come to the city attorney's office that require resources to do adequate research and give council's recommendations, I think those become crucial. Um, not that everything has to be an emergency, but when things come up to have enough resources in this city attorney's office to be able to help in those areas. Um, and likewise in the areas of public records that I think our clerk's office and our police department attest that we've gotten a tremendously uh a tremendous increase in the amount and the complexity uh and the uh time

that it takes uh to fulfill public records requests. And the city attorney's office isn't there to do administrative work related to the public records request. There is a burden on the city attorney's office to help advise legal issues with regard to what documents are public um where appropriate redaction should be occurred. Um helping flag city attorney client privileged information um and um just advising staff and partnering in those areas as well. That's another area that's increasingly taking time. Uh and then with that certainly um uh I'm here and um our our chief, our finance director, our city clerk, and our assistant city manager here to to answer questions if you have them as it impacts us. And of course, our city attorney is here as well as a resource to help provide feedback and council wants on that as well. What we're hoping to get from the council today is beginning of this discussion. Um this really started some time ago when the attorney let the council know that he was planning on retirement. The council asked for uh the city manager department to assist in helping pull together this so that we didn't find ourselves at the end of this year. um still grappling with the decision and uh it's going to take time. No matter whether we do a contract and we go through an RFQ or an RFP for those services or whether we hire in-house, we're going to have to go through recruitment for one or many staff members uh to fulfill that role. So I was hoping today to begin that conversation publicly. Um, and I've spoken with each council member and I've spoken with staff and got input, but this is the first chance together in a public setting where we can have these conversations. Uh, and if there's questions, um, I would be glad if we can't answer them today to come back and

um, help fill in those blanks for the council on the information you need that's necessary to make that decision. And then ultimately, if not today, at a future discussion, um, uh, get some direction from the council on which of those two paths you would prefer to proceed down. Um, as we prepare our budgets, um, that will have an impact on those budget numbers probably in not the total number, but in how those numbers are allocated throughout the budget document. So, we will be flexible in preparing that based on council direction as we need. Um, but that was the purpose for today and the information I wanted to share with the council and I'll stop there and take questions uh from council and or feedback.

Thank you Brian for your presentation. So first I'll ask um any of my colleagues if you have questions to ask. Yeah, I uh I did have a question on the how would the difference between what we're currently used um set up with which is a hybrid model and a uh hired um employee model. What would show up as the difference between those two?

I I I mean we'd be moving numbers in the budget and I don't think that's the important thing. Um, instead of contract services, you'd show that in in personnel as full-time equipment, you'd show it in import costs. Um, I I think it's more in how do we articulate that structure from a working relationship with staff. Okay.

And how you would articulate the qualities you would want in that future position. Both of those would we want to have a future discussion with the council to articulate. One would go into a job specs and a job advertisement. The other would go into an RFQ on how we would be weighing qualities of the future on track. What was important to us both from technical skills and probably people skills. And I guess also then the right now the hybrid is 100 hours under an employee and then anything over that is a contracted rate. Correct.

And so u from a an a point where there would be an employee there'd be an expectation of the number of hours and then there may be overtime hours associated with it. There may be that and there may be additional contract hours because as I was saying with any attorney, you're going to find that they're probably not an expert in everything. Oh, yeah. I I understand that. I'm just talking about the individual. Yeah. There wouldn't be overtime hours for uh for that. There would be an exempt employee for the city attorney themselves. Okay. Their support staff there may be some overtime for, but we would be able to probably manage that.

Okay. That was the exempt that that really answers my question. Thank you. Other questions, Sergey?

Um I just wanted to first follow up um on Terry's first question. Um and please correct me if I'm wrong. This is my understanding. The the difference between the two models, hybrid and employee or our current model and an employee model may not be as large as some I think because we currently pay benefits, right? So it's not in terms of the the actual numbers and you're right be moving it around on the budget but the actual cost all else being equal you know we can't control how much litigation comes through but would probably be pretty similar right I I yeah go ahead if you want I I think that's correct I mean you see that comparison chart it's hard when you start trying to compare apples with apples it's not really quite maybe the same type of apple but Maybe it's a a Golden Delicious and and not a a red apple, but it but you get my point. Um it broadly thereabouts. So

yeah, great. That's what I was trying to get get at because the memo and having comparison points is very helpful, but it it is kind of tricky to translate between different models. Um so that that's helpful. Um yeah, I I guess that's my only question. Thank you. Have a question?

