The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/2/2004 - STAFF REPORTS (24) DATE: June 2, 2004 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Procurement & Contracting INSURANCE/BOND MONITORING SERVICES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council approve contracting with JenQuest, Inc, dba Insurance Data Services for insurance and bond monitoring services in an amount not to exceed $22,080 for a one-year period. SUMMARY: This action would provide the City with insurance and bond monitoring services for city contracts to mitigate the effects a proposed staff reduction in the City Clerk's Office. BACKGROUND: As part of contract administration procedures, the City collects evidence of insurance policies and bonds, verifies their conformance to contract requirements and maintains original copies of such evidence in the Office of the City Clerk. The effort required to perform these tasks is time consuming and is magnified by the necessity of maintaining them across each policy's expiration date. City staff became aware that a number of agencies, including Orlando International Airport and the County of Los Angeles, have moved to contract this clerical task out in order to dedicate their staff time to more productive activities. The services to be provided by Insurance Data Services include: establishing a City-specific tracking database; programming the tracking system with City standards for insurance; establishing a receiving portal for receipt of the City's insurance and bond documents; receiving and imaging all incoming documents; validation of documents against City requirements; issuance of any required notices(such as pre-expiration notices,expired coverage notices) continuous monitoring of all City accounts; maintaining an automated image history/audit trail of all correspondence related to City accounts; providing contract pre-expiration notice to City; providing unlimited access to City staff via the Internet; and making accessible, via the Internet, a variety to reports. �� The cost of services to be provided consist of a set-up fee ranging from $3250 to $4440 (depending on the method which the City utilizes to transmit information about existing accounts) and a tracking fee established on a unit price basis of$2.10 per account per month. The number of accounts should remain relatively stable over time, as new accounts are balanced by expiring accounts (accounts expire 6 months after the contract period for which they were established). It is estimated that the City will have approximately 700 open account at any one time. Funds are available for this purpose in the current fiscal year in the Department of Procurement & Contracting's Contractual Services account(1330-43200). In the next fiscal year funding will be provided from proposed staff reductions. G HAROLD E. GOOD Director of Procurement & Contracting APPROVED: City Manager Attachment: 1 Minute Order REVIEWED BY DEPT. OF FINANCE �� I� 0.. � MINUTE ORDER NO. APPROVING CONTRACTING WITH JENQUEST, INC, DBA INSURANCE DATA SERVICES FOR INSURANCEAND BOND MONITORING SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $22,080 FOR A ONE-YEAR PERIOD. I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Minute Order approving contracting with JenQuest, Inc, dba Insurance Data Services for insurance and bond monitoring services in an amount not to exceed $22,080 for a one-year period, was adopted by the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California; in a meeting thereof held on the 2rd of June, 2004. PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk i� DATE: June 2, 2004 TO: City Council FROM: Assistant City Manager - Administration SUBJECT: Assembly Bill 3007 — Letter in Opposition RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to send the attached letter to our legislative delegation (Senator Battin and Assemblywoman Garcia) expressing our opposition to Assembly Bill 3007. SUMMARY: Although the Open Meeting Act is an essential element of local government, there are a few aspects of local government which should not occur in public. Assembly Member Plescia of La Jolla has introduced legislation, Assembly Bill 3007 (AB 3007), that would repeal from the Ralph M. Brown Act several subjects that may be discussed in closed session, including real property negotiations, discussion with legal counsel about anticipated litigation, and liability claims. If passed, AB 3007 would detrimentally affect the ability of the City Council to effectively manage fiscally sensitive business affairs. BACKGROUND: Presently the "California Open Meeting Act" or, as it is more familiarly known, the Ralph M. Brown or Brown Act requires all meetings of a city council to be held in public. However "closed session" meetings (i.e. meetings held behind closed doors in private) may be held for certain specified reasons. These include: meetings held for the purpose of providing direction to real property negotiators who are negotiating to buy, sell or lease real property on behalf of the city; meetings held for the purpose of discussing appropriate response to genuine threats of litigation where a court action has not yet been filed; and, discussion of liability claims filed against the City. As proposed, AB 3007 would amend the Brown Act to eliminate each of these exceptions and require any discussion regarding these subjects to be done in open session. The disadvantage of conducting real property negotiation discussions in public is obvious. If all instructions to negotiators must be made in public the parties on the other side of the transaction will know a city's "bottom line" on every negotiating issue. Low bids will be pointless because the seller or buyer on the other side of the transaction will already know the final price. Bluffing to obtain favorable terms will be impossible because the other parties will know a city council's final position on every term of the deal. Cities inevitably will buy for higher prices and sell for lower prices than skilled negotiators could obtain for them in a transaction of equal parties. Ultimately this will cost the public money. I Discussion of claims and potential exposure to litigation in closed session usually involves a city council getting advice from its legal counsel on liability matters. If this were done in public any one planning to sue a public entity would be able to hear that agency's lawyers' advice to his or her client, an enviable position for a potential litigant. Depriving local government of the ability to preserve confidentiality regarding real property negotiations and attorney client communications in potential liability situations is not prudent public policy given the significant burden created by the plethora of truly frivolous lawsuits direct at public agencies. Not only does this undermine a public agency's ability to effectively conduct business, but it could ultimately subject the agency to additional litigation and pending liability claims. The League of California Cities and a number of cities and counties have voiced their opposition to this legislation. Currently, AB 3007 is waiting to be scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Local Government Committee. Troy L. Butzl ssistant City Manager - Administration APPROVE` D—� `'�'�'.c` � City Manager Attachments: 1. Draft Letter of Opposition June 2, 2004 The Honorable Bonnie Garcia State Assembly, District 80 State Capitol, Room 5126 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: AB 3007(Plescia). Open Meetings Letter of Opposition Dear Assembly Member Garcia: On behalf of the Palm Springs City Council, I write to express our opposition to AB 3007 (Plescia). Existing law provides for very specific, limited circumstances under which a public agency may call a closed meeting. The Brown Act very clearly specifies what items are permissible for closed session, defines strict notice requirements regarding closed sessions, and sets out penalties and civil remedies when provisions of the Brown Act are violated. AB 3007 in its current form would repeal from the Brown Act several subjects that may be discussed in closed session, including real property negotiations, discussion with legal counsel about anticipated litigation; and liability claims. We oppose passage of this bill because it would severely hinder the ability of public bodies to effectively negotiate and conduct business in a fiscally responsible manner. Moreover, given the significant burden created by the plethora of truly frivolous lawsuits direct at public agencies, depriving those agencies of their right to confer privately with their attorneys seems to be a step in the wrong direction. There are clear policy reasons why the Legislature granted public agencies the ability— in clearly defined, narrow circumstances —to hold certain discussions in closed session. AB 3007 is not good public policy and will only encourage more litigation against public agencies. We strongly urge you to oppose this bill. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Ron Oden Mayor 1 '� a•� MINUTE ORDER NO. AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER TO THE CITY'S LEGISTLATIVE REPRESENT- ATIVES EXPRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONCERN AND OPPOSITION TO ASSEMBLY BILL 3007 --------------- I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Minute Order, authorizing the Mayor to send a letter to the City's State Legislative Representatives expressing the City Council's concern and opposition to Assembly Bill 3007 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Palm-Springs, California, in a meeting thereof held on the 2"a day of June, 2004. PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk