The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06 - Integrated Law and Justice Agency Joint Powers AuthorityCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 6 November 22, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Police Department Bob McDonell, Chief of Police, 949 644 3701, bmcdonell @nbpd.org SUBJECT: Proposed Joint Powers Authority— Integrated Law and Justice Agency RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the attached Resolution 2005 -_ (Exhibit 1) authorizing the City of Newport Beach to participate in the Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County (ILJAOC) and authorize the Mayor to execute the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) associated with the City's participation, and authorize the City Manager and /or Police Chief to execute any related documents consistent with the implementation of this Agreement. 2. Ratify the COPLINK System Use Policy (Exhibit 7), specifically authorizing the Chief of Police to execute the document and any amendments on behalf of the City. BACKGROUND: On November 12, 2002, the City Council adopted resolution 2002 -77 authorizing the formation of the Integrated Law and Justice Agency Joint Powers Authority. The recommendation contained in this report is necessary due to the fact that the Agency was never formed based upon the County's failure to bring the matter before the Board of Supervisors in December of 2002 as originally drafted because of last minute objections from the Sheriff. The proposed JPA, which is attached as Exhibit 2, is essentially the same as adopted by Council in 2002, without the County as a participant. DISCUSSION: Because several members of the Council were not serving in that capacity when the JPA was first adopted in 2002, 1 have included a more detailed explanation of the history of the Project and efforts surrounding the governance issue than ordinarily may be necessary, considering the Council's former action. ILJAOC November 22, 2005 Page 2 Cities and County law enforcement officials have been concerned for a number of years that the methods used by the Court, the Sheriff's Office, municipal police departments, and the District Attorney's Office to interact with each other, are not as coordinated and /or efficient as they should be. In early 1997 as part of a local study, the Orange County Chiefs and Sheriffs Association ( "Association ") determined that over $5 million in overtime (using 1995 data) was being spent in Orange County by the various law enforcement agencies for off -duty Court appearances alone, when only one to two percent of those same officers actually testified in court. As a result, we obtained grant funding to study the witness management system in this County. We hired a nationally regarded consulting firm to do the Study, which identified several inefficiencies in the Criminal Justice System in Orange County and made some short-term changes with the support of the Court that have had a moderate impact on the problem. Based upon findings in the Study, we formed a Project Steering Committee ( "Steering Committee ") that included: • Chiefs from six municipal police departments (now expanded to seven; appointed by the Orange County Chiefs' and Sheriff's Association and representing all municipal chiefs in the County); • The department heads of County Criminal Justice Agencies (including the Sheriff, District Attorney, Public Defender, and Chief Probation Officer); • The Chief Executive Officer and Presiding Judge of the Superior Court; Two representatives from the Orange County City Managers' Association; and • A representative from the County Executive Office (CEO). The Steering Committee developed a Memorandum of Agreement (Exhibit 3) at the time (1997) that outlined shared principles. The Agreement directed us to take a more comprehensive look at the entire Criminal Justice System in Orange County and to see how it could be improved. We secured local funding to begin the effort after failing to get any assistance at the State level. We combined pre- bankruptcy funds contributed by the cities to the Orange County Automated Teletype System (OCATS) with County- budgeted funds for criminal justice integration, issued a request for proposals (RFP) and ultimately awarded a contract to Deloitte Consulting to help us prepare a Strategic Plan ( "Plan ") for what we called the Integrated Law and Justice Project ( "Project "). The Strategic Plan examined all components of the Criminal Justice System in the County in the review and included all 21 municipal police departments, the Sheriff, the District Attorney, Probation, Public Defender, the Courts, and others in the Project. After a year of work, the Steering Committee and all members of the Association adopted the Plan in April 2001. The Strategic Plan recommended that we: • Improve public safety through increased access to better information on a more timely basis; ILJAOC November 22, 2005 Page 3 • Reduce redundant data entry and processes; • Stop "reinventing the wheel'; • Become more efficient so we could re- deploy funds into other law and justice activities; and • Take advantage of the national emphasis (and related funding) for integration initiatives. The Strategic Plan identified eight specific initiatives for us to implement. (Other sub- projects have also been addressed since the Plan was formally adopted.) We specifically intended that the Plan result in modules that we could implement on a "pay as you go" basis. The eight primary Initiatives are to: • Establish a governance structure; • Distribute and provide access to Court disposition information; • Provide electronic access to conditions of probation through a single -name inquiry check; • Process and deliver subpoenas electronically; • Share records and case data across jurisdictional lines and between disparate databases; • Automate case filing, including establishing a case number index that unifies the different filing systems within the Criminal Justice System; • Infrastructure design (the design of a "middleware platform" to accomplish the information sharing contemplated in the Strategic Plan); and • Security (the development of specific security solutions to ensure confidentiality and access restrictions, while still facilitating the contemplated information - sharing). Funding & Cost Issues. Our consultants initially estimated one -time costs to implement the Plan at $10 -$12 million. These costs are largely technology purchases, installations, and consultant assistance in that process. They also identified ongoing costs for upgrades and outside help, but it is difficult to determine all of the costs to a certainty before the projects are formally designed and implemented. We do not envision that the JPA will have staff, but rather contract assistance for managing the various Initiatives. Existing personnel within each member agency will support the ILJAOC's work in their particular agency. Those costs attributed to any particular member that are related to improvements benefiting all users will be subject to reimbursement and /or will be shared on a proportionate basis. Currently, it is the intent of the Project Steering Committee to implement the Project on a "pay as you go" basis, relying on available grant funds to accomplish the objectives. In spite of the initial estimate, we believe that the one -time costs will be less than $10- 12 million figure, based upon work already underway and new improvements in technology. We have already invested $1 million in local funds (which resided in the County budget) for the Strategic Plan, secured in excess of another $5 million in ILJAOC November 22, 2005 Page 4 Federal funds, with another appropriation request from former Representative Christopher Cox (R- Newport Beach) still pending in the current Appropriations Bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State. To elaborate further on the JPA's future costs, I will stress again how difficult it is to define a specific dollar figure at this point. However, each member of the Agency as individuals and the JPA as a whole will evaluate ongoing maintenance costs in the selection of any product or service that addresses each Initiative. Without a doubt, the JPA will have ongoing costs to the participating agencies; however, those costs will be assessed in a rational, deliberative manner, with a decision - making process designed intentionally to require a consensus vote by a two - thirds majority of the Governance Board. We are also confident that some Agency members will either donate their services for the overhead associated with this form of governance (legal advice, administrative /budgetary support, risk management, etc.) or will only charge the JPA for direct costs associated with the assistance. During follow -up meetings involving the City Managers' Association, Project representatives were asked, in spite of the difficulty, to prepare a preliminary budget to approximate the costs that may be incurred over the next several years in order to give them a better idea of what to expect financially. We enlisted the assistance of the Project's Deloitte consultant to attempt to identify the worst -case scenario. Attached as Exhibit 4 is that report, which identifies costs with participation from the County and without. The request before you today does not include the County. As yet, they have not reconsidered their position to participate either directly or indirectly on behalf of the contract cities, which rely on the Sheriff for police service. We are still hopeful that the County will reconsider their position on participation, as all other members of the Criminal Justice System in Orange County, including the Superior Court, have expressed their support for the Project and for the related JPA Governance. Cost - Avoidance. Even though some of the long -term costs for the JPA are not definitely known today, we know that we will all continue to incur significant costs if we do not address the current system's inefficiencies. We will pay for those inefficiencies at a level that far exceeds the cost associated with this Project. Here are good examples of how the Project can help reduce inefficiencies: • Citation Databases. The County's Courts contract with a third party vendor to manually enter approximately 750,000 citations annually into their database, even after local law enforcement agencies have entered those same citations into our local databases. If we could electronically upload our information to the Court system, our collective savings would be significant. • Electronic Filing of Criminal Cases. Today, four sectors of the justice system hand - enter criminal case data. The originating agency does it first, then the DA's office, I LJAOC November 22, 2005 Page 5 then the Court, and eventually the Public Defender -- all by hand. Even more data entry occurs later if the defendant is placed on probation. These are just two examples of why this Project (and the governance to support it) is so important to those who serve in and are served by the Criminal Justice System here in Orange County. PROJECT STATUS A number of the Initiatives and projects identified in the Strategic Plan, as well as related efforts (such as Terms and Conditions of Probation, Electronic Subpoena Service, Countywide Electronic Scheduling, Court Dispositions, and Data Sharing) are currently implemented or they have undergone substantial development and improvement. MORE ON GOVERNANCE One of the more difficult Initiatives identified in the Strategic Plan was the need for a strong governance, both in the short-term for the Project and for the long -term management of the information sharing and efficiencies brought about through these efforts. We worked hard to craft a document that ensured good representation of those affected by the outcome, yet protected those who already had infrastructure in place for information sharing, etc. We started with two primary governance alternatives, neither of which poses significant costs to their creation, although the JPA results in slightly higher overhead: • A JPA, where agencies with specific powers establish a formal, separate authority to carryout the prescribed responsibilities; and • A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), where agencies agree to perform specific tasks in a cooperative way, via a simple legal agreement to do so. Why a JPA. Early on, a majority of the agencies on the Steering Committee clearly preferred the more formal JPA; however, the County Sheriff and the CEO preferred the less formal MOU -- they preferred the MOU alternative, which would allow any recommendations made within the MOU to be "advisory only" (and not