Yes. Excuse me. So, um I'm not sure that you could really answer this um adequately, but what would an applicant pool look like if we went through the um in-house council? So, in other words, are there city are there attorneys who um whose career path is basically to become a city attorney, an inhouse city attorney as opposed to working for a contract firm and would our applicant pool be somewhat limited if depending on the on the person's career path?

Yeah, generally it would be a different career path. Normally people who work inhouse uh that come from an in-house background usually in a position in a larger city uh uh as a as a deputy city attorney somewhere uh that you don't see a whole lot of moving back and forth between uh contract attorneys and uh and in-house type attorneys. uh and if and most of the migration really runs uh from in-house to contract rather than the other way around.

Okay. Thank you. And is there any data among the HR folks that where other cities have recruited for an in-house attorney and what that applicant pool is? I mean, do they get a lot of applications? Do they get a handful? Is there a way to gauge that or?

So, um, just going by what the cities in our area do. The most recent, um, attorney search that I'm familiar with would be the city of San Jose. And my understanding was there were a couple hundred applicants for that position. So, it depends on what the city attorney's or the candidates's goals are and how big of a city they want to work for and what their previous experience. So, there are folks out there interested in city attorney inhouse positions. I I would just add to that that uh uh that all it also depends on whether you're recruiting for the top city attorney position as opposed to an assistant and or a deputy type level. Uh in San Jose's case, they have a lot of openings for deputies and assistants uh recruiting for somebody who's specifically looking to be the city attorney. I would imagine the applicant pool is somewhat smaller. Thank you.

I had a question also. Um, so if we were to to lean in the direction of hiring an in-house attorney, then your recommendation would be to um uh employ the services of a professional recruiter. And there are professional recruiters whose specialty is like recruiting for attorneys so on. we'd we'd specify some criteria that we'd like to have considered and so on. If we went with a a hybrid model, then of course you're recommending that we would put out a request for proposal. Um and there again we would sort of have to manage that. This is a question that I say we would have to manage that ourselves in terms of the criteria and so on. Okay. Thank you.

The other Yeah. So, just just a couple points of clarification. When you refer to hybrid, we're really talking not hybrid, just straight contract, right?

Um uh and then um also we would probably do uh and this isn't trying to split hairs, but we probably do a request for qualifications um versus a request for proposals. to do either, but generally speaking, when the qualifications of overwriting consideration over cost, you would want to do an RFQ so you could articulate what those qualities are. Cost could still be a factor, but I I think because of the personal relationship, we probably need to do an RFQ, but we would manage that ourselves. The other question I had was under under both models um for an in-house attorney, would that person sort of have the choice of bringing in whoever they kind of wanted for assistant attorney or or associate attorney and and staff versus um a contract attorney who I'm guessing would probably then bring their own definitely bring their own staff if you will with them. Am I uh um

so the latter part you are correct on on the first part the we the plan would be if we were going to hire in-house that we would recruit um and go through a process to hire the attorney first and then fulfill the staff that would work underneath that person. Um which we talk about different model could be additional staff hired under that but we would follow our normal recruitment process for that staff. wouldn't be up to the city attorney to bring in who they wanted. Uh they would very much be like a department head and give be able to provide influence on the hiring of those employees and make the final decision. But we would follow the normal recruitment process through HR and have an external panel rating those candidates and then the attorney would then decide from the finalist which one they

Okay. And then um for the professional recruiter, that person would um only be responsible for um helping us find the uh the principal attorney and the decisions on any other associates and so on would come later and not necessarily of course the responsibility of the professional recruiter.

Correct. It's uh that is correct. But you could, if you chose to have extra resources and bring um uh more candidates into the pool, you could choose to have the recruiter participate help with those other recruitments. Normally speaking, the uh below the department head level, we would do that internally, but we would use a recruiter for the department head, city attorney position. Any other questions?

