Loading...
CC - Item N - Requesting by CCCA Regarding the Ambulance Suit - Internal File 017TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGE--`5 DATE: JANUARY 22, 1986 RE: REQUEST BY CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION REGARDING THE AMBULANCE SUIT Attached for your consideration is a request from the California Contract Cities Association for the third assessment regarding the Ambulance suit. in the amount of $2,585. Also attached is a copy of a status report regarding this item. The City of Rosemead's previous assessments were $600 in August 1985 and $900 in 1980. If the Council decides to continue to support the ambulance suit, it would be appropriate to authorize the transfer of $2,585 from appropriation reserve. FGT: j s COUNCIL AGENDA JAN 2 8 1986 K California Contract Cities -%,j Association 1633 Chelsea Road * San Marino, California 91108 * Telephone (818) 281-9900 PRESIDENT JACK MYERS Hawaiian Gardens lst VICE PRESIDENT GARTH GARDNER Pico Rivera 2nd VICE PRESIDENT HAROLD (Ila]) CROYTS Lomita SECRETARY GREG MEIS South El Monte TREASURER - MARCIAL (Rod) RODRIGUEZ Norwalk PAST PRESIDENT JIM VAN HORN Artesia EXECUTIVE BOARD CHARLES BELBA Lomita CECIL GREEN Norwalk JAY IMPERIAL Rosemead TOM JACKSON Huntington Park BARBARA LITTLE Lancaster LEONARD LOY Lomita RAY O'NEAL Bellflower AL PEREZ South El Monte JACK TYRELL Temple City SAN DIEGO CHAPTER CHAIRMAN GLORIA McCLELLAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GEORGE VOIGT December 20. 1985 TO: All City Manager/Administrators FROM: George Voigt SUBJECT: Ambulance Suit Status Report and call for new assessments. As you are all aware, the County has used every possible challenge and delaying tactic County Counsel can dream up to drag out the court action and avoid a final judgement in the lingering issues in our suit over ambulance services. It has seemed apparent to us that the County has hoped to break us (either financially or in our resolve to continue the suit) and come out with a settlement less than satisfactory to us. Despite what appears to us and our attorneys as a clear-cut and unambiguous finding by the Appeals Court (upheld by the State Supreme Court) in our favor, stating that the provision of ambulance services to indigent residents throughout the County was a County responsibility and should be provided at County costs, the County has found innumerable issues to be raised over the interpretation of that finding. The Countv has come un with its own unique interp- retations on what that language meant, and how it should be implemented. Thev have filed demurrers of various kinds, motions for summary judgement on certain aspects of the case, etc. At one point, prior to our last courtroom confrontation, the County had six separate actions pending. Following the Appeals Court decision, we tried to negotiate a final settlement with the Countv on the issues that were not addressed in the Appeals Judgement, and which the Appeals Court said would have to be settled at the Trial Court (i.e., Superior Court) level. This primarily involved the amount of retroactive re- imbursement the County would have to pay to the cities for past year's payments for a service they should not be paving for, and how future ambulance services would be provided. Although the County acknowledged a respon- sibility for some retroactive reimbursement, there was ru sic. ..~scracors • Ambulance Su . Status Report Page Two disagreement on the number of years for which such retroactivity should apply. It was the County's contention that the statute of limitations would limit the County's liability to only the past four years (whether that was four years from the date of judgement or four years from the date of filing of the court action was never clear). Our attorneys contended that in an issue of this type, involving invalid contractual obligations, there was no statute of limitations. However, this was not the sticking point. What was unacceptable was the County's method of figuring the amount of money to be reimbursed, and future contractual terms, even though the County also offered to reimburse all of our legal costs up to that point (which would have returned to the cities all of the assessments paid into the legal fund for this suit). So the case went back to the Superior Court, and that is where the County has continued to drag the issue out with a constant stream of motions and other delaying tactics, greatly increasing our legal costs in the process. At our last court hearing, as you have been previously informed, we succeeded in having all of the County's various actions consolidated for a single hearing before a single judge. (Previously we were facing individual court hearings before different judges, each of whom would be taking on the case fresh, with no background.) We are now scheduled for our next hearing on January 6. In the interim, we were directed by the judge to make another effort to negotiate as many of the points at issue as possible to eliminate them from consideration at the January 6 date. We have been meeting with the County under that court direction, seeking any possible grounds for acceptable compromise and agreement on some of the points. These negotiations could bring a continuance of the January 6 date, but the injunction that is in force with the County, requiring the County to continue providing ambulance services on the same basis as in the past, will, presumably, remain in force. And in the meantime, our legal costs continue to mount. The legal costs were greatly accelerated during October & November because we had to go out to every city involved in this case for interrogatories to support our claims for retroactive reimbursement for past years' payments. That required a lot of hours of additional legal work. We have always been behind in our payments to the law firm handling this action on behalf of our participating cities, because we always think we are near the end, and that a final judgement will be reached very shortly, granting us our full legal costs, and the mounting bills would be paid from that judgement. We have expended quite a bit-- some $30,000--out of our Association general fund over- the years to pay legal costs, thinking the end was in sight and it would not be necessary to go back to the cities for another increment assessment. Perhaps the end is coming in sight, if we get some final action or agreement when this case comes up in court again, and if the County does not file any more delaying actions, and the final lingering issues can be decided. But in the meantime the clock continues to run on our TO CITY MANAGERSPDMINISTRATORS • Ambulance Suit Status Report Page Three legal fees, we have no more money to spare in our general fund, and we currently are about $40,000 in arrears on what we owe the law firm. And, of course, we have expended all of the assessment money we have received from the participating cities. The costs