Riverside County | Michael Reiter, Municipal Attorney. Partner with Cole Huber, LLP in Ontario, Roseville California

The Ralph M. Brown Act codified at Government Code section 54950 et seq., California’s open meeting law gives the public the opportunity to know what their elected officials are doing, and requires their meetings to be open and public.

When does the Brown Act allow a Council or Board to meet outside their jurisdiction?

Generally, the Brown Act does not allow legislative bodies to meet outside their jurisdiction “Regular and special meetings of the legislative body shall be held within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction . . .” Government Code section 54954(b).

However, there are the exceptions listed in the same section:

(1) Comply with state or federal law or court order, or attend a judicial or administrative proceeding to which the local agency is a party.

(2) Inspect real or personal property which cannot be conveniently brought within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction provided that the topic of the meeting is limited to items directly related to the real or personal property.

(3) Participate in meetings or discussions of multiagency significance that are outside the boundaries of a local agency’s jurisdiction. However, any meeting or discussion held pursuant to this subdivision shall take place within the jurisdiction of one of the participating local agencies and be noticed by all participating agencies as provided for in this chapter.

(4) Meet in the closest meeting facility if the local agency has no meeting facility within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, or at the principal office of the local agency if that office is located outside the territory over which the agency exercises jurisdiction.

(5) Meet outside their immediate jurisdiction with elected or appointed officials of the United States or the State of California when a local meeting would be impractical, solely to discuss a legislative or regulatory issue affecting the local agency and over which the federal or state officials have jurisdiction.

(6) Meet outside their immediate jurisdiction if the meeting takes place in or nearby a facility owned by the agency, provided that the topic of the meeting is limited to items directly related to the facility.

(7) Visit the office of the local agency’s legal counsel for a closed session on pending litigation held pursuant to Section 54956.9, when to do so would reduce legal fees or costs.

There are also special rules for school boards:

(c) Meetings of the governing board of a school district shall be held within the district, except under the circumstances enumerated in subdivision (b), or to do any of the following:

(1) Attend a conference on nonadversarial collective bargaining techniques.

(2) Interview members of the public residing in another district with reference to the trustees’ potential employment of an applicant for the position of the superintendent of the district.

(3) Interview a potential employee from another district. Government Code section 54954(c).

Also, Joint Powers Authority have special rules.

(d) Meetings of a joint powers authority shall occur within the territory of at least one of its member agencies, or as provided in subdivision (b). However, a joint powers authority which has members throughout the state may meet at any facility in the state which complies with the requirements of Section 54961. Government Code section 54954(d).

Practically, it can be very difficult for a legislative body to meet outside its jurisdiction. For one, politically, it looks like the agency is hiding something.

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

Filed under City Council, City of Chino Hills, City of Riverside, Municipal Law, Ralph M. Brown Act, Riverside County, Riverside Superior Court, San Bernardino County Tagged with Brown Act, Closed Session, outside of jurisdiction

Abusive Code Enforcement

August 2, 2013 1 Comment

I have begun to notice a pattern in complaints about code enforcement agencies lately.

One is that certain cities (especially large charter cities) have changed their opinions regarding what they want out of code enforcement. They used to want to use code enforcement tools to eliminate blight and come into compliance. Now, it seems that many cities want to generate revenue from code enforcement instead of compliance.

The second pattern is that code enforcement is abusing their discretion. In order to make money, little infractions become major code enforcement violations. Dormant trees in the winter become unmaintained landscaping. A burnt patch of summer grass becomes lack of landscaping.

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

Filed under Administrative Citations, Administrative Civil Penalties, City of San Bernardino, Code Enforcement, Constituational Rights, Municipal Code, Riverside, Riverside County, San Bernardino Tagged with Administrative Citations, City of Riverside, City of San Bernardino, Code Enforcement, code enforcement attorney, code enforcement attorneys, code enforcement lawyer

Do I Need A Building Permit?

