65266.00300\33737229.1
Agenda Item B.11
CPMS CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: September 20, 2022
__________________________________________________________
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
CONTACT: Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
Luke Rioux, Finance Director
Jaime Valdez, Neighborhood Services Director
Michelle Greene, Manager Emeritus
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to Law Enforcement Services Agreement with Santa Barbara County
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Law Enforcement Services Agreement Between the City of Goleta and the County of Santa Barbara
BACKGROUND:
The City of Goleta contracts with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office (“SBSO”) for law enforcement services. Such services are provided pursuant to an agreement. On June 18, 2019, the City Council approved and authorized the City Manager to execute the currently operative agreement for law enforcement services —i.e., the Agreement to Provide Law Enforcement Services by and between the County of Santa Barbara and the City of Goleta from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2023 (the “Agreement,” No. 2019-043, attached hereto as Attachment 1). The City also provides office space, meeting room, break room, locker room, garage and storage container space at City Hall at no cost to the SBSO for use by the Goleta Motors Unit, parking enforcement, and other personnel.
The Agreement includes provisions for making an annual adjustment in how much the City compensates the County for the quantity of law enforcement services being purchased. These provisions also specify, based on an annual recomputation, that the County will provide the City an estimated compensation amount on or before November 1 of each year and a final recomputation on or before January 15 of each fiscal year.
Costs for the first year of the contract, fiscal year (“FY”) 2019 -20, were included in the Agreement and totaled $7,647,503. S ubsequently, in FY 2020 -21, the City was notified that the same amount for the same level of service would be $7,744,062.
1 65266.00300\33737229.1
Meeting Date: September 20, 2022
For FY 2021-22, the City was initially notified in November of 2020, in accordance with the Agre ement’s provision requiring a preliminary cost estimate, that the SBSO was anticipating a 5.5% increase in contract costs for law enforcement services; however, in January of 2021, the SBSO provided its final annual recomputation for FY 2021 -2022 costs, wh ich reflected an approximately 30% increase over FY 2020 -21, totaling $10,018,333. The City responded to the SBSO by invoking the contract dispute provisions of the Agreement. The SBSO’s other three contract cities – Buellton, Carpinteria, and Solvang (collectively with the City of Goleta, the “Contract Cities”) – likewise disputed the FY 2021-22 contract amounts. After several meetings, the SBSO and the Contract Cities informally resolved the dispute and agreed to memorialize the disputed terms and contracts for FY 2021 -22 in Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement (attached hereto as Attachment 2 ). The City of Goleta’s FY 2021 -22 negotiated contract costs totaled $8,607,721, which was approximately a 14.75% increase over the prior FY’s compensation (this amount included the City’s 26,280 base hours plus all other costs, such as true-up, Menu Items, dispatch, DSSU administration and inflation).
For the final year of the Agreement, i.e., FY 2022-23, the City received a cost sheet from the SBSO on January 11, 2022 with the proposed law enforcement services rates. The costs sheet reflected a 13.38% over FY 2021-22’s costs, with a proposed annual cost of $9,759,127, which is an increase of $1,151,406 over the prior year. The proposed two - year increase was approximately 30% or $2,257,953. The rates were similarly raised for the other Contract Cities.
On February 1, Council authorized the City Manager to again initiate the dispute resolution provisions of the Agreement to contest the proposed FY 2022 -23 contract amounts and shortly thereafter, the City Manager sent a letter to the SBSO contesting the contract amounts. The three other Contract Cities similarly disputed their respective FY 2022-23 contract amounts. Pursuant to the terms of the dispute resolution provision, the Contract Cities and SBSO attempted to information resolve the dispute. After those efforts were unsuccessful, the Contract Cities and SBSO engaged a mediator to attempt to resolve the dispute.
DISCUSSION:
On June 29, 2022, the Contract Cities and S BSO proceeded to mediation, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, with the mutually selected mediator, Stacie Hausner with ADR Services, Inc. Following the parties’ impasse at the mediation, the mediator issued a “Mediator’s Settlement Proposal,” which proposed a total settlement amount for the City of Goleta and the other Contract Cities to collectively pay the SBSO for law enforcement services and all of the parties’ obligations remaining under the term of the Agreement. All the Contract Cities and the SBSO accepted the Mediator’s Proposal. The City of Goleta’s allocation of the amount to be paid under the Mediator’s Proposal is $9,499,341 for the contract costs remaining under its Agreement with SBSO.
