From: Campbell
To: Clerks Office
Subject: Public Comment Submission for Tonight’s Council Meeting – Item Regarding City Attorney Rate Adjustment Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 4:03:26 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate.
I have just reviewed tonight’s City Council agenda and the proposed resolution regarding the adjustment of rates for Atchison, Barisone & Condotti (ABC) and the reimbursement to the Law Offices of William R. Seligmann. I have serious concerns regarding this specific item and respectfully request that this correspondence be shared with the City Council prior to the meeting and entered into the public record.
My concerns are not about performance. They are about fiduciary responsibility, contractual compliance, and the stewardship of public funds.
1. The Agreement Assigns Overhead Responsibility to the City Attorney Section 9 of the Sixth Amended Agreement expressly provides that the City Attorney is responsible for overhead unless expressly provided otherwise.
ABC operates under an “Of Counsel” relationship within the City Attorney’s structure. If ABC increased its rates, that appears to be a subcontractor cost within the City Attorney’s business model.
The City does not appear to be under contract with ABC. The City’s contract is with the Law Offices of William R. Seligmann.
Before approving reimbursement, Council should determine:
Whether a subcontractor rate increase constitutes “overhead” under the Agreement; Where the Agreement expressly authorizes the City to reimburse such increases; Whether shifting that cost to the City is consistent with the contractual allocation of risk.
Absent explicit contractual authority, the City should not assume responsibility for what the Agreement assigns to the contractor.
2. No Supporting Documentation for the $11,946 Reimbursement The proposed resolution seeks reimbursement of $11,946 for a claimed “cash deficit.” However, the Council packet does not include:
ABC invoices reflecting the increased rates,
Documentation identifying when the rate increase occurred, Proof of payment by the Law Offices of William R. Seligmann, A reconciliation worksheet showing how the $11,946 figure was calculated, A breakdown of hours affected.
The Agreement requires recordkeeping and provides audit rights.
Before authorizing reimbursement of public funds, Council should require documentation sufficient to independently verify the claim and provide that as part of the public document.
3. The Fiscal Impact Estimate Lacks Methodology
The staff report projects an annual fiscal impact of approximately $23,886.
The packet does not explain:
The number of hours assumed in the estimate,
How many hours were utilized in previous years
Whether the projection is based on historical utilization, Whether it assumes increased or reduced usage,
The formula used to derive the estimate.
Without the underlying worksheet and assumptions, Council cannot evaluate whether the projection is realistic or understated.
As fiduciaries, Councilmembers should insist on reviewing the calculation model supporting the estimate before approving rate adjustments.
4. Timing of the Request
The proposal indicates that ABC previously raised its rates and that the City Attorney’s firm absorbed the increase.
Important questions follow:
When did ABC raise its rates?
Why was this issue not brought forward at that time?
Why is this reimbursement request being presented now rather than through the normal budget process?
If a subcontractor rate increase materially affected costs, it should have been disclosed contemporaneously and addressed during the regular budget cycle. Retroactive reimbursement outside that process reduces transparency.
5. Allocation of Work and Oversight
The City contracts with the Law Offices of William R. Seligmann. ABC provides services through an affiliated relationship.
There does not appear to be a written policy governing:
When work is handled personally by the City Attorney,
When work is delegated to ABC,
What safeguards exist to control exposure to higher-rate billing.
When a contractor controls work allocation and billing structure, strong oversight mechanisms are essential to protect public funds.
Request
Before approving this item, I respectfully request that Council require:
1. A written legal analysis confirming whether subcontractor rate increases are considered overhead under Section 9.
2. ABC invoices reflecting the rate increase.
3. Proof of payment by the Law Offices of William R. Seligmann.
4. A detailed reconciliation supporting the $11,946 reimbursement figure
5. The worksheet and assumptions used to calculate the projected annual fiscal impact.
6. A timeline identifying when the rate increase occurred and why the request is being presented now.
Transparency, documentation, and adherence to contractual terms are essential components of responsible fiscal governance. I respectfully ask that these issues be addressed before action is taken.
Thank you for ensuring this correspondence is provided to the Council and entered into the record.