May 2, 2012 1 Comment

The answer usually is yes, you do need a building permit. California, and in turn, local public entities, have adopted the California Building Code, which is a version of the International Building Code, formerly, and sometimes still called, the Uniform Building Code. By now, most cities and towns in California should be using the 2010 Code, though the 2012 Code is being developed. However, be cautioned that some municipalities are relying on older versions of the California Building Code, and the procedures were incorporated in the Uniform Administrative Code. Check with your jurisdiction!
The California Building Code is difficult to find online, but it is codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The situation is much better than it used to be, when the copyright to the underlying model code prevented it from being offered inexpensively or free online.

Title 24, Part 2, Section 105 et seq. has the general requirement regarding permits. It reads:

SECTION 105 PERMITS

105.1 Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.

There are certain exemptions to this requirement:

105.2 Work exempt from permit. Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following:

Building:

1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet (11 m2).

2. Fences not over 6 feet (1829 mm) high.

3. Oil derricks.

4. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet (1219 mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or IIIA liquids.

5. Water tanks supported directly on grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 925 L) and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed 2:1.

6. Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above adjacent grade, and not over any basement or story below and are not part of an accessible route.

7. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, counter tops and similar finish work.

8. Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery.

9. Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R-3 occupancy that are less than 24 inches (610 mm) deep, do not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 925 L) and are installed entirely above ground.

10. Shade cloth structures constructed for nursery or agricultural purposes, not including service systems.

11. Swings and other playground equipment accessory to detached one- and two-family dwellings.

12. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall that do not project more than 54 inches (1372 mm) from the exterior wall and do not require additional support of Groups R-3 and U occupancies.

13. Nonfixed and movable fixtures, cases, racks, counters and partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches (1753 mm) in height.

Electrical:

Repairs and maintenance: Minor repair work, including the replacement of lamps or the connection of approved portable electrical equipment to approved permanently installed receptacles.

Radio and television transmitting stations: The provisions of this code shall not apply to electrical equipment used for radio and television transmissions, but do apply to equipment and wiring for a power supply and the installations of towers and antennas.

Temporary testing systems: A permit shall not be required for the installation of any temporary system required for the testing or servicing of electrical equipment or apparatus.

Gas:

1. Portable heating appliance.

2. Replacement of any minor part that does not alter approval of equipment or make such equipment unsafe.

Mechanical:

1. Portable heating appliance.

2. Portable ventilation equipment.

3. Portable cooling unit.

4. Steam, hot or chilled water piping within any heating or cooling equipment regulated by this code.

5. Replacement of any part that does not alter its approval or make it unsafe.

6. Portable evaporative cooler.

7. Self-contained refrigeration system containing 10 pounds (5 kg) or less of refrigerant and actuated by motors of 1 horsepower (746 W) or less.

Plumbing:

1. The stopping of leaks in drains, water, soil, waste or vent pipe, provided, however, that if any concealed trap, drain pipe, water, soil, waste or vent pipe becomes defective and it becomes necessary to remove and replace the same with the new material, such work shall be considered as new work and a permit shall be obtained and inspection made as provided in this code.

2. The clearing of stoppages or the repairing of leaks in pipes, valves or fixtures and the removal and reinstallation of water closets, provided such repairs do not involve or require the replacement or rearrangement of valves, pipes or fixtures.

However, the inquiry does not end here. California Health and Safety Code section 17958.7 permits local changes to the California Building Code:

(a) Except as provided in Section 17922.6, the governing body of a city or county, before making any modifications or changes pursuant to Section 17958.5, shall make an express finding that such modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions. Such a finding shall be available as a public record. A copy of those findings, together with the modification or change expressly marked and identified to which each finding refers, shall be filed with the California Building Standards Commission. No modification or change shall become effective or operative for any purpose until the finding and the modification or change have been filed with the California Building Standards Commission.

So, the answer to “Do I Need a Building Permit” requires you to look at the changes to the California Building Code in your local municipal code. For example, one local City used to have a requirement that you needed a permit to pour a concrete patio slab, where it was otherwise exempt from the Uniform Building Code. The City of Moreno Valley has modified the Code adding an exemption:

Moreno Valley Municipal Code section 8.20.010 reads in pertinent part:

The California Building Code, 2010 Edition, based on the 2009 International Building Code as published by the International Code Council, excluding Chapter 29 and Chapter 34 and including Appendix H and the standards referred to therein, is adopted and made part of this title by reference with the following modifications:

. . .