binding) to the Board of Supervisors. After considering both approaches, a draft JPA was developed. The ILJ Steering Committee and the Orange County Chiefs' and Sheriff's Association overwhelmingly supported the JPA model. Although of the opinion that the JPA is too formal, Sheriff Michael Carona had originally indicated that (based upon the overwhelming support by the rest of the Criminal Justice Community) he would not oppose the JPA if adopted, and his Department would participate. However, several days before the JPA was ILJAOC November 22, 2005 Page 6 scheduled for approval before the Board of Supervisors on December 10, 2002, the Sheriff changed his position and actively opposed it. At that point, it was removed from the Board Agenda, and the governance formation has been stalled ever since. Our City Council (along with several others) formally adopted Resolution Number 2002 -77 on a unanimous vote on November 12, 2002, and the Mayor executed the required documents; however, as stated, it was never implemented. Many eyes and agencies have reviewed and revised the JPA document itself, including our own City Attorney's Office and others, as well as a former County CEO and his staff, all of whom worked through the substantive language that is now reflected in the JPA document. We did not chose the JPA structure in a vacuum — we sought opinions from consulting firms, corporations involved in criminal justice integration projects across the country, and a non - profit consortium funded by the Federal government that assists criminal justice agencies with integration projects. They all concurred that an effective Project implementation and the long -term success of our efficiency improvements require governance that is institutionalized, as opposed to a less formal structure that may be eroded by time and changes in founding personnel. We believe a JPA will truly result in fair representation for those member agencies involved in the improvements we are attempting to effect. Voting within the JPA. The JPA requires a two - thirds majority vote for any budget - related decision to ensure there is a clear consensus for any such decision. In addition, the JPA document allows agencies to withdraw from participation and /or to be reimbursed for any costs required to improve the existing Countywide infrastructure, should that become necessary to facilitate the Project implementation. Overall, it is clear to virtually all those who have participated in this Project since its inception that the JPA form of governance is the preferred alternative, given both our Countywide experience with less formal methods of governance for significant projects, and given the long -term implications of changes required in justice system administration as laws and technology change. City Managers' Association Action. On September 7, 2005, a presentation was made to the Orange County City Managers' Association ( OCCMA) as a follow up to the attached letter (Exhibit 5), signed by every Chief of Police in the County, the District Attorney and the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The request was a clear one. The time had come — and was past due, to implement the JPA Governance, even without the County participation, to insure the overall work of the ILJ Project and significant resources such as the COPLINK System remain viable and are improved into the future. On November 2, 2005, the OCCMA again deliberated on the issue, and those City I LJAOC November 22, 2005 Page 7 Managers with municipal police departments unanimously approved the recommendation to form the JPA for the Integrated Law & Justice Agency. The letter memorializing that action is attached as Exhibit 6. COPLINK System Use Policy Attached as Exhibit 7 is a tentatively executed COPLINK System Use Policy, which governs the operation and use of the Data Sharing System currently under development by the ILJ Project. It insures that those contributing data to the System and those accessing it follow certain procedural requirements. Because there is an indemnification clause in the Agreement, Council is asked to ratify the action and authorize the Chief of Police to execute the document and any subsequent amendments to it. The City Attorney was consulted and reviewed the document. Environmental Review: None. CONCLUSION: I am proud that — for the first time in anyone's collective memory, the vast majority of the Orange County Criminal Justice System has come together for a common purpose: to improve information sharing and efficiency for all those who are both members and who are affected by that System. With that common purpose comes the need for truly shared decision making by all parties. At some point in the near future, we all look forward to the Sheriff and other County of Orange Criminal Justice departments' participation as well. It is our sincere hope and our collective desire. Only with an institutionalized commitment to a better, more efficient legal system and to the long -term maintenance of that improved system, will we succeed. As a result, I therefore respectfully urge your endorsement of the formation of the Integrated Law and Justice Agency of Orange County and the City's participation in that Joint Powers Authority. I also ask you to approve the recommendation related to then execution of the related COPLINK System Use Policy. Respectively submitted, Bob McDonell CHIEF OF POLICE Attachments: Exhibits 1 -7 it Exhibit 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE INTEGRATED LAW AND JUSTICE AGENCY FOR ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach desires to cooperate with other public agencies to exercise some or all of their powers to establish, operate, and maintain the Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County ( "ILJAOC), consistent with the Joint Powers Agreement ( "JPA ") dated November 22, 2005; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has and possesses the power and authority to finance, organize, participate, and establish a public agency to facilitate the integration and sharing of criminal justice information for the benefit of the lands and inhabitance within their respective boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach and other public agencies propose to join together to establish, operate and maintain a public agency for the benefit of their respective lands and inhabitance; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to provide a means by which other public agencies may request services for the benefit of their lands and inhabitance; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has the authority to finance, organize, and participate in a public agency such as the ( "ILJAOC ") pursuant to California Government Code Section 6500 et seq. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, pursuant to this authority, hereby adopts and approves the ( "JPA ") for ( "ILJAOC "), attached as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by this reference. -1- q BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to take the necessary steps consistent with the ( "JPA ") for the ( "ILJAOC") to effectuate the organization and establishment of the ( "JPA ") for the ( "ILJAOC"). ADOPTED this day of , 2005. John Heffernan, Mayor ATTEST: LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Daniel K. Ohl, Deputy City Attorney City of Newport Beach -2- 10 Exhibit 2 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR INTEGRATED LAW & JUSTICE AGENCY FOR ORANGE COUNTY (ILJAOC) This Agreement is made and entered into by and between the listed cities, other entities, and County of Orange collectively referred to as "Member Agencies" This Agreement is dated , 2005 for reference purposes. Anaheim Brea Buena Park Member Agencies Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove La Palma Laguna Beach Los Alamitos Costa Mesa Huntington Beach Newport Beach County of Orange Irvine Orange Cypress La Habra Placentia RECITALS Santa Ana Seal Beach Superior Court of CA, County of Orange Tustin Westminster WHEREAS, the Member Agencies have and possess the power and authorization to finance, organize, and establish a public agency to facilitate the integration and sharing of criminal justice information for the benefit of the lands and inhabitants within their respective boundaries; and I WHEREAS, the Member Agencies propose to join together to establish, operate, and maintain an agency for the benefit of their respective lands and inhabitants; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to provide a means by which other public agencies may request services for the benefit of their lands and inhabitants. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein the parties hereto agree as follows: PURPOSE 1.01 The purpose of the Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County ( ILJAOC), is to cooperate with each Member Agency in the exercise of some or all of their powers to establish a separate agency to facilitate the integration and sharing of criminal justice information /data in the manner set forth in this Agreement. 1.02 Each Member Agency expressly retains all rights and powers to finance, plan, develop, construct, equip, maintain, repair, manage, operate, and control equipment, facilities, properties, projects, and information that it deems in its sole discretion to be necessary or desirable for its own information system needs, and that are authorized by the laws governing it. This Agreement shall not be interpreted, and the ILJAOC created herein, shall not have authority to impair or control any of the Member Agencies' respective rights, powers, or title to such equipment, facilities, properties, information, and projects, nor shall any Member Agency be required to provide additional personnel, equipment, or services to the ILJAOC, which are not already a part of the Member Agency's current operational costs, or which requires them to modify their non- ILJAOC systems or services, 2 /Z without their consent and full cost reimbursement from other Member Agencies or other revenue sources. 1.03 Each Member Agency expressly retains all 'rights and powers to use otherfunds or funding sources to finance, plan, develop, construct, equip, maintain, repair, manage, operate, and control equipment and facilities for their information services. 1.04 The ILJAOC is intended to provide criminal justice and law enforcement officials who have a need and right to know, with comprehensive, timely, and accurate information about a criminal suspect or offender, including identity, criminal history, and current justice status. In addition, it is intended to: a) Allow criminal justice practitioners to maintain legacy databases and share only information that has been agreed upon in advance by a majority vote of the Board or the individual agency affected. b) Reduce redundant document preparation, data entry, transmission, and storage. c) Strive to identify and achieve common interests to enhance public safety and due process. d) Maintain individual privacy rights and promote appropriate access controls and security. e) Support the development of effective criminal justice policy in keeping with the objectives of the adopted Orange County Integrated Law & Justice Strategic Plan ( "Strategic Plan ") and any amendments to that plan as approved by a majority vote of the Board. f) Strive for the compatibility of automated systems and processes among the various components of the Orange County Criminal Justice System. g) Acknowledge that each Member Agency is responsible for internal agency security for their records, technical support, etc. 3 P h) Recognize that in order to achieve overall success, resources (personnel, software, hardware, etc.), will be shared willingly and in some cases unequally by the Member Agencies, as long as that cooperation does not adversely impact the mission of the sharing member. i) Allow the Member Agencies to work together to implement the adopted Strategic Plan (and subsequent amendments to that plan), for an Integrated Law & Justice System through the information sharing which will result from that collaborative effort. 