The proposed Amendment No. 2 resolves the dispute regarding FY 2022-23 costs and all of Goleta’s remaining obligations under the Agreement. It further agrees to dismiss 2 65266.00300\33737229.1
Meeting Date: September 20, 2022
any claims for any pending Public Records Act requests that were made by the parties during the course of the dispute resolution process.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The FY 2022-23 total contract costs are $9,499,341. There are no new fiscal impacts as the SBSO’s full estimated contract cost amount ($9,759,127) was already budgeted for the FY 2022 -23 budget approved by Council in June of this year. This represents a $259,786 budgetary savings.
ALTERNATIVES:
No feasible alternatives exists at this time.
Reviewed By: Legal Review By: Approved By:
___________________ ___________________ _________________ Kristine Schmidt Megan Garibaldi Robert Nisbet
Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Agreement to Provide Law Enforcement Services by and between the County of Santa Barbara and the City of Goleta from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2023
2. Amendment No.1 to the Law Enforcement Services Agreement Between the City of Goleta and the County of Santa Barbara
3. Amendment No.2 to the Law Enforcement Services Agreement Between the City of Goleta and the County of Santa Barbara
3 ATTACHMENT 1:
Agreement to Provide Law Enforcement Services by and between the County of Santa Barbara and the City of Goleta from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2023
4 5
5 6
6 7
7 8
8 9
9 10
10 11
11 12
12 13
13 14
14 15
15 16
16 17
17 18
18 19
19 20
20 21
21 22
22 23
23 24
24 25
25 26
26 27
27 28
28 29
29 30
30 31
31 32
32 33
33 34
34 35
35 36
36 37
37 ATTACHMENT 2:
Amendment No.1 to the Law Enforcement Services Agreement Between the City of Goleta and the County of Santa Barbara
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 ATTACHMENT 3:
Amendment No.2 to the Law Enforcement Services Agreement Between the City of Goleta and the County of Santa Barbara
55 AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO THE CONTRACT LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF GOLETA
AND
THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
This Amendment No. 2 ("Second Amendment") to the Contract Law Enforcement Services Agreement ("Agreement') is effective as of the 1st day of July 2022, ("Effective Date") by and between the City of Goleta ("CITY") and the County of Santa Barbara ("COUNTY"). CITY and COUNTY are sometimes individually referred to as "Party" and collectively as "Parties."
RECITALS
A. The Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which the COUNTY provides law enforcement services to the CITY. The term of the Agreement is from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2023, and only includes costs accrued and invoiced within this period.
B. Effective July 1, 2021, the Parties executed Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement (“First Amendment”), which remains in full force and effect and has no bearing on this Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement (“Second Amendment”). All references to “Agreement” herein include the provisions of the First Amendment.
C. This Second Amendment has no bearing, effect, or impact, and does not reflect any other agreement among the Parties, or on the negotiation of any future agreement between the Parties for law enforcement services.
D. In accordance with the Agreement, the COUNTY provided the CITY with the Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 cost estimates in November 2021 and the final Fiscal Year 2022-2023 contract costs (“FY 22/23 Contract Costs”) in January 2022.
E. CITY submitted a notice of dispute ("Notice of Dispute") on or about February 2, 2022, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, initiating the dispute resolution process under Section 26 of the Agreement to resolve a dispute between the Parties regarding the FY 22/23 Contract Costs.
F. Unable to resolve the dispute through the informal dispute resolution process delineated in Section 26 of the Agreement, on June 29, 2022, the parties proceeded to mediation, pursuant to Section 26 of the Agreement, with mutually selected mediator Stacie Hausner with ADR Services, Inc. Following the Parties’ impasse at the mediation, the mediator issued a “Mediator’s Settlement Proposal,” which proposed a total settlement for the CITY, the City of Carpinteria, the City of Buellton, and the City of Solvang (“Contract Cities”) to collectively pay to COUNTY to discharge all CITY obligations for FY 22/23 Contract Costs through the end of the Agreement. On July 19, 2022, the Parties accepted the Mediator’s Settlement Proposal. Contract Cities allocated financial responsibility for the Mediator’s Settlement Proposal amongst themselves.