E. Chapter 1, Division II, Section 105.2, Building 2 is hereby amended to read as follows:

Fences not over six (6) feet high, masonry concrete block walls under four (4) feet, or combination masonry concrete block walls with wrought iron under four (4) feet high.

Note that the City Council or other approving body must make findings that the ” changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions.” However, the findings just have to be made and filed, they don’t actually need any basis in reality, apparently. The City of San Jose, for example, removed the administrative appeal process in the California Building Code for revocation of permits.

So, the short answer is that many things that people do not obtain permits for, such as installing a new dishwasher, require permits, though there are some things such as tile work or painting that don’t require permits, unless they are prohibited by local agencies.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under Building Permit, Building Permits, City of Moreno Valley, City of Redlands, Code Enforcement, Land Use Law, Municipal Law, Ordinance, Riverside County, San Bernardino County Incorporated Cities and Towns Tagged with California Health and Safety Code section 17958.7, City of San Jose

City of Riverside Charter Change and the City Attorney’s Office

January 17, 2012 Leave a comment

I have previously written about the City of Riverside City Attorney’s Office. In today’s Press-Enterprise, there is an article about proposed Charter changes that would limit the office of the City Manager. The article is written by Alicia Robinson and is titled Charter changes would set limits on City Manager. I do not know where it was located in the physical newspaper.

The section regarding the City Attorney’s Office is very interesting:

The other change removes the city manager’s authority over employees of the . . . city attorney. . . .

City Attorney Greg Priamos, who proposed the change, would only speak generally about it and would not comment on whether it was a response to a specific incident.

The charter now lets the city manager approve or disapprove hiring decisions of the city clerk and attorney. Priamos said he doesn’t think that matches the intent of the charter to keep those three positions independent.

“Having the city manager having any influence whatsoever on the personnel decisions of the city attorney can … impair the city attorney’s ability to provide independent, unbiased legal advice and counsel to my client,” which is the city as represented by the council, Priamos said.

. . .

. . . Barbara Purvis, a retired assistant city attorney . . . said she is puzzled as to why a charter change is needed. But city documents suggest former City Manager Brad Hudson was likely the impetus for the proposal.

According to documents released in response to a California Public Records Act request, former Deputy City Attorney Rachele [sic] Sterling filed an internal complaint in February alleging Hudson accessed her city emails because of her political support of Councilman Paul Davis, and because he wanted to know what city employees had told her about “improper and unethical practices in the public works department.”

In March, Sterling wrote to the council detailing alleged improprieties in awarding contracts, saying employees were directed to steer work to Hudson’s friends. Hudson and the city have denied the allegations and a city-commissioned outside legal investigation found no wrongdoing. Sterling was fired in May.

The city has never explained why Hudson was looking at the emails of one of Priamos’ subordinates, and officials have not clarified whether that could be a violation of attorney-client privilege. When asked in August, Hudson refused to say why he was looking at Sterling’s emails, but in documents from the outside law firm’s investigation, Hudson said he had heard complaints that Sterling was interfering in public works matters.

The report noted that Hudson “functioned as a supervisor” over Sterling and thus had the power under city policy to review her emails. Priamos said attorney-client privilege prevents him from discussing the email incident.

Purvis said it would be “totally improper” for anyone outside the city attorney’s office to review its employee emails. She’d like an explanation of the proposed change, she said, because the charter shouldn’t be altered without a compelling reason.

As background, Raychele Sterling was my immediate predecessor at the City of San Bernardino. She returned to the City of Riverside in 2001, opening up the position of Deputy City Attorney in San Bernardino. She was always very helpful to me both in the brief hour or so we discussed the cases and matters I was inheriting from her in San Bernardino, or to point me in the right direction in the Riverside City Attorney’s Office, or if I had a public works question. I last spoke to her last year, in person, at Riverside City Hall, before her firing. I have not spoken to her since, and I have no inside knowledge of what happened in Riverside beyond what has been reported in the Press-Enterprise.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find the charter committees proposals online, so I cannot explain the actual changes to the existing charter. The committee will present its proposal to Council on January 24, 2012.