Yeah, sorry, a couple of other questions came up with that that discussion, but the uh um what's the ex extent to this department that we you would anticipate we end up with right now all of that is through the contracted um law firm of bills what would you expect uh the department to end up being is it a halftime person or full or

so the the recommend if we went in house the recommended model that we're hearing and talking with my colleagues about it would be a city attorney and then a junior level whether it's a deputy city attorney associate attorney. The staff report refers to as a junior level associate. Um the title of that could be dependent upon the city's needs and the skill set. uh but would be the attorney plus that extra attorney support whether it's a deputy or junior attorney and then some administrative support either through an administrative assistant or through a parillegal or sub department of three

it doesn't have the third one doesn't necessarily have to be full-time equipment um what we've seen in Lascatos was inhouse city attorney uh arrangement they originally had budgeted uh the org chart had a city attorney and then a a junior level attorney and then some parallegal support. But what they're actually budgeting for now is the attorney and sort of some split positions that they're they're splitting with other parts of the organization to support the administrative. Yeah.

Okay. And in those cases where you underfund what you know to be the appropriate structure then you end up sort of with a hybrid model where you end up contracting out that additional support for the attorney's office any so you start end up moving towards that without a commitment to either in-house or contract you sort of left with that. That's sort of the position of Los I didn't quite the you mentioned again the hybrid model. How would we end up in the hybrid model again where if or is it just a hybrid of it

just be not so much hybrid but more supplemental you end up supplementing inhouse services because you're not fully funding what you think is necessary because of budget but you end up supporting that with the but it's not with the department head it's not the hybrid with the department head it's additional step okay and then um on page four um uh you list the fiscal year numbers and you know a big jump in 20 24 and 25 was that essentially measure K.

Measure K and some other litigation as well. There's some other things in there. I mean there's a handful and the city attorney could speak to those but they include um working on gun restraining orders. They work include working on some code enforcement cases and some drug abatement case I think as well. So, if there's anything else, I'll let the city attorney jump in. Yeah. And there was also one uh uh uh gun abatement case that we had to contract out to another law firm because I was conflicted and that it involved the public official.

Okay. Um and uh we also have currently two very extensive public records act requests that my office has to review the documents for but it's taking up a lot of time. So would it anticipate some you know it's not going to go back to 23 24 levels. that's going to it's going to continue somewhere in between probably is the

and then one other question you let's see you talked about the uh uh the approach to the approach from the supplemental city services from now until the end of the year. Um you were you were looking I am assuming what you're talking about doing is having a transition with Libert and Cassidy. No, with um so um actually trying to work with Bill and his office um to extend uh Victoria and some of those other uh uh the junior attorneys that do supplemental services so that if we find ourselves either doing an in-house model or contract model and we're just not quite there in the transition come November, December this year that we can continue to operate as a city and continue to have seamless city attorney with people we're already comfortable

which meaning that we would have some um replacement in place as a department head whether it's contract or or that we're quickly moving down that path and close to being there. I don't know where we'll be at that but I'm trying to hedge our bets a little bit if things go slower than we anticipate um that we have a backup plan to continue to have city attorney services. What we don't want to have happen is Bill retire at the end of December and then not have anything completely in place and be able to hit the ground running.

I might add I'm going to I might add that um there's seems to have been and I asked Bill about this before an increase in the number of requests for gun violence restraining orders, GBRO's. That number seems to have increased. Um it's my impression from what you told me. And and secondly, um most recently, of course, we've had that rather lengthy case of the receiverhip of that one piece of property. So that might be a factor as well. And uh with regard to gun violence restraining orders, they do tend to vary somewhat. Uh uh the currently uh they're kind of leveling off somewhat from where they have been. Uh initially uh like a dozen of them right off the bat. Uh now you see maybe uh a half dozen ongoing at any any given time.

So Brian, you mentioned that the Um the contract um process would require either an RFP or an RFQ is is based and the RFQ would be based on the um would based based on the qualifications. Is that the qualifications of the firm? Is it the qualifications of the attorney that the firm is proposing to to serve the city?

I I would think it would be both. Um and in part I wouldn't discount price cost 100%. It cost is a factor. I don't know that it would be my suggestion. It's not the primary factor, but it is a contributing factor as well. And in an RFQ, you could still ask for price, negotiate price, but but be weighing heavily your decision on those qualities both of the attorney that you're actually getting here and the qualities of the firm and what that brings the city as far as breadth of experience in areas maybe the attorney doesn't have experience, but someone in that firm does have experience in.

But how How is the individual determined that repres that's rep the attorney who's representing the firm? How does that person become our city attorney? Maybe I can I can jump in there. Normally uh the firm proposes somebody that they want to see as representing them as the city attorney. That is the normal process.

And would the term of the contract be unlimited? Would we I mean similar to some of our um consulting contracts like with our auditor it's you know we renew for three or two or three times and then uh do another RFQ. Would that apply here or is that a possibility that that couldn't happen?

Yeah, I mean all of those are possibilities. Uh typically it's it's an open-ended position uh that somebody who is serving generally at the pleasure of the council. Uh sometimes they include some kind of uh uh what's what's the right word? Uh where you get paid if you if you're terminate severance amount something similar to that.

And and how are those services evaluated by the city? Is there some evaluation criteria? You know, after six months we say this isn't really working out. How do we mitigate that? Is it you can include all of those. It depends on what the desire of the council is. The term of the contract could be whatever length you feel is appropriate depending on the response to the RFQ and the qualifications. So if you want a period of time to consider and review and kind of take a step back and look at how the year has gone or you can make it six months, it really is all open for negotiation and how often you come back and evaluate the services can be annual, bianual, whatever you determine. Um so you can put a sort of soft end date on it so you make sure that evaluation happens.

Thank you. Thank you for the Yes. Um I just had one followup. Um and uh Bill is hoping to get your input just what um I think the public records request workload is is is important. Um do you have any input as to staffing just trends you see in that area especially as you're talking with with other cities? Um, do you think we are that the conversations we're having are in line with what the need is that that you see in those areas or any just any other?

It's kind of an open-ended question. Um, I I think yeah, we can't predict. I just want to make sure that I guess you're talking about workload in general. Is that the crux of your question? Well, I'm focusing on the public records request because it's so voluminous, but I just want to make sure that the conversations we're having generally seem in line with what the projected workload would be.

Uh, well, right now with the environment in Sacramento, you're seeing a heavily increasing workload, particularly in the area of land and housing. uh I doubt that will continue forever but I suspect it will continue for a number of years uh forthcoming. uh and I I'll just add one of the advantages of a of going with a contract is that the uh services available are flexible and can flex with as the workloads go up and down whereas inhouse you have more of a fixed amount of of services available before you end up contracting up. And um Brian, for the other cities that we looked at, um did we try to break down how much I I I guess this is capturing some of the um some of the the amounts, but that that baseline level versus um how much they still need to contract out even.

Does that make sense? That's included in those numbers. Yeah. This is what they had budgeted. Um whether or not they're over budget. We we didn't dig that deep. budget numbers. Okay. And I don't know if those numbers actually just include city attorney services or whether they also include all of the outside council service. Yeah, from the budget perspective, we've included the numbers that are listed under the city attorney's budget item.

So we assume that any litigation may be managed, but it probably does not include any litigation managed outside of that. I I think this makes perfect sense as a baseline, but I think those numbers are something I'd want to get a better understanding of just so we know whatever option you go with what we're signing up for. um because we could have the expectation it would be in line with this and that you know there's half a million contract services um that some of our areing I don't expect it'll be that dramatic but I just think we have to do our due diligence but okay that's all

question I keep thinking of things um so right now the structure that we have the oversight of the city attorney is by the council and appointed by by the council with a contract. Uh how would that be handled? Would who would who would oversee that? Would it be staffed or would it still be council and how how how does that dynamic work? So I I would suggest unless the council believes otherwise, we would keep it similar to what we have now that we report directly to the council just as if we do now. And my suggestion do an annual review. the council would perform an annual review just as we do now.