1.05 Member Agencies are not required to seek approval from the ILJAOC to purchase, install, or modify their own (non - ILJAOC owned) equipment, services, or work performed in conjunction with any legislative mandate /authority granted to or required of Member Agencies in order to carry out their respective responsibilities. Furthermore, the ILJAOC has no power or authority to control, interfere with, or inhibit Member Agencies from conducting their own internal business and /or providing their own (non - ILJAOC owned) resources or services to other entities, which may or may not be members of or served by the ILJAOC. Any changes to software or additional hardware that have been integrated into a Member Agency's existing infrastructure as part of a requirement to implement the initiatives as approved by the JPA Advisory Board, will become the sole property of that Member Agency, when without those enhancements, the agency could no longer operate their systems independent of the JPA. 1.06 Member Agencies may modify, upgrade, or otherwise alter any of their internal systems or processes without approval of the ILJAOC, as long as those modifications do not inhibit the exchange of offender data and systems implemented and /or funded by the prior action of the ILJAOC 2 14 ii CREATION OF THE INTEGRATED LAW & JUSTICE AGENCY OF ORANGE COUNTY 2.01 By this Agreement, the Member Agencies hereby create a separate legal entity to be known as the Integrated Law & Justice Agency of Orange County ( "ILJAOC "). The Member Agencies may agree on a different name for the ILJAOC. 2.02 The ILJAOC shall possess in its own name and the Member Agencies delegate to it, the following enumerated powers: a) To make and enter into contracts consistent with this Agreement, including, but not limited to, contracts to purchase and /or dispose of supplies and equipment to carryout the implementation of the Strategic Plan and any adopted amendments to that plan. b) To receive compensation, gifts, contributions, and donations of property, funds, services, and other forms of financial assistance from persons, firms, corporations, and any governmental entity. c) To sue and be sued in its own name. d) To apply for an appropriate grant or grants under any Federal, State, or local programs for assistance in developing any of its programs or providing services to other public entities. e) To appoint committees, adopt rules, regulations, policies, by -laws, and procedures governing the operation of the ILJAOC. f) To add Member Agencies to the ILJAOC as approved by the ILJAOC Board and the existing Member Agencies, and execute agreements and resolutions consistent with the terms of this Agreement g) To appoint/hire officers, employees, or agents. 5 16 2.03 Said powers shall be exercised in the manner provided by California law, including, without limitation, the Joint Exercise of Powers provisions of Government Code section 6500, et seq., and, except as expressly set forth herein, the Treasurer /Collector shall be subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising such powers as are imposed upon the Member Agency whose employee or officer is designated as the ILJAOC Treasurer /Controller pursuant to section 3.12 below. 2.04 Except as provided herein, the member agencies agree that all supplies and equipment purchased by the ILJAOC shall be owned and controlled by the ILJAOC as its sole and separate property and not as property of any Member Agency. 2.05 The ILJAOC shall operate as a separate legal entity and incur debt, separate and apart from the Member Agencies, and that its debts, obligations, and liabilities are its own and not that of the Member Agencies, except as specifically provided for herein. ORGANIZATION 3.01 The membership of the ILJAOC shall be the original Member Agencies, and any additional Agencies as approved by the Members which have executed this Agreement, and any subsequent amendments thereto, and that have not withdrawn from the ILJAOC. 3.02 The ILJAOC shall be governed by a Board consisting of six (6) Municipal Police Chiefs each elected for a three -year term by the Orange County Chiefs & Sheriff's Association to represent those Member Agencies with Municipal Police Departments. In addition to the Municipal Police Chief representatives, the C Board shall consist of County of Orange representatives as follows: the Sheriff, District Attorney, Chief Probation Officer, Public Defender, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, Chief Executive Officer of the Court, and one (1) representative from the County Executive's Office who will serve at the CEO's pleasure. The Board shall also have three (3) representatives elected for three -year terms by the Orange County City Managers Association, with at least one (1) of those representatives being from a "contract city" in the County. Each Board member, or in the absence of a Board member, an alternate designated in advance by them, shall have one vote on all matters before the Board. Such alternate members may be replaced from time to time at the appointing Board Member's discretion. Ali Board Members may be removed without cause by their respective appointing authorities. 3.03 Each Board member shall hold office until a successor is selected, elected, hired or appointed, as the case may be, under the powers of this Agreement and each Member Agency. The term of a Board member or altemate who is a public official or employee of a Member Agency shall terminate upon such Board Member leaving his or her position with the Member Agency. The vacancy of such a member who has left his or her position shall automatically be filled by selection, election, or appointment, as the case may be; according to the selection process adopted by this Agreement and the Member Agency whose representative has left his or her position. 3.04 Board members and alternates shall not receive compensation for their service on the ILJAOC Board, but may be reimbursed by the ILJAOC for reasonable expenses incurred in conducting the business of the ILJAOC, as provided in this Agreement, when the expenses are not paid or reimbursed by the employing Member Agencies. 3.05 The principal office of the ILJAOC shall be established by the Board and shall be located within the County of Orange. The Board may change the h I-1 principal office from one location to another within the County of Orange. Any change of address shall be noted by the Board but shall not be considered an amendment to this Agreement. 3.06 The Board shall meet at a location as may be designated by the Board. The time and place of regular meetings of the Board shall be determined by resolution adopted by the Board. A copy of such resolution shall be fumished to the Member Agencies. All meetings of the Board, including regular, adjourned, and special meetings, shall be called and held in a manner as provided in the Ralph M. Brown Act, Chapter 9, Division 2, Title 5 of the California Government Code commencing with section 54950 et seq., as amended. 3.07 All of the powers and authority of the ILJAOC shall be exercised by the Board unless specifically delegated to the extent permitted by law or reserved to the Member Agencies under this Agreement. Unless otherwise provided herein, each Board Member shall be entitled to one (1) vote. Except as otherwise provided herein, a majority of the full membership of the Board or their alternate present at a properly noticed meeting, shall constitute a quorum for purposes of transacting business. A majority vote of that quorum may adopt any motion, resolution, or order and take any other action appropriate to carry forward the objectives of the ILJAOC pursuant to this Agreement, with the exception of the adoption of the budget or other appropriations in excess of the adopted budget as outlined in Section 4.04 of this agreement, when a two- thirds majority of the entire membership or their alternates is required for approval. 3.08 The Board shall designate a recording secretary to establish, distribute, and post agenda notices as required by law, keep the minutes of all open meetings of the Board, and cause a copy of such minutes to be forwarded to each Member Agency within a reasonable time after each meeting. 0 Iq 3.09 The Board may adopt from time to time policies, rules, and regulations for the conduct of its administrative affairs and that of the ILJAOC as may be required and consistent with this Agreement. 3.10 Where this Agreement requires an approval of a resolution by any Member Agencies in any matter, the approval shall be evidenced by a certified copy of the resolution or ordinance of the governing body of such Member Agency filed with the ILJAOC. It shall be the responsibility of the Board to provide certified copies of said actions. 3.11 On an annual basis, the Board shall elect two Board members to act as Chair and Vice -Chair of the Agency for the purpose of conducting the Board meetings and performing other duties as required. The Vice -Chair may carry out all the duties of the Chair in his /her absence. 3.12 The Board shall appoint an officer or employee of a Member Agency to hold the offices of Treasurer and Controller ( "Treasurer /Controller'), whose duties shall be in conformance with Government Code sections 6505 and 6505.5 and whose salary, if any, shall be established by the Board. The Treasurer /Controller shall also administer all contracts subsequent to the Board's approval and shall contract with a certified public accountant to make an annual audit of the accounts and records of the ILJAOC as provided in Government Code section 6505. The annual audit shall be submitted to the Board and each Member Agency when completed. The budget, covering a budget cycle set by the Board, shall be prepared by the Treasurer /Controller for the approval by the Board. The ILJAOC's investment policies shall be the policies of the Member Agency of the Treasurer /Controller as those may be modified by the Board of the ILJAOC. The cost of the Treasurer /Controller in carrying out his/her duties, including, with limitation, any outside professional services, shall be reimbursed by the ILJAOC. 0 Iq 3.13 The Board shall have the power to appoint/hire additional officers, employees, or agents. Any officer, employee, or agent of the ILJAOC who is an officer, employee, or agent of any of the Member Agencies will continue to be subject to the Member Agency's personnel system. However, the ILJAOG may hire employees that are subject to the personnel system of the ILJAOC and said employees would not be employees of any Member Agency. Any person from any Member Agency appointed by the Board to fulfill a staff position with the ILJAOC shall possess appropriate qualifications to carry out his or her responsibilities. 3.14 The City Attorneys, County Counsel, or their Deputies of the Member Agencies may generally serve as counsel to the ILJAOC, to the extent agreed to by the respective Member Agency and permitted by such waivers of conflicts of interest to authorize such representation as may be executed by such Member Agency and the ILJAOC Board. The specific and ongoing duties of legal counsel to the ILJAOC may be rotated no less than annually and on a voluntary basis. The assignment of one of those individuals to perform the required duties shall be solicited from the legal counsels of the Member Agencies, and is subject to the final approval of the ILJAOC Board. 3.15 The officers shall perform all duties customary and appropriate to their respective offices and: a) After approval by the ILJAOC Board, the presiding officer shall sign all contracts on behalf of the ILJAOC Board. b) The secretary shall perform such duties as assigned by the Board and shall keep minutes of the Board meetings. c) The Treasurer /Controller shall be bonded in the amount to be determined by the Board and the bond fee shall be paid by the ILJAOC. The Treasurer /Controller shall perform the duties as set forth in Sections 3.12, 4.02, 4.03, 4.04, 4.05, 4.09, 4.10 and 4.11. 10 3.16 The Board may appoint a Project Manager by contract or otherwise to oversee day -to -day operations of the ILJAOC. The Project Manager shall manage the daily operations of the ILJAOC and supervision of any other ILJAOC employees. 3.17 All of the privileges and immunities from liability, exemption from laws, ordinances and rules, all relief, pension, disability, workers compensation, and other benefits which apply to the activities or omissions of officials, officers, employees, volunteers, or agents of any of the Member Agencies when performing their respective functions for their respective Member Agency shall apply to such person(s) to the same degree and extent while they are assigned to the ILJAOC to perform and are performing any of the functions and other duties of the ILJAOC pursuant to authority granted by this Agreement. None of the officials, officers, agents, volunteers, or employees of a Member Agency appointed to the Board or performing services at the direction of the ILJAOC shall be deemed by reason of their appointment or service to be employed by any of the other Member Agencies or the ILJAOC or be subject to any of the requirements of the other Member Agencies. IV BUDGET AND DISBURSEMENTS 4.01 The Board shall adopt a budget for the ensuing fiscal year(s) pursuant to procedures developed by the Board. At the conclusion of each fiscal year, the Treasurer /Controller shall make a report to the Board regarding the excess or deficiency of revenues over (or under) expenditures. Such report shall include "budget to actual' comparisons based upon the previously adopted budget. Upon receipt of the report, the Board shall determine what extent, if any, unexpended budgetary appropriations shall be re- appropriated or whether any excess of revenues over expenditures shall be allocated or expended. 