A: 300 E. State St. Suite 517

Redlands CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Filed under Charter, City Attorney, City Clerk, City of Redlands, City of Riverside, City of San Bernardino, Elections, Municipal Law Tagged with City Attorney's Office, City of Riverside, City of Riverside City Attorney, City of Riverside CIty Attorney's Office, Greg Priamos, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, Riverside City Charter

What is a “dangerous condition of public property?”

November 28, 2011 Leave a comment

A public entity may only be held liable for a dangerous condition of its property, not for simple negligence or premises liability. Before I was in private practice helping plaintiffs, I received a good education in a variety of dangerous condition of public property cases when I was Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino and as Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands.

A “dangerous condition” is “a condition of property that creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant) risk of injury when such property . . . is used with due care in a manner in which it is foreseeable that it will be used.” Government Code § 830(a). A public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of property it owns or controls if the plaintiff establishes that (1) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of injury; (2) that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition; (3) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury incurred; and either (i) a public employee, within the scope of his or her employment, negligent or wrongly committed an act or omission that created the condition or (ii) the entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in sufficient time before the injury to take protective measures against the dangerous condition. California Government Code §§ 830, 835.

What are the kinds of scenarios that might involve two public entities, or a mix of public entities and private entities? The scenarios I have seen as an attorney have included:

1. A city, a water district, and a private land owner, where a sidewalk panel was removed to replace a meter box, and the sidewalk panel was never replaced. The plaintiff tripped and fell.

2. A city, a school district, and an adjoining land owner, and a nonprofit youth organization, where the plaintiff tripped over a utility cover, wherein the surrounding compacted dirt had eroded over the years, but no sidewalk ever existed.

3. A city, a county, and a private land owner, and a private party, where a motorcyclist died at an intersection jointly controlled by the city and county, when the motorcyclist was struck by the private party’s automobile.

4. A trip and fall that happened only in one city, but the plaintiff sued two cities because it was not clear which entity owned or controlled the sidewalk.

5. An injury to a person who was waiting at a bus stop from a city tree in a city park, but at a bus stop owned and controlled by a joint-powers authority transit system.

6. A flooding case wherein the flood control channel was owned by a county flood control agency, but the culvert and bridge were owned by a city.

California Government Code section 830(c) states “‘Property of a public entity’ and “public property” means real or personal property owned or controlled by the public entity, but do not include easements, encroachments and other property that are located on the property of the public entity but are not owned or controlled by the entity.”

“Where the public entity’s relationship to the dangerous property is not clear, aid may be sought by inquiring whether the particular defendant had control, in the sense of power to prevent, remedy or guard against the dangerous condition; whether his ownership is a naked title or whether it is coupled with control; and whether a private defendant, having a similar relationship to the property, would be responsible for its safe condition.” Low v. City of Sacramento (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 826, 833-834.

Obviously, ownership is a key fact to prove. Control can be more difficult. In the case of a jointly controlled intersection, there is typically an agreement between the two public entities. Obtain and examine that agreement (either through discovery or by using the California Public Records Act). Control can be established by deposing maintenance workers who have personal knowledge of the maintenance work done at the property, and to a limited extent, with written discovery.

In Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, the California Supreme Court ruled that “the location of public property, by which users are subjected to hazards on adjacent property, may constitute a dangerous condition” under Government Code sections 830 and 835. Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2003) 30 Cal.4th 139, 815-816.

Therefore, there are factual scenarios where more than one public entity can be responsible for one injury by pleading and proving a dangerous condition of public property cause of action. In the flooding scenario noted above, the plaintiff also pled an inverse condemnation cause of action.