of this suit have, of course, far exceeded our initial estimates when we filed the case. But when you consider the amount of court action that has ensued, and what the County has put us through to reach a judgement on this issue over the past almost five years, and the fact that we have had to get all the interrogatories from every city_to support,.our.claim for retroactive reimbursement, the costs have been quite nominal. Our smaller cities have paid only a" few hundred dollars, and the larger cities only a few thousand for legal costs over the almost five year period. And they have been saving more than that by not paying any ambulance costs for the past couple of years, since we won the Appeals Court judgement. So we hope it is understandable when we now have to come back for a 3rd increment assessment to pay our overdue legal bill and meet what we hope will be only moderate future costs. As with the first assessment, we have tried to keep this 3rd increment as close as possible to the amount of funds at stake for each participating city, although we have used a different benchmark figure. The first assessment, levied almost five years ago, amounted to 5% of the average yearly amount each city was paying for ambulance costs, based on the years 1976-79. The 2nd increment assessment was based on a fraction (about half) of that first assessment. But the figures we used, based on ambulance costs for those earlier years, are no longer relevant to the funds at stake for. each city. As we know, the cost of ambulance services billed to our cities has been rising constantly over the past decade or more, .and those increases have continued in most recent years (even though our cities have not been paying the bills). So the figures we are using to reach this 3rd increment assessment are the County's computer print-out of the charges to each City over the years 1980 to 1984, which we presume covers the amount the County considers in contention for retroactive reimbursement (since these are the figures they based their earlier offer of settlement on, under a four year statute of limitation). These figures are considerably different, and generally much higher, than what we figured our original assessment on, based on an annual average for 1976-79. And the assessment we are now submitting to your city (and all other cities) is equal to 2% (rounded off to the closest $5) of the amount the County recognized as in contention for a reimburse- ment settlement for your city. To illustrate the differences, here are a few random examples: In our original figuring, San Dimas had an average annual payment in 76-79 of $1100 per year, and the original assessment was based on that figure. The amount we are ncWusing from the County computer is $34,000. Temple City's original figure was $9,000; the print-out figure is $46,238. TO CITY f-L4NAGERS MIMISTRATORS . Ambulance Sui Status Report Page Four Hawthorne's original figure was $23,000; the print-out figure is $287,140. Artesia was $3,500, and now is $25,318. Carson wa''s S2,500 for the average year in the earlier.fiaures; the County figure for the four years cited is $324,768. These County figures are not necessarily indicative of the amounts we may be able to claim in retroactive reimbursement, when a final settlement is reached. (The County was only offering to reimburse-a fraction of each amount.) But they are illustrative of how much money is at stake for each city, and the pro-rata value to each city of whatever settlement is eventually reached. And, of course, we still expect to have our full legal costs awarded to us, in which case all cities would have returned the full amount of the assessments they have paid; as well-as getting returned the amounts we have paid out of our CCCA general fund. However, the law firm handling the case has not taken this on any contingency basis, and the size of the past due bill is growing too large to continue without payment. So we still need the assessment to even the books with them. Your city's billing for your assessment share is attached, and we hope you can process it promptly so that we can get in the funds for this purpose. Two final points we would like to make, because we know the questions may come up. we have some cities that sometimes say we will pay as soon as we see that all other cities are paying. If all, or even many cities did that, we would wait a long time for our money. We hope you will not delay payment for that reason. we want to point out that on the initial assessment, 100% of the cities paid (although we waited some months on those cities that wanted to wait to see if other cities paid). On the 2nd increment assessment, 100% of the cities paid without any delays. (Although two cities dropped out of the suit after the Appeals Court decision--one because they were so newly incorporated that they didn't have any significant amount to recover in retroactive reimbursement and were willing to settle on the Appeals Court decision alone, and the other because they decided they wouldn't fight the case any longer as a joint action.) The other question involves the cities that have signed contracts with private ambulance carriers, and cancelled their contracts with the County. In the last assessment, some of these questioned whether they should still be paying the assessment, since they no longer are involved with the County. Our answer is yes, they should pay a share of the continuing legal costs to reach a final successful resolution to this case, because they will be affected by any future arrangements for ambulance services, and they too will be in line to recover costs they have been paying (or their ambulance company has been carrying) for services to indigent citizens. All of these cities finally agreed to pay the 2nd increment assessment, and we sincerely hope they will do so with this assessment. We still think the only way the County can come out of this without fulfilling the full intent of the Appeals Court decision is if we have to abandon the fight because we lack the funds or the will of our cities to continue it. ~s • • l California Contract Cities Association 1633 Chelsea Road * San Marino, California 91108 * Telephone (818) 281-9900 PRESIDENT JACK MYERS Hawaiian Gardens 1st VICE PRESIDENT GARTH GARDNER Pico Rivera 2nd VICE PRESIDENT HAROLD Olal) CROWS Lomita SECRETARY GREG JIEIS South El Monte TREASURER MARCIAL (Rod) RODRIGUEZ Norwalk PAST PRESIDENT JIM VAN HORN Artesia EXECUTIVE BOARD CHARLES BELBA Lomita CECIL GREEN Norwalk JAY IMPERIAL Rosemead TOM JACKSON Huntington Park BARBARA LITTLE Lancaster LEONARD LOY Lomita RAY OWEAL Bellflower AL PEREZ South El Monte JACK TYRELL Temple City SAN DIEGO CHAPTER CHAIRMAN GLORIA MCCLELLAN December 20, 1985 City Manager City Hall 8838 E. Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 STATEMENT Ambulance Suit Assessment 3rd Increment $ 2,585.00 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CEORGE VOIGT