11 21 4.02 The Treasurer /Controller shall draw warrants upon the approval and written order of the Board or the Board's Project Manager. The Board shall requisition the payment of funds only upon approval of such claims or disbursements and such requisition for payment in accordance with rules, regulations, policies, procedures, and by -laws adopted by the Board. 4.03 All funds received by the Treasurer /Controller for services provided by the ILJAOC, will be placed in object accounts, and the receipt, transfer, or disbursement of such funds during the term of this Agreement shall be accounted for in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applicable to governmental entities. There shall be strict accountability of all funds. All revenues and expenditures shall be reported to the Board on a quarterly basis, unless otherwise required by the Board. 4.04 All expenditures within the approved budget shall be made upon the approval of the Treasurer /Controller in accordance with the rules, policies, and procedures adopted by the Board. No expenditure in excess of those budgeted shall be made without the two- thirds majority approval of the entire Board and the budget shall thereafter be revised and amended. 4.05 The records and accounts of the ILJAOC shall be audited annually by an independent certified public accountant and any cost of the audit shall be paid by the ILJAOC. The minimum requirements shall be those prescribed by the State Controller under California Government Code section 26909 and in conformance with generally accepted auditing standards. Copies of such audit report shall be filed with the County Auditor and each Member Agency no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of said audit by the Board. 4.06 The Member Agencies have agreed by resolution through their respective Governing Authorities to fund on a shared basis, the costs of the 12 az ILJAOC operations, and capital in excess of any grant funds, through annual budget appropriations. Each Member Agency's agreement to provide such funds in fiscal years after the fiscal year in which this Agreement is executed, is contingent upon appropriation by the governing body of that Member Agency of sufficient funds for that purpose. The subject resolutions shall not limit the authority of each Member Agency to cease appropriations for the ILJAOC operations as determined by their respective Governing Authorities, provided, however, that a decision to cease appropriations shall be subject to the terms of Section 6.02 below. In addition, where the ILJAOC has an obligation under the terms of this agreement to reimburse a Member Agency for providing personnel, equipment, and /or services to the ILJAOC, the Member Agency providing such personnel, equipment, and /or services may waive its right to reimbursement. When a Member Agency incurs costs eligible for reimbursement under the terms of this agreement, those costs shall include only those, which are not part of the Member Agency's pre- existing infrastructure /operation, prior to the effective date of this Agreement. They also shall not include overhead charges. Costs for the ILJAOC operations referenced in accordance with Section 4.06 shall be shared as follows: a) Member Agencies with Municipal Police Departments and the unincorporated area and contract cities policed by the County Sheriffs Department as determined on a per capita basis = 80 %. b) County of Orange on behalf of the District Attorney, Probation Department, and the Public Defender, prorated among them equally = 15 %. c) The Superior Court of California, County of Orange = 5 %. 4.07 The Member Agencies acknowledge and agree that the ILJAOC will act as a conduit for the management, direction, and provision of integrated services to the Member Agencies and to other public agencies that contract with ILJAOC for such services. 13 R_; 4.08 Based on information provided by the Project Manager or other designated representative of the ILJAOC, the Treasurer /Controller shall keep a written account of any services provided to other public agencies by the ILJAOC. All revenues received from other public agencies contracting or receiving services from the ILJAOC for services shall be used to offset the costs incurred by the ILJAOC. The Governing Board shall determine whether those funds shall be placed in a Capital Reserve or otherwise allocated in the Agency's Budget and /or projected costs to Member Agencies. 4.09 In establishing rates for services to public agencies, the Board shall assure that the contracts for such services provide for the reimbursement of the actual expenses of providing all services of the ILJAOC, including insurance coverage for the ILJAOC's personnel and equipment. Payment for the ILJAOC services by contracting public agencies shall be made on a monthly basis to the Treasurer /Controller of the ILJAOC. The Treasurer /Controller shall provide a written monthly account to the Board of all revenues and expenses of the ILJAOC services to other public agencies. 4.10 The ILJAOC budget shall include the provision for a Capital Replacement fund that will provide for, among other things, the replacement of the equipment owned and operated by the ILJAOC. The ILJAOC Board annually shall recommend to the Member Agencies amounts needed for Capital Replacement. The amount of the provision for Capital Replacement in each ILJAOC annual budget will depend on the amounts appropriated by the Member Agencies for such purposes during each fiscal year. Said funds shall be transferred to the ILJAOC monthly by the Member Agencies for deposit in the ILJAOC's Capital Replacement fund. The actual purchase of new equipment and disposal of unneeded equipment shall be done whenever determined appropriate and justified by the Board. 14 1 * 4.11 All revenues derived from service contracts with other public agencies shall be maintained in a separate revenue account for the ILJAOC. The Treasurer /Controller shall be responsible for accounting for all such revenue. The Board shall be responsible for determining the appropriate allocation of such funds as part of the budget adoption process. V LIABILITIES 5.01 Except as provided in Section 8.05, the ILJAOC and the Member Agencies agree, to the extent allowed by law, that the Member Agencies shall be fully protected from any loss, injury, liability, damage, claim, lawsuit, cost, or expense arising out of, or in any way related to, the performance of this Agreement by the ILJAOC. Accordingly, the provisions of this Agreement should be broadly construed in favor of protection for the Member Agencies and interpreted to provide the fullest possible protection to the Member Agencies and Member Agency's officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees. ILJAOC acknowledges that the Member Agencies would not have entered into this Agreement in the absence of the commitments of the ILJAOC as specified in this Article V. 5.02 The Member Agencies acknowledge that each Member Agency may be assigning its own personnel to a cooperative pool of personnel to provide service to the ILJAOC. The ILJAOC shall be solely responsible for and retain all debts, liabilities, and other obligations for all activities of the ILJAOC, and shall maintain sufficient insurance coverage in effect at all times to cover any such claim, loss, liability, or obligation, as recommended by the ILJAOC Risk Manager and approved by the Board. 15 R5 5.03 Except as provided in Section 8.05, the ILJAOC shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold free and harmless the Member Agencies and their respective elected and appointed boards, officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from and against any and all liabilities, damages, loss, cost, claims, expenses, actions, or proceedings of any kind or nature caused by ILJAOC employees or employees of Member Agencies who are performing ILJAOC functions, including, but not by way of limitation, injury or death of any person, injury or damage to any property, including consequential damages and attorney's fees and costs, resulting or arising out of or in any way connected with the negligent acts or failure to act in the course and scope of carrying out their responsibilities in the performance of their duties to the ILJAOC and for which the ILJAOC will maintain sufficient insurance coverage in effect at all times as recommended by their Risk Manager, to cover any such damage claim, loss, cost, expense, action, proceeding, liability, or obligation. 5.04 Any contract with a non - member public agency ( "non Member Agency ") receiving services pursuant to this Agreement shall include a mutual indemnification provision wherein the non Member Agency and the ILJAOC shall mutually agree to defend and indemnify the other in an amount equal to its proportionate share of liability on a comparative fault basis. The contract shall also provide: 1) That the indemnity obligation shall exist with respect to any claim, loss, liability, damage, lawsuit, cost, or expense that arises out of, or is in any way related to, the performance of services pursuant to the contract; and 2) The obligation of the non Member Agency and the ILJAOC pursuant to the indemnification provision will extend, without limitation, to an injury, death, loss, or damage which occurs in the performance of the contract and that is sustained by any third party, any agent, or contractor of the non Member Agency or the ILJAOC. 16 5.05 Member Agencies shall be responsible for the continued provision of workers compensation coverage for the officers or employees of the Member Agencies that are assigned to provide services to the ILJAOC and /or serve as officers or employees of the ILJAOC. In this regard, each Member Agency shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the ILJAOC and any other Member Agencies, and their respective officials officers, employees, contractors, agents, and representatives with respect to any claim, loss, liability, damage, lawsuit, cost, or expense, including attorney's fees and costs, that arises out of, or is in any way related, to any industrial /worker compensation injury sustained by an officer or employee of the indemnifying Member Agency during the performance of service to the ILJAOC or the other Member Agencies under this Agreement. 5.06 ILJAOC shall employ the principles of sound risk management in its operations. Risks of loss shall be identified, evaluated, and treated in a manner that protects the ILJAOC and each Member Agency from adverse financial consequences. This may be accomplished in part through the purchase of appropriate commercial insurance. The Risk Manager, or his /her designee, of one Member Agency shall be designated by the Board, with the consent of the Member Agency, as the " ILJAOC Risk Manager" and shall act in an advisory capacity to the ILJAOC Board to provide guidance in the area of risk management, loss control, insurance procurement, and claims management. The ILJAOC Risk Manager will be responsible for maintaining the original insurance policies and other risk management and insurance documents. During the term of this Agreement, the ILJAOC shall purchase and maintain sufficient amounts of commercial insurance coverage at the equally shared cost to the Member Agencies. The types, limits, retention levels, deductibles, policy forms, and carriers providing the above required insurance 17 a� coverage's shall be recommended by the ILJAOC Risk Manager to the Board for its approval, consistent with this agreement. VI ADMISSION AND WITHDRAWAL OF PARTIES 6.01 Additional public agencies may become Member Agencies of the ILJAOC upon such terms and conditions as are determined by the Board and upon the unanimous consent of the existing Member Agencies as evidenced by approval of resolutions therefore and the execution of a written amendment to this Agreement by all of the Member Agencies, including the additional Member Agency. 6.02 Member Agencies have the right to withdraw from the ILJAOC. Such withdrawals, either voluntarily or involuntarily shall, unless otherwise provided for by the Board, be conditioned as follows: a) Involuntary withdrawal shall mean those circumstances where a Member Agency must withdraw due to fiscal or budgetary impact of that Member Agency that results in the discontinuance of the funding for personnel, services, or equipment by that Member Agency. b) In the case of a voluntary withdrawal, written notice shall be given one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the end of a fiscal. year except that such notice requirement may be shortened by unanimous approval of a quorum of the Board. c) Neither voluntary nor involuntary withdrawal shall relieve the withdrawing Member Agency of its obligations for its proportionate share of any debts or other liabilities incurred by the ILJAOC prior to the effective date of the Member Agency's 18 withdrawal (with the exception of new purchases of capital equipment after the date of the Member Agency's notice of withdrawal), nor any liabilities imposed upon or incurred by the Member Agency pursuant to this Agreement prior to the effective date of the Member Agency's withdrawal. d) The withdrawing Member Agency shall retain all rights and claims relating to revenues received by the ILJAOC during the time period that the Member Agency provided personnel, services, or equipment under the ILJAOC direction. e) The withdrawing Member Agency shall be entitled to remove its personnel and any equipment whose title was not transferred in writing to the ILJAOC from the possession and control of the ILJAOC, regardless of the impact on the ILJAOC or its continued operation. The withdrawing Member Agency may also recover any other equipment no longer needed by the ILJAOC, including equipment it previously transferred to the ILJAOC, according to the terms and conditions determined by the Board in its sole discretion to be fair and equitable. The ILJAOC Board may choose to exempt a Member Agency from any of the listed conditions, but may not impose any conditions other than those listed. 1TLII TERMINATION AND DISPOSITION OF ASSETS 7.01 The ILJAOC shall continue to exist and exercise the powers herein until this Agreement is terminated by a vote of two- thirds of the entire Board; provided, however, that no termination shall be complete and final until the ILJAOC has satisfactorily disposed of all financial obligations and claims, 19 2q distributed all assets, and performed all other functions deemed necessary by the Board to conclude the affairs of the ILJAOC. 7.02 Termination shall occur upon: a) The written consent of all Member Agencies; or b) Upon the withdrawal from the ILJAOC of a sufficient number of the Member Agencies that results in a lack of effectiveness as determined by a two- thirds vote of the remaining Board Members; and c) Full satisfaction of all outstanding financial obligations of the ILJAOC; and d) All other contractual obligations of the ILJAOC have been satisfied. 7.03 In the event of the termination of this Agreement, any funds remaining following the discharge of all obligations shall be disposed of by returning to each current Member Agency of the ILJAOC immediately prior to the termination of this Agreement, a share of such funds proportionate to the contribution made to the ILJAOC by said Member Agency, to the extent determined by the Board in its sole discretion to be fair and equitable. 7.04 Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Agreement, the Member Agencies agree to abide by the following procedure for selling of equipment in the event the Agreement is terminated. The equipment shall be given a fair market value by an appraiser agreed upon by the Board. Before the equipment is sold on the open market, the Member Agencies each shall have the right to purchase the equipment at a price and under terms as agreed upon by the Board which may include a financing arrangement for the purchaser to allow for a transition period after the termination of this Agreement. If an agreement cannot be reached concerning a purchase of the equipment, then it shall be sold on the open market. Proceeds from the sale of equipment upon termination of the Agreement shall be distributed to the Member Agencies in a 20 3-0 manner consistent with the cost - sharing format outlined in Paragraph 4.06 (a), (b), and (c) of this Agreement, and any modifications to that formula adopted by the Board. VIII MISCELLANEOUS 8.01 Amendments. This Agreement may be amended with the unanimous approval of all Member Agencies; provided, however, that no amendment may be made that would adversely affect the interests of the owners of bonds, letters of credit, or other financial obligations of the ILJAOC. 8.02 Notices. Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, registered or certified, postage prepaid, addressed to the Member Agencies, shall be deemed to have been received by the Member Agency to whom the same is addressed at the expiration of five (5) days after deposit of the same in the United States Post Office for transmission by registered or certified mail as aforesaid. 8.03 Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective at such time as this Agreement has been executed by the last Member Agency to sign enumerated in the introduction of this Agreement. 8.04 Conflicts of Interest. No official, officer or employee of the ILJAOC or any Member Agency shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in the ILJAOC. Nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the ILJAOC that affects 21 3 1 his or her financial interests or those of a corporation, partnership, or association in which he or she is directly or indirectly interested, in violation of any State law or regulation. 8.05 Mediation a) Any controversy or claim between any Member Agencies, or between any such Member Agency or Member Agencies and the ILJAOC, with respect to the ILJAOC's operations, or to any claims, disputes, demands, differences, controversies, or misunderstandings arising under, out of, or in relation to this Agreement, shall be submitted to and determined by mediation. b) The Member Agency desiring to initiate mediation shall give notice of its intention to every other Member Agency and the ILJAOC. Such notice shall designate such other Member Agencies as the initiating Member Agency intends to have bound by any award made therein. c) Each Member Agency involved in the mediation shall bear its own legal costs, including attorney fees. 8.06 Partiallnvalidity If any one or more of the terms, provisions, sections, promises, covenants or conditions of this Agreement shall to any extent be adjudged invalid, unenforceable or void for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining terms, provisions, sections, promises, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 8.07 Successors This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of the Member Agencies hereto. zz 3a 8.08 Assignment A Member Agency shall not assign any rights or obligations under this Agreement without the written consent of all other Member Agencies. 8.09 Execution The Governing Authorities of the Member Agencies enumerated herein have each authorized execution of this Agreement, as evidenced by the authorized signatures below, respectively. 8.10. Entire Agreement This Agreement, supersedes any and all other agreements whether oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to said matter, and each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that any other agreement or modification of this Agreement shall be effective only if executed in writing and signed by the ILJAOC and all Member Agencies. Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of: 23 CITY OF: M Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 11104/02 Version Rev. 08/16105 3� Exhibit 3 ORANGE COUNTY CHIEF'S & SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION LAW & JUSTICE COMMITTEE ORANGE COUNTY LAW & JUSTICE SYSTEM MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT The parties to this Memorandum agree to work cooperatively to establish a seamless integrated system of information technology and services that maximizes the standardization of data and communications technology among the primary community of interest: law enforcement, district attorneys, state - funded courts, and state - funded adult and youth corrections. in addition, the parties agree to work in a variety of ways to facilitate sharing each other's data in an effort to improve the effectiveness of their respective agency and collectively, the entire Orange County Criminal Justice System. Specifically, the parties to this memorandum agree to work toward establishing a system and /or processes which will: I . Provide criminal justice practitioners who have a need and right to know, with comprehensive, timely and accurate information about a suspect or offender to include identity, criminal history and current justice status. 2. Allow criminal justice practitioners to maintain legacy databases and share only information that has been agreed upon in advance. 3. Reduce redundant document preparation, data entry, transmission, and storage. 4. Strive to identify and achieve common interests to enhance public safety and due process. 5. Maintain individual privacy rights and promote appropriate access controls and security. 6. Support the development of effective criminal justice policy in keeping with the objectives of this project. 7. Strive for the compatibility of automated systems and processes among the various components of the Orange County Criminal Justice System. 8. Acknowledge that each participating agency is responsible for internal agency security for their records, technical support, etc. 35 9. Recognize that in order to achieve overall success, resources (personnel, software, hardware, etc.), must be shared willingly and in some cases unequally, as long as that cooperation does not adversely impact the mission of the sharing agency. 10. Form a steering committee comprised of the heads of the agencies that are a party to this agreement. Based upon the importance of the policy implications and financial commitments which may result from the efforts undertaken, those individuals agree to personally meet at least quarterly (or more often if necessary), to review the progress made and to refocus the steering committee's energy as appropriate. 11. Appoint an alternate to the group who has the authority of the agency head to make decisions in their absence in furtherance of the goals of integrating the automation systems of those agencies serving the Criminal Justice System in Orange County. The appointed alternates are encouraged to attend all of the scheduled meetings; however, they shall attend those sessions, which are in addition to the quarterly participation requirement of the agency head. 12. Provide regular project updates to their respective agency staff and managers, to ensure the agency's goals remain consistent with those of this steering committee. Work with other members of the group to create opportunities to provide those same updates to all Orange County Law & Justice agencies not represented on the Steering Committee. 13. Work together to develop a formal, long -term strategic plan to achieve a more fully integrated justice system through the information sharing which will occur as a result of this collaborative effort. 14. Identify short-term goals and strategies to demonstrate successes at information sharing, which will reinforce the value of this project. 15. During this interim period while the strategic planning process is underway, commit to only considering the purchase of information systems, which have as a predominate feature, an open architecture, so as to facilitate the kind of information sharing opportunities which are consistent with the goals of this agreement. 16. Agree to look for and pursue creative funding opportunities to accomplish the strategic planning process, and to form more specific consortiums if it appears such a vehicle is necessary in order to attract State or Federal funding for the project. 2 Revised 813199 2 17. Amend this agreement as necessary to accomplish the goal of more fully integrating the automation and processes, which serve the Orange County Criminal Justice System. 18. Consider drafting a Charter for the committee when appropriate, to include resolving the definition of a quorum (for voting purposes), limiting the size of the committee for efficiency's sake, and identifying the limitations of the Committee Chair's ability to exercise signatory authority, commit funds, etc. AGENCIES / INDIVIDUALS CURRENTLY REPRESENTED ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE Newport Beach Police Department* Laguna Beach Police Department* Santa Ana Police Department* Huntington Beach Police Department* Buena Park Police Department* Orange County Sheriff's Department* District Attorney's Office* Presiding Judge — Orange County Superior Court Executive Officer — Orange County Superior Court Public Defender's Office Probation Department Orange County City Manager's Association ** County Executive Office * ** * Representing the Orange County Chief's & Sheriff's Association ** Represented by the Orange City Manager and the Brea Assistant City Manager * ** Represented by Leo Crawford, Assistant County Executive Officer, Information & Technology /Anaheim Police Department Brea Police Department Buena Park Police Department Costa Mesa Police Department Acting Chief Roger Baker Revised 8/3/99 l7 �l Cypress Police Department Fountain Valley Police Department Fullerton Police Department Garden Grove Police Department Huntington Beach Police Department Irvine Police Department , La Habra Police Department La Palma Police Department Laguna Beach Police Department Los Alamitos Police Department Newport Beach Police Department Orange County City Manager's Association Orange County City Manager's Association Orange County District Attorney's Office Orange County Executive Office Ch Patrick City Manager David Rudat City of Orange Q Assistant City Manager Tim O'Donnell City of Brea Rackauckas Leo Crawford,"Assistant Information & Technology �} Revised 813/99 3z Orange County Marshal's Department Orange County Probation Department Orange County Public Defender's Office Orange County Sheriff's Department Orange County Superior Court Orange County Superior Court Orange Police Department Placentia Police Department Santa Ana Police Department Seal Beach Police Department Tustin Police Department Westminster Police Department Ch Ho Michael Schumacher rona Exec omann Chief Paul Wdalters�/Q� Chief Michael Sellers Chi f Sleve Foster J G James 5 Revised 813/99 3� /I , Deloitte. October 21, 2005 Mr. Tim O'Donnell City Manager City of Brea 1 Civic Center Circle Brea, CA 92821 USA Dear Mr. O'Donnell: Exhibit 4 Deloitte Consulting LLP 2868 Prospect Park Drive Suite 400 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 USA Tel: +1 916 286 3100 Fax: +19%2883131 w .deloitte.com As discussed at the last City Manager's meeting that we attended, Deloitte has completed the development of a preliminary operating budget for the proposed Orange County Integrated Justice JPA. The costs are made up of two broad categories. The first is general operations, management and overhead costs that can be expected to be incurred. The second is maintenance related costs associated with the existing projects that have been deployed (COPLINK, the subpoena delivery system and the scheduling system). The costs are still preliminary and therefore we have attempted to put together a very conservative budget to indicate what the costs would be for operating the existing systems in a worst -case scenario. From the perspective of the City Managers, the most important consideration is the impact on each City. Even that is somewhat challenging to get to as the most significant issue faced in developing the costs is the level of participation by the County agencies, the Sheriff's Department and the Sheriff' s contract cities. The following table therefore outlines a worst -case scenario (from a cost sharing perspective) where the County, the Sheriff's Department and the contract cities do not participate. Agency Cost Share 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Superior Court 5% $32,000 $49,000 $88,000 $88,000 $88,000 Anaheim 13.9% $87,000 $136,000 $243,000 $243,000 $243,000 Brea 1.6% $10,000 $16,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 Yorba Linda 2.6% $17,000 $26,000 $47,000 $47,000 $47,000 Buena park 3.3% $21,000 $32,000 $57,000 $57,000 $57,000 Costa Mesa 4.6% $29,000 $45,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 Cypress 2.0% $13,000 $20,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 Fountain Valley 2.3% $15,000 $23,000 $41,000 $41,000 $41,000 Fullerton 5.4% $35,000 $54,000 $96,000 $96,000 $96,000 Garden Grove 6.9% $44,000 $68,000 $121,000 $121,000 $121,000 Huntington Beach 8.1% $51,000 $79,000 $141,000 $141,000 $141,000 Irvine 7.3% $46,000 $71,000 $127,000 $127,000J $127,000 La Habra 2.5% $16,000 $25,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 La Palma 0.6% $5,000 $7,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 Laguna Beach 1.0% $7,000 $10,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 Los Alamitos 0.5% $4,000 $5,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 Newport Beach 3.3% $21,000 $33,000 $59,000 $59,000 $59,000 Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (l, Mr. Tim O'Donnell October 21, 2005 Page 2 Agency Cost Share 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Orange 5.5% $35,000 $55,000 $97,000 $97,000 $97,000 Placentia 2.0% $13,000 $20,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 Santa Ana 14.1% $89,000 $138,000 $247,000 $247,000 $247,000 Seal Beach 1.0% $7,000 $10,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 Tustin 2.8% $18,000 $28,000 $50,000 $50,000 50,000 Westminster 3.7% $24,000 $37,000 $65 OOO $65,000 $65,000 Total 100.0% $641,006 $989,007 $1,761,008 1 $1,761,009 $1,761,010 The above table outlines estimated operating costs across each of the next five years for those municipalities with Police Departments and includes the Superior Court. Amore favorable cost allocation (attached as Table 2) provides a scenario based on the participation of the County, the Sheriff and the contract cities. As mentioned above, the costs are made up of specific technical services costs associated with maintaining the system as well as operational costs to cover the administration and operation of the JPA. We are finding, not unexpectedly, that a significant effort is required to deal with regular administration of the systems including coordinating and conducting training, managing accounts and passwords, overseeing vendors and generally managing the operations and lifecycle of the systems. The operations costs presented in the table below are intended to cover those costs. Operations Costs Management and Consulting Contract $200,000 Risk Management and Insurance $50,000 Security Services $100,000 Data Center Operations and Maintenance $50,000 Network Costs $20,000 The management and consulting costs are a very high level estimate for operations management and associated consulting. Our understanding is that you intend to contract for these services rather than having a permanent staff and this approach is certainly logical for a number of reasons. We believe strongly that this is an important function. The personnel would provide important services including day - today administration, vendor coordination, contract management and performance of general agency support, such as coordinating training, demonstrations and other activities. We also believe that it will likely be necessary to procure some insurance in the near future at least to indemnify the directors and board members of the JPA. In the past, the justice community has relied on the Sheriff's Department for setting and enforcing security standards. Clearly in the current situation that strategy is no longer appropriate. The JPA members need to take direct responsibility for performing the security due diligence in order to protect the systems and information and to manage the liability of the member agencies. 42- Mr. Tim O'Donnell October 21, 2005 Page 3 At the current time, we are not incurring data center or network operations costs; however, we believe it prudent to have an allowance for such costs in the event that Santa Ana (or other operator) needs to start recovering costs associated with housing the OCILJ systems. The system specific costs are presented in the table below. System Maintenance Annual Maintenance Periodic Enhancements Hardware Refresh Reserve COPLINK $300,000 $300,000 $75,000 Subpoena Delivery $60,000 $60,000 $15,000 Scheduling $180,000 $180,000 $45,000 Network Infrastructure $30,000 $30,000 $7,500 Data Center Infrastructure $20,000 $20,000 $5,000 Maintenance is estimated based on our understanding to date. The periodic enhancement amounts are really optional and the participating agencies would have the opportunity to decide to make those expenditures or not. To date these kinds of expenditures have been funded through grant funds and it is possible that you may be able to continue to do so for some time. We felt that for the purposes of fully understanding the potential costs it was important to include some allowance in the event that enhancements would be funded in the absence of grant funding. The hardware refresh reserve is our recommended amount that should be placed in reserve on an annual basis to replace the infrastructure every 4 to 6 years. The operations costs are not expected to reach these levels immediately. We have structured most of the contracts in a manner that allows for several years of maintenance to be rolled into the capital costs of the system and therefore it will take several years for the fully operational cost impact to be realized. Our initial estimate of how the costs will roll out in the next five years is summarized in the table below. Year Operations and Maintenance Enhancements Hardware Refresh Total Operating 2006 $240,000 $240,000 $147,500 $627,500 2007 $240,000 $590,000 $147,500 $977,500 2008 $1,010,000 $590,000 $147,500 $1,747,500 2009 $1,010,000 $590,000 $147,500 $1,747,500 2010 $1,010,000 $590,000 $147,500 1 $1,747,500 The costs incurred by each agency are dependent on a range of factors including the actual costs (The estimates provided here are thought to be very conservative) and the number of agencies that are participating. The table included in the body of this letter outlines the cost allocation to each of the agencies based on the County agencies and the Sheriff's Department not participating. Clearly this is a worst -case scenario. q3 Mr. Tim O'Donnell October 21, 2005 Page 4 Again, I want to reinforce that these costs are conservative. The agencies will have the ability to decide how full featured they want the organization to be, and especially to what degree to pursue enhancements and other initiatives that will increase overall costs. I do think it is important though, to put forward the costs in such a manner to allow stakeholders to understand the range of costs that they may incur to support the systems on a go- forward basis. Sincerely, Stephen Lee 41t Table 1 Cost Distribution without County Participation Agency Cost Share 2006 '2007 2008 2009 2010 Superior Court 5% $32,000 $49,000 $88,000 $88,000 $88,000 Anaheim 13.9% $87,000 $136,000 $243,000 $243,000 $243,000 Brea 1.6% $10,000 $16,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 Yorba Linda 2.6% $17,000 $26,000 $47,000 $47,000 $47,000 Buena park 3.3% $21,000 $32,000 $57,000 $57,000 $57,000 Costa Mesa 4.6% $29,000 $45,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 Cypress 2.0% $13,000 $20,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 Fountain Valley 2.3% $15,000 $23,000 $41,000 $41,000 $41,000 Fullerton 5.4% $35,000 $54,000 $96,000 $96,000 $96,000 Garden Grove 6.9% $44,000 $68,000 $121,000 $121,000 $121,000 Huntington Beach 8.1% $51,000 $79,000 $141,000 $141,000 $141,000 Irvine 7.3% $46,000 $71,000 $127,000 $127,000 $127,000 La Habra 2.5% $16,000 $25,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 La Palma 0.6% $5,000 $7,000 1 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 Laguna Beach 1.0% $7,000 $10,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 Los Alamitos 0.5% $4,000 $5,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 Newport Beach 3.3% $21,000 $33,000 $59,000 $59,000 $59,000 Orange 5.5% $35,000 $55,000. $97,000 $97,000 $97,000 Placentia 2.0% $13,000 $20,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 Santa Ana 14.1% $89,000 $138,000 $247,000 $247,000 $247,000 Seal Beach 1.0%r $7,OOb $10,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 Tustin 2.8% $18,000 $28,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Westminster 3.7% $24,000 $37,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 Total 100.0% 1 $641,006 $989,007 1 $1,761,008 $1,761,009 $1,761010 46 Table 2 Cost Distribution with County Participation Agency Cost Share 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 County of Orange 15% $95,000 $147,000 $263,000 $263,000 $263,000 Superior Court 5% $32,000 $49,000 $88,000 $88,000 $88,000 Anaheim 9.0% $57,000 $89,000 $158,000 $158,000 $158,000 Brea 1.0% $7,000 $11,000 $19,000 $19,000 $19,000 Yorba Linda 1.7% $11,000 $17,000 $31,000 $31,000 $31,000 Buena park 2.1% $14,000 $21,000 $38,000 $38,000 $38,000 Costa Mesa 3.0% $19,000_ $30,000 $52,000 $52,000 $52,000 Cypress 1.3% $9,000 $13,000 $23,000 $23,000 $23,000 Fountain Valley 1.5% $10,000 $15,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 Fullerton 3.6% $23,000 $35,000 $63,000 $63,000 $63,000 Garden Grove 4.5% $29,000 $45,000 $79,000 $79,000 $79,000 Huntington Beach 5.3% $33,000 $52,000 $92,000 $92,000 $92,000 Irvine 4.7% 1 $30,000 $47,000 $83,000 $83,000 $83,000 La Habra 1.6% $11,000 $16,000 $29,000 -$29,000 $29,000 La Palma 0.4% $3,000 $5,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 Laguna Beach 0.7% $5,000 $7,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 Los Alamitos 0.3% $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 Newport Beach 2.2% $14,000 $22,000 $39,000 $39,000 $39,000 Orange 3.6% $23,000 $36,000 $64,000 $64,000 $64,000 Placentia 1.3% 1 $9,000 $13,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 Santa Ana 9.2% $58,000 $90,000 $161,000 $161,000 $161,000 Seal Beach 0.7% $5,000 $7,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 Tustin 1.9% $12,000 $19,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 Westminster 2.4% $16,000 $24,000 $43,000 $43,000 $43,000 OCSD Aliso Viejo 1.2% $8,000 $12,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 Dana Point 1.0% $7,000 $-10-,0- ON $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 Laguna Hills 0.9% $6,000 $9,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 Laguna Niguel 1.79/6 $11,000 $17,000 $31,000 $31,000 $31,000 Laguna Woods 0.5% $4,000 $5,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 Lake Forest 2.0 °/, $13,000 $20,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 Mission Viejo 2.6% $17,000 $26,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 Rancho Santa Margarita 1.3% $8,000 $13,000 $23,000 $23,000 $23,000 San Clemente 1.7% $11,000 $17,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 San Juan Capistrano 0.9% $6,000 $10,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 Stanton 1.0% $7,000 $10,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 Villa Park 0.2% $2,000 $2,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Unincorporated 3.1% $20,000 $31,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 Total 100.0% $647,000 $996,000 $1,768,000 $1,768,000 $1,768,000 v ORANGE COUNTY CHIEFS' & SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION V14ANDAMMI ibit 5 LAW & JUSTICE COMMITTEE August 22, 2005 Mr. Bob Dominguez, President Orange County City Managers' Association C/O City Manager's Office City of Placentia 401 East Chapman Avenue Placentia, CA 92870 Dear President Dominguez: As members of the Orange County Criminal Justice System and in some cases, concurrently serving on the Orange County Integrated Law & Justice ( OCILJ) Steering Committee, we are writing to you to convey a sense of urgency and to enlist your support to finally implement the recommended governance structure for the OCILJ Project. By way of background, this Project has been in existence since early 1997 and has progressed through the production of a Strategic Plan and the identification of eight different initiatives, which we have been in the process of implementing once the Orange County Chiefs' and Sheriffs Association (OCCSA) adopted the Plan unanimously in 2001. For those City Managers not familiar with the Strategic Plan, it was the result of a combined effort of the entire Criminal Justice System to identify issues which have led to improvements in the sharing of information and processes among all those involved. We have made great strides in breaking down many traditional barriers that have existed, and have implemented innovative approaches to the electronic sharing of information, using leading edge technology. The Plan is available if you would like to review it in more detail. Over the past five years, we have received continued Federal funding for the Project totaling well over $3 million dollars, through the assistance of former Congressman Christopher Cox. We also have received actual and projected funding commitments through Urban Area Security Initiative Grants totaling approximately $2 million in additional dollars. As part of our work on a number of identified initiatives in the Strategic Plan, we are now engaged in what can best be described as one of the "centerpieces" of the Project — the implementation of the COPLINK System, about which you will learn more during your September 7`" meeting. The essence of the System will be to link all of the disparate criminal justice databases which exist in the County — over two dozen — in an effort to share data and produce investigative leads for Police Officers, Sheriffs Deputies (assuming the Sheriff ultimately decides to participate), and other authorized users of the System. Effective July 18�h, we went "live" with Phase 1 of the Project and have linked the databases of five municipal police departments and the entire Court Citation Database, which q-I OCCMA President Dominguez August 22, 2005 Page 2 includes all citations written in this County, including all those written by the California Highway Patrol. We are now engaged in Phase 2 of the Project, which will bring together the rest of the members of the Criminal Justice System, represented by the signatures of those agency heads listed in this correspondence, as their organizations are able to make the transition. In a June 19, 2002 letter (copy attached) to the OCILJ Steering Committee, the Orange County City Managers' Association ( OCCMA) reported on the results of their review of alternative governance models as presented for the Project by the County of Orange Executive Office and the Sheriffs Department at your April 3, 2002 meeting. The latter presentation was compared to the proposed Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Governance recommended by the OCILJ Steering Committee and your representatives on that Committee, City Managers Tim O'Donnell and Dave Rudat. In your letter, you reported that your membership "voted overwhelmingly in concept to support the JPA Governance model presented." Following that direction, we proceeded to have the draft of the JPA document reviewed by numerous cities' attorneys, as well as County Counsel. The Steering Committee Chairman, along with City Manager Tim O'Donnell, had already met with then County Executive Officer (CEO), Michael Schumacher, and County Assistant CEO, Bill Mahoney, on December 12, 2001, to negotiate the language in the draft document — line by line. We discussed and reached agreement on all of the proposed language until CEO Schumacher felt that the County's interests were addressed. In a follow -up e-mail, dated March 30, 2002, he acknowledged that fact by stating that, "Bill Mahoney and I met with you and Tim on the JPA until we were all satisfied with the document." Several cities proceeded to adopt the proposed JPA, and it was agendized for Board of Supervisors' action on Tuesday, December 10, 2002, as proposed by the District Attorney who was presenting the action to the Board. The District Attorney decided to carry the item because the Sheriffs position at the time was to "not oppose" the action, although he would not advocate for it. Several days before the Board was to consider the matter, Assistant Sheriff Doug Storm notified the Steering Committee Chairman that the Sheriff had changed his position and would now oppose the action and advocated the South County Contract City Managers to do likewise. In fairness to those Managers, and according to their reports, they had not been kept abreast of the Project and its associated implications by the Sheriffs staff. As a result of a request by Supervisor Wilson, the District Attorney withdrew the Board item for consideration and it has never returned for their review. go OCCMA President Dominguez August 22, 2005 Page 3 Meanwhile, a committee of South County Contract City Managers was formed, and numerous sessions were held in an effort to find some common ground with their colleagues in cites with municipal police departments. The OCILJ Steering Committee Chairman and other members participated in a number of those meetings. To date, the matter has not been formally reconsidered by the full membership of the OCCMA. The underlying intent of this correspondence is to make it clear we do not believe more time can go by without resolving the governance issue. Currently, we have OCILJ applications in operation that have now exceeded their warranty and require ongoing maintenance and support, which we are unable to address due to the lack of governance. While we still have ample grant funds for new or expanded applications as part of our Strategic Plan implementation, they are not eligible to be spent for ongoing maintenance and support costs. When the proposed JPA was last discussed, it was our intent (or hope) to utilize the Sheriffs Telecommunications Network to operate the anticipated applications. When the latest data - sharing ( COPLINK) Initiative was implemented, the Sheriffs Department would not allow it to operate on their network for a variety of reasons. As a result, it forced the OCILJ to develop an alternative — and we did. The COPLINK application now functions on the Internet through a Virtual Private Network (VPN), which affords it a proper level of security to comply with established standards for such information sharing. The new network is hosted by the City of Santa Ana and their Police Department and is performing as intended. As a result, we now have the ability to "plug -in" or "un- plug" those agencies /departments who do not want to be a part of the JPA and share their information cooperatively with the rest of us. Accordingly, we are no longer dependant on the Sheriffs Department to host the applications being developed. Those individuals representing their agencies by signing this correspondence intend to share such information. We would also like to make it clear that we still hope the Sheriff ultimately comes to the informed conclusion that it is in the best interest of those he represents to participate in this collective effort. His Department provides police services to 23% of the population from the unincorporated and contract cities in Orange County and as a result, it makes logical sense to share the information he collects on their behalf with the rest of the Criminal Justice System in this County. However, should that not be the case, there no longer is a technical reason to prevent the rest of us from doing so, nor is there any reason to prevent us from adopting a JPA form of governance to oversee the full implementation of the adopted Strategic Plan and the ongoing support of our efforts over the course of many years to come. uq OCCMA President Dominguez August 22, 2005 Page 4 As a result of all of these facts, you will also find attached to this correspondence a current 2005 Draft Copy of the proposed OCILJ Joint Powers Authority document, the substance of which contains the same language that has been in existence for a number of years. It has undergone much legal and policy review and should be ready for adoption, should that be the ultimate decision. In summary, we are asking you to move forward with any final review you believe is necessary. However, in our professional opinion, after three and one -half years of waiting, we need resolution and your support to implement the JPA and cement the hard work that has brought us to this point by protecting the long- term investment of resources devoted to this effort. Respectfully submitted, Chjet✓ Ike M ssina, President Police Department President, OCCSA Chief John Hensley Costa Mesa Police Department Vice President, OCCSA Chief Didve M g Irvine Police Department Secretary/Treasurer, OCCSA A.Q� Chief Mike Sellers"` Seal Beach Police Department "WL Y Chief Bob McDonell` Newport Beach Police Department Chairman, Law & Justice Committee Chief Dennis Kies La Habra Police Department Immediate Past President, OCCSA Chief Paul Walters* Santa Ana Police Department L1 OCCMA President Dominguez August 22, 2005 Page 5 Chi f John Welter* Anaheim Police Department Chief Scott Jord i Tustin Police D artment Chief Tom Monson Buena Park Police Department , Chief at cKinley Fullerton Police Dep rtment Chief Ken Small Chief Rick Hicks* Cypress Police Department Chief Bob Gustafson Orange Police Departmen ;an W� Chief Paul Sorrell Fountain Valley Police Department C° li," N.G.,e� Chief Joe Polisar Garden Grove Police Department "I I Chief Ed Ethell Huntington Beach Police Department La Palma Police Department Chief Mike /McCrary Los Alamitos Police Depa ent i Chief Andy Hall Westminster Police Department Chief J hn Schaefer Placentia Police Department residing Judge Fred Horn Orange County