A: 300 E. State St. Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Filed under Agreements, California Public Records Act, City of Highland, City of Redlands, City of Riverside, City of San Bernardino, Dangerous Condition of Public Property, Dangerous Intersection, Demand for Inspection, Depositions, Discovery, Evidence, Form Interrogatories, Insurance, Inverse Condemnation, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Municipal Law, Park Accident, Pedestrian Accident, Personal Injury Law, Real Property Law, San Bernardino City Attorney's Office, Trip and Fall Tagged with Dangerous Condition of Public Property, joint liability, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, Personal Injury, public entity, torts

Can two public entities be jointly responsible for the same injury under a dangerous condition of public property theory of liability?

September 26, 2011 Leave a comment

What are the kinds of scenarios that might involve two public entities, or a mix of public entities and private entities? The scenarios I have seen as an attorney have included:

1. A city, a water district, and a private land owner, where a sidewalk panel was removed to replace a meter box, and the sidewalk panel was never replaced. The plaintiff tripped and fell.

4. A trip and fall that happened only in one city, but the plaintiff sued two cities because it was not clear which entity owned or controlled the sidewalk.

5. An injury to a person who was waiting at a bus stop from a city tree in a city park, but at a bus stop owned and controlled by a joint-powers authority transit system.

6. A flooding case wherein the flood control channel was owned by a county flood control agency, but the culvert and bridge were owned by a city.

Government Code section 830(c) states “‘Property of a public entity’ and “public property” means real or personal property owned or controlled by the public entity, but do not include easements, encroachments and other property that are located on the property of the public entity but are not owned or controlled by the entity.”

Also, conditions of adjacent property can make public property hazardous. In Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, the California Supreme Court ruled that “the location of public property, by which users are subjected to hazards on adjacent property, may constitute a dangerous condition” under Government Code sections 830 and 835. Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2003) 30 Cal.4th 139, 815-816.

A: 300 E. State St. #517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

In-House City Attorneys in Southern California: When Were They Admitted, Where Did They Attend Law School, and What University Did They Attend?

September 9, 2011 Leave a comment

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

This is a continuation of my series about Southern California In-House City Attorneys in California. This information is gleaned from open and public sources, all online, including the State of California’s website. This may seem like very personal information, but it is not. Each of these attorneys are public officials and public figures. They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