Uh and we keep that relationship the same unless the council has strong feelings and different direction. And I would just add that the only cities I know that uh where the city attorney does not report directly to the council are cities in which the city attorney is elected of which I think there are only two or three left in the state. So in in those cities the the evaluation then would still be done somewhat. We we conduct our annual evaluation of you. Is that how most cities do that? I mean it varies from city to city but something similar to that.

Okay. Seeing no other questions. Uh, for the purposes of the record, I'll take public comment. Um, again, there doesn't appear to be anyone in the council chambers that wishes to speak of this matter. Anyone online? No one's online. Okay. So, I'll close public comment. And, um, uh, Brian, subject to your recommendation or approval, if you'd like any of this wanted to invite any of your staff to make some comments, we could or, uh, we can just move on with our discussion. I um our staff is here and they're willing to participate. I think I've covered the areas uh in particular I think with with public safety. It was in the areas of public records and assistance and spoke to that. Um any anyone I'm looking over there to staff did I miss anything? you know, since uh uh PD is such a, you know, almost half of our perspective, it I'd be interested in uh any perspective that chief that you might have on on what put you on the spot. What what works better for you?

Yeah, happy to uh to answer your questions and give my perspective. Um we've had a great relationship with uh with Bill, our current city attorney. Um I I can say from our perspective on the the workload and the burdensome uh task especially related to PAS um the idea of having somebody inhouse 5 days a week 40 hours a week um available to have those conversations and to provide the support is uh is much more appealing to us. I think when we look at the dynamic of the exec team and the ability to deal with with issues and not let them get prolonged, having that that ability to have somebody in house um would provide an extreme benefit. I think additionally there over the years there have been other uh things that have come up whether it's related to ordinances or updating ordinances that really isn't uh isn't within our purview that has has fallen on on staff to perform. So having somebody available to uh to give that support would be much appreciated.

Okay. Thank you. Uh so now we return the matter here to the council for further discussion or andor you know recommendation. Um we basically have two potential models to follow. One would be for the council to consider the process uh of hiring an in-house attorney. Um secondly, of course, as you know, would be for us to um continue the somewhat current arrangement of contract attorney attorneys um and legal services. So, um I guess um if I understand correctly, first of all, my own comment is um it appears from the documents we've received and the discussions that that that I've had or that you may have had too that um since it's the staff that primarily deals with the attorney more than the council and there's probably over a period of time a greater turnover of council members than there is staff and uh and city managers and things of that nature. Um I would surely like to uh pay attention to staff recommendations and what they feel the needs are of the city since they're here every single day. Um but that's just my personal opinion. But in any event, um any comments or does anyone have uh considerations or potential recommendations for which route we should follow?

Um I I could start. Yes.

Um I do think it's important that the next city attorney be a a full-fledged uh member of the executive team. We've been fortunate that the current hybrid arrangement. Um, we we've had that. Um, I I I would like to get a little bit more information the numbers about actuals versus uh budgeted for some of the peer agencies that we looked at um that did have an in-house model. But um that said, I I think we're unlikely to realize too much of a dramatic cost savings one way um or or the other. So, um, I I lean at this point towards in-house based off what what we've heard. Um, but I' I'd like to continue vetting that to make sure that that we have a realistic expectation of what the costs uh would be as a baseline while understanding that the actual number will fluctuate depending on litigation and other needs. But that's my leaning at this point.

Let me I'll go first and then defer to the vice mayor and mayor. Um the there was a comment that uh you made in uh page seven where the uh the uh the city attorney is a city attorney is a check on city administration. I I think that's very important to maintain. Uh so I think that it's uh uh we want to be able to have that check. We as myself as a council member um want to be able to rely on legal counsel for uh for the check on on the uh the city administration. the um from the standpoint of the uh of the which approach I um I also uh I concur with council member Lopez um primarily from the standpoint that we're probably looking at a 5 to 10 year relationship. Um and we'd like to have a 5 to 10 year relationship with a uh um with any department head in and a city attorney or uh how long is a bill? 30, you know, 30 would be greatest.