G. The Parties have come to an agreement as to the total amount of the FY 22/23 Contract Costs, which total as follows: Goleta: $9,499,341; Carpinteria: $5,056,981; Buellton: $2,677,571; Solvang: $2,316,107. In accordance with this Agreement, and as reflected below, COUNTY 56 will invoice CITY pursuant to “Exhibit E-4 Annual Cost Computation Fiscal Year 2022-23,” attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
H. During the dispute, the CITY and COUNTY exchanged several Public Records Act requests pursuant to Government Code section 6250 et seq., including requests made by and received on behalf of Contract Cities collectively (“PRA Requests”). The deadlines to provide records responsive to the PRA Requests were tolled several times and, as of the drafting of this Second Amendment, are tolled until September 30, 2022.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:
I. Incorporation of Recitals. The Parties agree the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
II. Terms. The Parties agree to the following amendments to the Agreement:
1. Exhibit E-4. "Exhibit E-4 Annual Cost Computation Fiscal Year 2022-23," attached hereto as Exhibit 2, is hereby added to and made a part of the Agreement. This Exhibit E-4 shall replace and supersede any preceding Exhibit E-4 to the Agreement.
2. No Precedent. Nothing herein shall be construed as precedent regarding the calculation of contract costs, or on the negotiation of any agreement between the Parties for future contract law enforcement services.
3. Withdrawal of Records Requests. PRA Requests relating to the dispute, as described in Recital H, pending between the CITY and the COUNTY or the Contract Cities collectively and the COUNTY as of the date of this Second Amendment are hereby withdrawn.
Neither CITY nor COUNTY shall have any further obligation to produce records pursuant to the PRA Requests.
III. General Provisions.
1. Authority to Bind. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Second Amendment have the legal power, right and authority to agree to this Second Amendment and bind each respective Party.
2. Counterparts. This Second Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
3. Entire Agreement. This Second Amendment represents the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the FY 22/23 Contract Costs. This Second Amendment supersedes and cancels any prior oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to FY 22/23 Contract Costs, and it shall not be amended, altered or changed except by a written agreement signed by the Parties hereto.
57 4. Full Force and Effect. Except as amended by this Second Amendment, all other provisions of the Agreement not in conflict with the terms of this Second Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.
5. Severability. If any provision of this Second Amendment shall be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision of this Second Amendment unless elimination of such provision materially alters the rights and obligations set forth herein.
6. Adequate Consideration. The Parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Second Amendment.
7. Mutual Waiver, Release, and Covenant Not to Sue. CITY, on its own behalf, and on behalf of its agents, servants, employees, officers, directors, administrators, representatives, elected officials, attorneys, departments, divisions, and agencies, waives, releases, and covenants not to commence, maintain, join, or authorize any Claim or Legal Action (as defined in the following sentence) against the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office, the COUNTY, and/or the COUNTY’S agents, servants, employees, officers, directors, administrators, representatives, elected officials, attorneys, departments, divisions, and agencies. Claim or Legal Action as used herein refers to any cause of action, dispute, breach or grievance, whether known or unknown, pertaining to either the facts underlying or arising from (i) the FY 22/23 Contract Costs, as identified in the Notice of Dispute, including but not limited to any claim encompassed by the CITY’S February 2, 2022 Notice of Dispute, or (ii) the PRA Request (“Claim or Legal Action”). CITY understands that it may later discover facts different from, or in addition to, those it presently knows, believes, or suspects to be true concerning the subjects or consequences of this Second Amendment, and further understands that, despite any such discoveries, it will remain bound by this Second Amendment.
COUNTY, on its own behalf, and on behalf of its agents, servants, employees, officers, directors, administrators, representatives, elected officials, attorneys, departments, divisions, and agencies, waives, releases, and covenants not to commence, maintain, join, or authorize any Claim or Legal Action (as defined in the preceding paragraph) against the CITY and/or the CITY’S agents, servants, employees, officers, directors, administrators, representatives, elected officials, attorneys, departments, divisions, and agencies. COUNTY understands that it may later discover facts different from, or in addition to, those it presently knows, believes, or suspects to be true concerning the subjects or consequences of this Second Amendment, and further understands that, despite any such discoveries, it will remain bound by this Second Amendment.
With respect to the Claims and Legal Actions that are the subject of the mutual releases set forth in this Second Amendment, the Parties expressly waive all rights under Civil Code section 1542, which provides as follows:
“A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS THAT THE
CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO
EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE
RELEASE AND THAT, IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE
MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE
DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.”
58 The Parties acknowledge that except for matters expressly represented or recited herein, the facts and law in relation to this matter and the claims released by the terms of this Agreement may turn out to be different from the facts or law as now known to any of the Parties or their respective counsel.
The Parties therefore expressly assume the risk of the existence of different or presently unknown facts or law and agree that this Agreement shall be in all respects effective and binding as to each Party despite the possibility of new or different facts or law.
SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
59 IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the Parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment as of the last date written below.
CITY OF GOLETA COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
By: By:
PAULA PEROTTE JOAN HARTMANN
MAYOR OF GOLETA CHAIR, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Date: Date:
ATTEST: ATTEST:
DEBORAH LOPEZ MONA MIYASATO
CITY CLERK COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CLERK OF THE BOARD
By: ________________________________ By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MEGAN GARIBALDI RACHEL VAN MULLEM
CITY ATTORNEY COUNTY COUNSEL
By: By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
GREG MILLIGAN
RISK MANAGER
By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BETSY M. SCHAFFER
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER
By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SHERIFF BILL BROWN
SANTA BARBARA SHERIFF’S OFFICE
By:
60 Exhibit 1
Notice of Dispute
61 CIT Y COUNCI L
Paula Perotte
Mayor
Stuart Kasd in
Mayor Pro Tempore
Roger S. Aceves
Councilmember
James K yriaco
Councilmember
Kyle Richards
Councilmember
CITY M ANAG ER
Michelle G reene
February 2, 2022
Sheriff Bill Brown
P.O. Box 6427
Santa Barbara CA 93160
Re: Notice of Contract Dispute in Response to Proposed FY 2022-23 Recomputed Compensation under the Agreement to Provide Law Enforcement Services between the City of Goleta and County of Santa Barbara
Dear Sheriff Brown:
On behalf of the City of Goleta (“City”), this letter serves as formal notice of a contract dispute (“Notice of Dispute”) pursuant to Section 26 of the Agreement to Provide Law Enforcement Services between the City and County of Santa Barbara ( “Agreement”). The County of Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”) also provides law enforcement services to the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria , and Solvang (together with the City, the “Contract Cities”). It is our understanding that each of the Contract Cities will be providing the Sheriff’s Office with a similar Notice of Dispute.
Two years ago, on November 10, 2020, the Sheriff’s Office notified the City that it was in the process of “ working with fiscal consultants from the Natelson Dale Group, Inc . to develop an improved cost methodology and fiscal reporting to [the City].”
1 In this same letter, the
Sheriff’s Office assured the City that “[a]s always, any changes to the contract will require either an am endment or an updated [Agreement].”2 Although there has been no amendment to the contract to allow use of this “improved cost methodology,” the Sheriff’s Office calculated compensation for FY 2021- 22 and the current year —FY 2022- 23— based on this unauthorized “revised” methodology. The City (as well as
1 See Letter from Sheriff’s Office to City, dated November 10, 2020. 2 See Letter from Sheriff’s Office to City, dated November 10, 2020. 62 the other Contract Cities) similarly disputed the proposed FY 2021-22 costs.3
On January 10, 202 2, the Sherif f’s Office presented the City with its proposed final recomputation of compensation for fiscal year (“FY”) 2022-23 in the amount of $9,759,127.00. This proposed increase is an approximately 1 3.38% increase (or $1,151,406.00) over the previous year’s contract costs and would result in a total increase of close to 3 0% (or nearly $ 2,257,953.00 in contract costs ) over the past two years. The City believes that this proposed increase is being calculated inconsistent with the terms and intent of the Agreement and, absent some additional facts not heretofore provided by the County, is disputing the entire proposed increase of $1,151,406.00.
The City also asserts that the Sheriff’s Office has breached both the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as it s contractual obligation to work transparently and collaboratively with the City in order to avoid unexpected cost increases. The Contract Cities, through their consultant Russ Branson, have been working with the Natelson Dale Group to evaluate the “revised” methodology and resulting proposed cost increases. To date, however, the Sheriff’s Office has failed to provide sufficient justification—and documentation—to support the proposed increase for FY 2022- 23.
Additionally, during our review of data from the Sheriff’s Office, we have found numerous errors and inconsistencies , including but not limited to how deputies and support staff code and allocate time and how costs are computed and allocated.
The City is committed to working with the Sheriff’s Office t o address its concerns regarding calculation of FY 2022- 23 contract costs. Pursuant to the terms of t he Agreement, should a resolution not be reached within thirty (30) days of receipt of this Notice of Dispute, the City will initiate the additional disput e resolution procedures described in Section 26 of the Agreement. The City reserves the right to raise additional concerns as they arise throughout the dispute resolution process.
The City requests the Sheriff’s Office to confirm receipt of this Notice o f Dispute. Should you have questions about the City’s concerns please contact City Manager Michelle Greene at (805) 961-7501 or [email protected]. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Michelle Greene
City Manager
Cc (by email only):
Mona Miyasato, County Executive Officer ([email protected]) Dave Durflinger, Carpinteria City Manager ([email protected]>) Xenia Bradford, Solvang City Manager ([email protected])
3 The City filed a Notice of Dispute, dated February 8, 2021, disputing the final proposed recomputed compensation for FY 2021-22. As a result, the final law enforcement costs for FY 2021-22 were the product of a negotiated settlement.