City Name	Name of City Attorney	Tenure	Law School	Undergrad	Admitted in CA

San Bernardino County
San Bernardino	James F. Penman	1987	Western State Univ.	CSU San Bernardino	1980
Redlands	Daniel J. McHugh	1994	McGeorge SOL	Rutgers	1983
Riverside County
Moreno Valley	Robert Hansen	2010	Southwestern Univ.	Brigham Young Univ.	1987
Riverside	Gregory Priamos	2001	Loyola Law School	U.S.C.	1988
Los Angeles County
Burbank	Dennis Barlow	1997	Univ. of San Diego	Brigham Young Univ.	1975
Compton	Craig J. Cornwell	2008	Whittier College SOL	U.C. Santa Barbara	1994
Culver City	Carol Schwab	1997	U.C. Hastings SOL	U.C. Berkeley	1985
Glendale	Scott H. Howard	1990	Southwestern Univ.	U.S.C.	1976
Hawthorne	Russell I. Miyahira	2009	U.C. Hastings SOL	U.C.L.A.	1986
Inglewood	Cal P. Saunders	2006	U.C. Hastings SOL	CSU Long Beach	1975
Long Beach	Robert E. Shannon	1998	U.C.L.A. SOL	U.C.L.A.	1969
Long Beach City Prosecutor	Doug Haubert	2010	McGeorge SOL	U.C. Santa Barbara	1999
Los Angeles	Carmen Trutanich	2009	South Bay Univ., Harbour City, CA	U.S.C.	1979
Palmdale	Wm. Matthew Ditzhazy	1994	Michigan State Univ.	Univ. of Michigan	1985
Pasadena	Michele Beal Bagneris	1997	UC Berkeley/Boalt Hall	Stanford	1984
Redondo Beach	Michael W. Webb	2005	U.C. Hastings SOL	U.C. Santa Barbara	1987
Santa Monica	Marsha Jones Moutrie	1993	U.C.L.A. SOL	U.C.L.A.	1976
Torrance	John L. Fellowes III	1993	U.S.C. Law School	U.C. Irvine	1981
Orange
Anaheim	Cristina Talley	2009	U.C.L.A. SOL	Cal. Poly Pomona	1982
Huntington Beach	Jennifer McGrath	2002	McGeorge SOL	U.C.L.A.	1995
Newport Beach	David R. Hunt	2008	McGeorge SOL	U.C. Irvine	1983
Orange	David A. DeBerry		Western State Univ.	San Diego State	1989
Santa Ana	Joe Straka	2011	Cleveland-Marshall SOL	Kent State	1987
Ventura County
Oxnard	Alan Holmberg	2008	U.S.C. Law School	Oberlin	1975
Simi Valley	Tracy M. Noonan	2009	Southwestern Univ.	CSU Long Beach	1994
Thousand Oaks	Amy Albano		Albany Law School	S.U.N.Y (Unknown Location)	1982
Ventura	Ariel P. Calonne	2007	U.C. Hastings SOL	U.C. Riverside	1983
San Diego County
Carlsbad	Ronald R. Ball		Santa Clara Univ.	Stanford	1977
Chula Vista	Glen R. Googins	2010	UC Berkeley/Boalt Hall	Dartmouth	1988
Escondido	Jeffrey R. Epp	1996	Univ. of Wyoming COL	Univ. of Wyoming	1986
National City	Claudia Silva	2010	Univ. of San Diego	U.C.L.A.	1993
Oceanside	John P. Mullen	2006	Univ. of San Diego	U.C. San Diego	1992
San Diego	Jan Goldsmith	2008	Univ. of San Diego	American Univ.	1976
Vista	Darold Pieper	2005	U.S.C. Law School	U.C.L.A.	1971
Imperial
El Centro	Luis F. Hernandez	2008	UC Berkeley/Boalt Hall	Santa Clara Univ.	1979

For Law Schools, this is the tally: U.C. Hastings has five active in-house City Attorneys, University of San Diego School of Law has four, McGeorge has four, Boalt Hall (U.C. Berkeley) has three, U.C.L.A. has three, U.S.C. has three, Southwestern has three, Western State University has two, Loyola, Santa Clara, Albany, Whittier, Michigan State, Univ. of Wyoming, Cleveland-Marshall, South Bay University are tied for one a piece.

I am not an in-house City Attorney, but as frequent readers of this site will note, I am a former Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, and a former Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands. Roughly, I worked about nine and a half years for those cities, and I was also a clerk in law school for the City of Santa Clara. I graduated from the Santa Clara University School of Law and the University of California, Berkeley. I have been admitted in the State of California to practice continuously since 1998. In private practice, I work in municipal law both for the public and on behalf of public agencies.

Previous posts in the series of In-House City Attorneys in Southern California:

Cost Per Attorney for In-House City Attorney’s Offices in Southern California

Ratio of Attorneys to Population in In-House City Attorney’s Offices in Southern California

An Abbreviated Version of the Chart of In-House City Attorney’s Offices in Southern California

In-House City Attorney’s Offices in Southern California

Address : 300 E. State St. Suite 517

Redlands CA 92373-5235

Telephone: (909) 708-6055

Email: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

Website: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Filed under City Attorney, City of Anaheim, City of Burbank, City of Carlsbad, City of Chula Vista, City of Compton, City of Culver City, City of El Centro, CIty of Escondido, City of Glendale, City of Hawthorne, City of Huntington Beach, City of Inglewood, City of Long Beach, City of Los Angeles, City of National City, City of Newport Beach, City of Oceanside, City of Orange, City of Oxnard, City of Palmdale, City of Pomona, City of Redlands, City of Redondo Beach, City of Riverside, City of San Bernardino, City of San Buenaventura, City of San Diego, CIty of Santa Ana, City of Santa Monica, City of Simi Valley, City of Thousand Oaks, City of Torrance, City of Ventura, City of Vista, County of Riverside, County of San Bernardino, Imperial County, Inland Empire, Los Angeles County, Municipal Law, Orange County, Riverside, Riverside County, San Bernardino, San Bernardino City Attorney's Office, San Bernardino City Charter, San Bernardino County Incorporated Cities and Towns, San Diego County, Ventura County Tagged with City Attorney, In-house, Law school, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, Santa Clara University, University of California