40 40 would be even better. Uh there's just a tremendous continuity associated with that. So I I think that um we want to be able to have that. I don't believe that we could really rely on that from a contracted um attorney standpoint. So that's really why I look at a uh in an in-house, excuse me. the uh the workload is is certainly going to be there. So, it's not like we're going to have a um less than 120 hours worth of work for a city attorney uh in there. So, I think we're we're definitely 120 hours a month. So, we're we're definitely looking at uh um a uh workload more of a of a staffing exempt employee. The one the one point that you know I always uh you know a lot of corporations and I've always adhered to is a contract for hire. So um it's I think it's very difficult to measure the perception the way that a particular new member would interact um right at the get-go. Um and uh if there's some way to structure it where it's a uh u a contract for hire uh for six months or whatever or uh that that would u to me be more amunable because if you get somebody in they have then a tremendous amount of work to uh to investigate that that there's a dynamic that doesn't match. It's it's very disruptive to uh um uh swap out, you know, not swap out, but um as an employee to make a change on that. Um it's going to be easier if it's a contracted employee under a contract to hire relationship.

I'm not sure if that ends up being a hybrid again, but uh um so I think having that relationship of being able to know that we can go to that person, every department head feels that they've got that ability. Um I'm not sure that you can get that understanding really in a uh uh uh in an employee search right from the getgo. Thank you. So there to me there are pros and cons um with both models. Um for me I'm leaning towards the in-house uh solution and for a couple three three or four main reasons. Um primarily because of the in-house availability of being on site um five days a week. I also believe that uh the person would be more engaged as an executive team member and really feel part of the team and um would be more vested in the city and the city of interest and that for continuity I think it's important um to have to have that as um council member um T Hines mentioned that you know it's it's nice would be great to have somebody here for a long long period of time Um, five years doesn't seem too long, 10 years doesn't seem too long, but it would be nice to have somebody here for 20 years. Um, with the contract, I I think there's um the main plus there is that there's more um depth within the the firm to be able to um provide backup services or city attorney isn't able to attend the meeting or whatever. Um, and this our city attorney staff couldn't make a meeting, but there would be some someone to fill in. But there's always um as as we've seen,

there's our ability to go outside for legal counsel on special issues such as as measure O. So, we wouldn't retain that flexibility. So, I'm leaning towards the in-house um model.

Thank you. Um, I am also, um, more in favor of hiring an in-house attorney. Um, I think, um, Terry, getting to your, um, very first comment when you were making comments, I think, um, we could probably structure that in such a way that the council would still retain uh, that the attorney uh, would still report directly to the city council as it as it does now. uh that would achieve a certain level of independence and so on. Um I I think it's going to be difficult to sort of estimate costs beyond what the staff has already provided us just because um things are flexible. Um costs go up and down and I'm just not sure that we could get to any further level of refinement on costs or or make good estimates in that regard. Um, I would, uh, certainly think that, uh, if we went to an in-house attorney, um, and then hired a professional recruiter, we could work with that recruiter and sort of spell out some of the things that we're most concerned about. And that would help guide that person in creating the brochure or the information uh recruitment information as well as um guide in the selection process uh to make recommendations to us. Of course, it would still be our decision. Um, but those are my thoughts and I didn't know if u the council based on everything you've heard so far is ready to make any kind of definitive um recommendation or action or you feel that you need to discuss it further?

Just a point of clarification, mayor, was there a leaning that you had whether it's in house or contract? Oh, definitely. I'm I'm in house. I I would like to hire a full-time attorney. Well, I with that, I think it's it's unanimous across the um the the council on um requesting staff to move forward with an in-house. I don't know if we need to we need to make a motion or anything like that.

So, um I can uh do it one or two ways. I'm glad to take a motion to get formal direction from the council. I hear a few more questions that we could probably answer. Uh, and if the council's leaning towards that model, um, we could, um, take the information, the feedback today, flush that out a little bit more, come back to you with a schedule of and an idea of what the recruitment process would look like and what our schedule would be to bring us uh, uh, into a hiring position for that. uh and then bring back a discussion of whether or not based on that timeline you should be considering some transitory contract with with those existing arrangement to carry us through the end of the year. I think we didn't really get to that point and that's nine months from now. So, it seems so uh long uh from now, but um I I I wanted to just broach that based on the schedule and we'll project out uh if that seems appropriate to the council and then we'll get some more information on uh council member Lopez's question about additional costs, mitigation costs in those other cities up and above actual budget costs to see what their experiences are. Although you you wouldn't know for sure in answering this question at the present time, but do you um anticipate or would do you believe that um if we moved ahead with this model of hiring a professional recruiter that that person could be recruited, hired and uh the criteria developed and then you know that we would be successful by the end of the roughly by the end of the year or slightly before that. Yes, I I think that's completely reasonable if we continue to go down that path without too much delay. Um uh I would uh be glad to suggest I think part of that process is how the council wants to hire that recruitment and the level of engagement

the council wants to have on that recruitment including whether the council wants to appoint an ad hoc committee to work on such things as interview panel. if the whole council wants to be involved. I think we have to start at some point uh if not the next discussion the very next start talking about those things because that will help define that timeline. But to answer your question as succinctly as possible, yes, I think it's possible. Yes, I think we can get a recruiter on board and do that by the end of this year, but I don't think we can waste too much time.

Okay. Um well then phrase this properly here. Um first of all basically then you think that if we move ahead with your recommendation that you just made no further action would be required of us today. You would just by general consensus you would move ahead and come back to us again with a more definitive author. Um my second point is if we go in the direction that the attorney would still continue to report to the council directly then uh I believe the entire council should be involved in the interview process. Um so uh I don't think we would well I I shouldn't be speaking for everyone but I I'm thinking that since that responsibility would come to the council the entire council should be involved in the interview process for the professional recruiter uh and um and also for the eventual uh selection uh and hiring of of an attorney should we um get to that point. And I think from a process perspective, we'll make those assumptions based on that feedback. Uh, and if the council wants to pick it, you always can do that. But we'll we'll prepare a timeline based on that suggestion.

Yes. I would just add one caveat to that. I also think it's important to include our exec team or some members of the exec team in that process um as well to get their feedback. After all, that staff is going to be working with this person day in day out. And I think there needs to be some type of rapport and relationship that they are able to weigh in on and provide some feedback for the council in whatever decision is made as to who was um appointed.

That's a good point. And I I think that u if if the process works with a professional recruiter, that person would suggest a number of candidates that we that they recommend we interview and we would make a selection of which ones we wanted to interview and we might do that. Uh but at the same time we would have a second panel independent of us uh where it' be just the staff from their perspective and asking and and questions and then perhaps making a recommendation to us uh if they agree the top two or three people and uh then we do final interviews or something along that lines. You could also have the recruiter meet with each department head.

Sure. to learn what's important to them and what their priorities are and those will take consideration as well in that review process. So yes um I I really agree with all the comments that have been made. I also just wanted to express um my support for what Council He said, which is that um having some kind of flexibility during the transition period I think would be really important. And so, however you want to structure that and recommend um I'll I'll look for staff recommendation bring that back. But I think that's important as we make this major transition for for the city.

Okay. Well, so just one just one more one more comment that uh I really want to make sure that staff has a solid direction. I've heard a solid direction from council and uh uh I just want to make sure that you know nine months is going to go like that. So um let's figure out a way to really make sure that you can uh you can move forward as quickly as possible. Um, in the interview process, frankly, from my standpoint, I don't need you to see the hundred and 100 resumes. You know, I'll, uh, you know, I'll take the department head and staff recommendation down to the recommended two or three.

Okay. So, um, subject to any further comment or or disagreement, I'm assuming that we will just go ahead and request that the city manager come back to us, um, with a more definitive recommendation answering some of the questions that were raised and, uh, at that point in time, presumably, we'd make a a decision, uh, as to exactly how we proceed. Does that agree? Okay.

Uh, I don't think so. So if there's no further comment, I will first of all thank everyone for their participation and recommendations and the staff reports and so on that we've had up until this time and the recommendations from your staff from our ex staff as well. And um thank you and I will turn the meeting. Thank you.