63 Scott Wolfe, Buellton City Manager ([email protected]) Rana Warren, Senior Deputy County Counsel ([email protected]) Nancy Anderson, Assistant Chief Executive Officer ([email protected]) Das Williams, 1st District Supervisor ([email protected]) Gregg Hart, 2nd District Supervisor ([email protected]) Board Chair Joan Hartmann, 3rd District Supervisor ([email protected]) B ob Nelson, 4th District Supervisor ([email protected]) Steve Lavagnino, 5th District Supervisor ([email protected])
64 Exhibit 2
Exhibit E-4 Annual Cost Computation Fiscal Year 2022-23
65 Goleta
DSU Summary - Contract Cost Hours Purchased 26,280
Patrol Costs Hourly Rate Total Contract Cost
Deputy Costs
Deputy S&B Cost 102.90 2,704,212
Indirect Rate @ 9.5% 9.78 257,018
True-Up Cost - -
Cost Inflation @ 0% - -
Deputy S&B Cost 112.68 2,961,230
Patrol Support
ADMN OFFICE PRO I 0.11 2,891
ADMN OFFICE PRO II 4.28 112,478
ADMN OFFICE PRO SR 1.88 49,406
EXTRA HELP 0.02 526
SHERIFFS COMMANDER 3.29 86,461
SHERIFFS LIEUTENANT 7.06 185,537
SHERIFFS SERGEANT 24.79 651,481
SHERIFF'S SERVICE TECHNICIAN 1.74 45,727
Indirect Rate @ 9.5% 4.10 107,748
True-Up Cost - -
Cost Inflation @ 0% - -
Patrol Support S&B 47.27 1,242,256
Direct Patrol S&S 15.86 416,801
Direct Patrol S&S True-up - -
Total Patrol Cost 175.81 4,620,287
Law Enforcement Support Costs (includes S&B, Indirect, and S&S Costs) Investigations
General Investigations 29.26 768,953
SOD, Narcotics 4.28 112,478
SOD, Intelligence 2.14 56,239
SOD, High Tech Crime Unit 2.13 55,976
37.81 993,647
6.35 166,878
1.16 30,485
3.01 79,103
- -
48.33 1,270,112
224.14 5,890,399
2,126,390
313,019
69,912
8,399,720
3.0% 511,543
847,864
Total Investigations
Forensics
Crime Analysis Unit
Property & Evidence
True-Up Cost
Total Law Enforcement Support
Hourly Contract Rate
Menu Items
Dispatch
DSU Admin
Total Contract FY 20-21 Actuals
Inflation - 2 years @
Applied True-up for FY 2020-2021
Total Contract
Negotiated Reduction Negotiated
Contract Total FY 22-23
9,759,127
Amended Exhibit E-4
Annual Cost Computation Fiscal Year 2022-23
259,786
9,499,341
66 Goleta - Menu Items Detail FY 20-21 (actuals)
Position Reimbursable Cost Basis Hours Full Cost Unreimbursable Cost COMMUNITY RESOURCE DEPUTY 183,718 1,585 183,718 -
NARCOTICS DETECTIVE 168,916 1,613 168,916 -
NON -RELIEF TRAFFIC DEPUTY 351,260 1,549 351,260 -
NON -RELIEF TRAFFIC SGT 238,611 1,675 238,611 -
NON -RELIEF TRAFFIC SR DEPUTY 228,951 1,890 228,951
SCHOOL RESOURCE DEPUTY (DP) 180,934 1,437 180,934
SHERIFF'S SERVICE TECHNICIAN (PARKING OFFICER) 90,051 1,856 90,051 Total S&B 1,442,441 11,603 1,442,441 -
Patrol Support
ADMN OFFICE PRO I 1,357
ADMN OFFICE PRO II 50,717
ADMN OFFICE PRO II - EXH 5
ADMN OFFICE PRO SR 22,250
EXTRA HELP 246
SHERIFFS COMMANDER 39,077
SHERIFFS LIEUTENANT 83,771
SHERIFFS SERGEANT 294,014
SHERIFF'S SERVICE TECHNICIAN 20,688
S&S Cost 171,823
Total Patrol Support 683,949 -
Total Menu Costs 2,126,390 11,603 -
67