Cost Per Attorney for In-House City Attorney’s Offices in Southern California

September 1, 2011 Leave a comment

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Here is another chart comparing the various in-house City Attorney’s Offices in Southern California. This time, the comparison is the cost per attorney. This is the number arrived at by dividing the 2011-2012 budget (or the latest available budget) by the number of in-house attorneys. This is not the true cost per attorney, because the budget includes such things as supplies, investigators, secretaries, and paralegals. El Centro and Hawthorne have incredible numbers, that if true, show a very tight ship indeed. Newport Beach’s ratio is high because it includes the outside counsel budget. The City of Riverside spends more than $56,000 less per attorney, a number that could be attributable to the City Attorney investigators used in San Bernardino. Oxnard and Oceanside, which are the two cities I think are most analogous to the City of San Bernardino as far as legal problems, demographics and size, are underspending San Bernardino by about $35,000 and $47,000 per attorney. A closer examination of the differences between the offices is in order before drawing more conclusions.

City Name	# Attorneys	2011-’12 Budget	$/Attorney

San Bernardino County
San Bernardino	10	$3,026,000*	$302,600
Redlands	1	$429,237*	$429,237
Riverside County
Moreno Valley	3	$910,535*	$303,512
Riverside	14	$3,451,041	$246,502
Los Angeles County
Burbank	11	$3,614,447	$328,586
Compton	4	Not Online	Unknown
Culver City	4	$1,779,809	$444,952
Glendale	13	$3,720,156*	$286,165
Hawthorne	3.6**	$551,447	$153,179
Inglewood	10**	$2,342,133**	$234,213
Long Beach	22	$8,585,107	$390,232
Long Beach City Prosecutor	17	$4,824,978*	$283,822
Los Angeles	444	$94,950,894*	$213,853
Palmdale	2	$3,988,760	$1,994,380
Pasadena	20	$6,467,000*	$323,350
Redondo Beach	6	$2,496,915*	$416,152
Santa Monica	24.5	$8,672331*	$353,972
Torrance	6	$2,160,322*	$360,054
Orange
Anaheim	23	$5,592,143	$243,137
Huntington Beach	7	$2,311,624*	$330,232
Newport Beach	5.7	$2,298,563.87***	$403,256
Orange	4	$1,411,049*	$352,762
Santa Ana	8.5	$2,081,395*	$244,870
Ventura County
Oxnard	5	$1,336,917*	$267,383
Simi Valley	4	$983,400*	$245,850
Thousand Oaks	4	$1,564,032*	$391,008
Ventura	4	$1,711,112	$427,778
San Diego County
Carlsbad	4	$1,336,460*	$334,115
Chula Vista	8	$2,271,182	$283,898
Escondido	7	$1,873,925	$267,703
National City	2.5	$703,760	$281,504
Oceanside	6	$1,535,860	$255,977
San Diego	147	$42,442,992*	$288,728
Vista	3	$1,011,603	$337,201
Imperial
El Centro	3**	$588,772**	$196,257

* 2011-2012 Proposed

** 2010-2011 Adopted

*** Includes Outside Counsel budget

The City of Palmdale’s City Attorney’s Office bares more scrutiny. Looking back at it, it has a category of “operating expenses” without a detailed break-out of what that entails. However, even if it includes outside counsel (like Newport Beach), the number seems high. Perhaps litigation reserves are included in the City Attorney’s budget? The City’s budget gives the personnel expenditures of $822,060. That includes two lawyers, and 4.16 positions in total. The price per attorney for just salaries, wages, and similar would be $411,030 per attorney, still higher than the average.

A: 300 E. State St. #517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under Budget, City Attorney, City of Anaheim, City of Burbank, City of Carlsbad, City of Chula Vista, City of Compton, City of Culver City, City of El Centro, CIty of Escondido, City of Glendale, City of Hawthorne, City of Huntington Beach, City of Inglewood, City of Long Beach, City of Los Angeles, City of Moreno Valley, City of National City, City of Newport Beach, City of Oceanside, City of Orange, City of Oxnard, City of Palmdale, City of Redlands, City of Redondo Beach, City of Riverside, City of San Bernardino, City of San Buenaventura, City of San Diego, CIty of Santa Ana, City of Santa Monica, City of Simi Valley, City of Thousand Oaks, City of Torrance, City of Ventura, City of Vista, Code Enforcement, Criminal Law, Imperial County, Los Angeles County, Municipal Law, Orange County, San Bernardino City Attorney's Office, San Bernardino City Charter, San Diego County, Ventura County Tagged with City Attorney's Office, City of Huntington Beach, Imperial County, In-house, Los Angeles County, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, Orange County, San Diego County, Southern California

Ratio of Attorneys to Population in In-House City Attorney’s Offices in Southern California

August 30, 2011 Leave a comment

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Continuing my series on In-House City Attorney’s Offices in Southern California, here is a new set of data comparing the Attorneys to population in City Attorney’s Offices.

City Name	Pop. (2011 est.)	# Attorneys	Atty/Population Ratio
San Bernardino	211,076	10	21,108
Redlands	69,231	1	69,231
Riverside County
Moreno Valley	195,216	3	65,072
Riverside	306,779	14	21,913
Los Angeles County
Burbank	104,304	11	9,482
Compton	96,925	4	24,231
Culver City	38,973	4	9,743
Glendale	192,473	13	14,805
Hawthorne	84,854	3.6**	23,571
Inglewood	110,028	10**	11,003
Long Beach	463,894	22	11,894
Long Beach City Prosecutor	Included Above	17	Included Above
Los Angeles	3,810,129	444	8,581
Palmdale	153,334	2	76,667
Pasadena	138,915	20	6,946
Redondo Beach	66,970	6	11,162
Santa Monica	90,174	24.5	3,681
Torrance	145,927	6	24,321
Orange
Anaheim	341,034	23	14,828
Huntington Beach	190,377	7	27,196
Newport Beach	85,376	5.7	14,978
Orange	136,995	4	34,249
Santa Ana	325,228	8.5	38,262
Ventura County
Oxnard	199,722	5	39,944
Simi Valley	125,026	4	31,257
Thousand Oaks	127,557	4	31,899
Ventura	107,124	4	26,781
San Diego County
Carlsbad	106,555	4	26,639
Chula Vista	246,496	8	30,812
Escondido	145,196	7	26,774
National City	58,785	2.5	23,514
Oceanside	168,173	6	28,029
San Diego	1,311,882	147	8,924
Vista	94,431	3	31,477
Imperial
El Centro	43,145	3**	14,382
		* 2011-2012 Proposed
		** 2010-2011 Adopted

Not surprisingly, the ratio is usually lowest in cities that prosecute state law misdemeanors and in large cities. For example, Anaheim has a ratio of one attorney per 14,828 in population. Los Angeles has one attorney per 8,851 people. San Diego, the State of California’s second largest city, has a similar ratio, one city attorney per 8,924 people. Palmdale, Redlands, and Moreno Valley have the highest ratios.

What does the data mean? The average in Southern California is one attorney per 20,000 population. I think in some cases, it means that some cities are richer than other cities. I think Santa Monica is certainly in this category, with one attorney per 3,861 in population. In other cases, it may mean that some cities are overweight. In researching this data, I found, for example, that El Centro was considering eliminating its in-house City Attorney’s Office. The City of Oxnard looks like it could use another attorney, but these are fiscally trying times.

One caveat is that the cities are not equal. The number of attorneys includes attorneys in cities that prosecute state law misdemeanors. Also, full service cities should be expected to need more help then non-full service cities. That explains Palmdale and Moreno Valley a little, but Moreno Valley cut a vacant position in 2010, also skewing the ratio.

A: 300 E. State St. Suite 517

Redlands CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 708-6055