Superior Court 51 OCCMA President Dominguez August 22, 2005 Page 6 YL�Ag� Executive Officer Alan Slater Orange County Superior Court District orney Tony Rackauckas Orange County District Attorney's Office * Member, Law & Justice Steering Committee Attachments: 1. OCCMA Letter Dated June 18, 2002 2. County of Orange, Board of Supervisors Agenda Item Transmittal Dated December 10, 2002 3. Current Draft of Integrated Law & Justice JPA Document 5 I Alm. Viejo Anaheim Bra Buena Park Coen Mma Cnteaa Dana Point Fountain Valk, Fullmon Garden Grove Haminglon Beach IrviM La Habra La Palma Laguna Beach Laguna Hills Laguna Niguel Lake Forest Las Alamitos Mission Viejo Newport Beach Orange Placentia Rancho Santa Mar,wma San Clemcme San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton T-6. Exhibit 6 Orange County City Managers' Association c/o City Administrator's Office City of Placentia 401 E. Chapman Avenue Placentia, CA 92870 Tel: (714) 993-8117 Fax: (714) 961-0283 November 14, 2005 Dear On November 2, 2005 those Orange County City Managers with municipal police departments acted to endorse the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) model for governance of the Integrated Law & Justice Project (ILJ). At the time the action was taken and as anticipated, the City Manager representatives that contract for law enforcement services with the Sheriff s Department abstained from the vote. The recommendation of the City Managers Association ( OCCMA) is based upon many months of evaluation of the work of the ILJ Steering Committee to implement the Initiatives identified in the Strategic Plan completed with participation from the entire Criminal Justice System in Orange County and endorsed by all involved. The most recent data - sharing Initiative (known as COPLINK) was demonstrated for the OCCMA at our September Meeting. This very sophisticated system will allow for the availability and integration of Criminal Justice data Countywide at the patrol officer and investigator level. Information that has only been available within each jurisdiction will now be available to all law enforcement agencies participating in the project. This latest effort represents a tremendous step forward by making investigative lead information readily available to all law enforcement personnel almost instantaneously. The on -going work of the Integrated Law & Justice Project has been endorsed by the Orange County Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Association and has been led by the Newport Beach Police Chief, Bob McDonell, who has served as Chair of the Project Steering Committee for approximately seven years. The City Managers endorsing the JPA have determined that the time for establishing a formal governance model has come, based upon the fact that a number of the projects already implemented have exceeded their warranty period and others need the strength of institutionalized governance that will insure the coordinated efforts of all involved remain viable and improved for years to come. Additional projects identified in the Strategic Plan are planned for implementation once the COPLINK System is finalized. 53 Date Page Two During the recent meeting of Orange County City Managers Association, a question arose regarding costs for operations and management of the JPA. The attached information prepared by Deloitte Consulting is representative of the anticipated costs. They have been developed at the most conservative level, so it is expected that the actual costs will not exceed those identified. Two cost formulas were provided, one without the County's participation and one with their involvement if the Sheriff changes his position. Accordingly, the recommendation of the Orange County City Managers Association is for each City with a municipal police department to consider approving the JPA model so the investments already made in this very valuable Project and systems like COPLINK, can be protected in future years. It is our hope and understanding that the Sheriff is revaluating his past position on the overall Project and COPLM in particular, which could provide a method of including the County (and therefore the Contract Cities) in this very worthwhile effort and reducing the shared costs for everyone. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me or the two lead representatives from the City Managers Association, Tim O'Donnell, 990 -7711, or Chief Bob McDonell, 644 -3701. Sincerely, Robert C. Dominguez City Administrator RCD /mp 5q Exhibit 7 RMS / CMS Information Sharing COPLINK System Use Policy 10/4/2005 1. OVERVIEW OF THIS POLICY a. Backaround: The goal of the RMS /CMS Information Sharing Project is to enhance the effectiveness of law and justice agencies by increasing information sharing related to criminal activities. The Orange County Integrated Law and Justice ( OCILJ) agencies have assisted in the design and implementation of a method of sharing law and justice information that permits the electronic access to information maintained by those agencies. The implementation of the COPLINK System serves as a solution to the problems of inaccessible or irretrievable information as a result of disparate information systems that lack a common platform and the difficulty in sharing data across jurisdictional boundaries. b. Intended Benefits: By facilitating the sharing of public safety information with law and justice partners, OCILJ agencies can improve their responses to community crime and enhance overall investigative capacity. The COPLINK System provides sophisticated analytical tools that will enable authorized users to discover links and relationships by providing consolidated data across Orange County. This may allow them to solve previously "unsolvable" incidents and investigate serial criminal activity. c. Pur ose of Policy: The purpose of the COPLINK System Use Policy is to outline conditions under which the OCILJ agencies will share and use information in the COPLINK System. By signing this policy, all COPLINK System agencies, as well as all individuals who operate or use the COPLINK System, agree to adhere to the guidelines specified in this policy and support the public benefit derived from the electronic sharing of public safety information. d. Aqencv Participation: The COPLINK System is a cooperative venture of the justice agencies in Orange County, California. Agencies can apply to participate through the OCILJ Steering Committee by submitting a proposal that outlines their intended use of the System, the type of data they intend to contribute and any other information requested by OCILJ. A two - thirds majority vote of approval of the Steering Committee is required to approve an agency's participation in the System. Once approved, the agency will proactively cooperate with OCILJ, the other participating agencies, and any contractors working to implement and manage the system to obtain the cooperation of their own System vendors and or maintenance contractors to facilitate: 1. Network access and connectivity 2. Data extracts for engineering and testing purposes 3. Production extracts 4. Required modifications to their source systems 5. Regular data updates as agreed to during the design process 6. Timely review and approval of design documents and test results Page 1 of 11 RMS /CMS Information Sharing Scope Change Request Form 11/14/2005 e. Agencv Withdrawal: An agency may withdraw their participation in COPLINK at any time by providing written notice to OCILJ that they wish to withdraw their participation. In the event that the agency wishes their data withdrawn from the COPLINK repository as part of the termination of their participation, the withdrawing agency is responsible for contacting the maintenance vendor (currently Knowledge Computing Corporation) and requesting the data removal. The withdrawing agency is responsible for the cost associated with the removal of their data from the repository. II. AUTHORIZED RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. Sharing of Information: Each participating agency authorizes the release of information residing in their records management system to all users of the COPLINK System as permitted by law. It is the responsibility of each agency to specify which data points to share and any other special requirements. Agencies will participate in several testing sessions, where they will validate and ensure that their information is accurately reflected in the new System. 1. California law prohibits the release of victim information in specific sex related crimes to unauthorized users. b. Limitation on Information Sharing: Information contributed by each agency shall only be shared with or released to those agencies that have entered into this Agreement. Only authorized agency employees that have an approved login and password, will be allowed to access or use information in the COPLINK System. All queries must only be made by such users. c. Liability: Knowledge Computing Corporation and each agency is solely responsible and liable for any damages, losses, claims, judgments, and expenses resulting from injury to any person or damage to any properties, which arise out of its own employee's performance and use of the System under this Agreement. d. Indemnification: Knowledge Computing Corporation, the COPLINK maintenance vendor, and each User Agency that accesses information through the COPLINK System shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other User Agencies, their County or Cities, City Councils, Board of Supervisors and other elected officials, boards and commissions, officers, agents, and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death, or damage to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements, and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever (individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims "), which may arise from the improper use or release of information obtained through the COPLINK System by the Knowledge Computing Corporation or accessing User Agency, including as a result of the negligent and /or willful acts, errors, and/or Page 2 of 11 r� RMS / CMS Information Sharing Scope Change Request Form 11/14/2005 omissions of Knowledge Computing Corporation, or the User Agency, its principals, officers, agents, employees, elected officials, and anyone employed directly or indirectly by them or for whose acts they may be liable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to require Knowledge Computing Corporation or the accessing User Agency to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by Knowledge Computing Corporation or the User Agency. e. Internal Audit: Each Agency's System Administrator shall conduct an internal audit on a periodic basis to ensure information is reasonably up to date and user queries are made for legitimate law enforcement purposes. Ill. INFORMATION OWNERSHIP a. Ownership: Individual agencies retain control of all of information they provide through the System at all times. Each agency is responsible for creating, updating, and deleting records in its own records management system or database, according to its own policies. The originating agency is solely responsible for the completeness and accuracy of its source data. b. Unauthorized Requests: Any request for access to information hosted in the COPLINK System that is not authorized for viewing will be referred to the agency that owns the information being requested. Except as required by law, information shall not be released or made available to any unauthorized requestor without the approval of the agency having ownership of the original source data. IV. UNDERSTANDING ON ACCURACY OF INFORMATION a. Accuracy of Information: Agencies agree that the data maintained in the COPLINK System consists of information assumed to be accurate. However, data inaccuracies can arise for multiple reasons (e.g., entry errors, misinterpretation, outdated data, etc). It is the responsibility of the agency requesting or using the data to confirm the accuracy of the information with the owning agency before taking any enforcement - related action. b. Timeliness of Information: As a part of the System design process, each agency determines the frequency with which their data will be refreshed in COPLINK. In addition, agencies have their own policies and speed at which incidents are recorded in their records management systems. Since changes Page 3 of 11 51 RMS /CMS Information Sharing Scope Change Request Form 11/14/2005 or additions to data do not get updated in COPLINK on a real -time basis, agencies recognize that information may not always be timely and relevant. It is the responsibility of the agency requesting the data to confirm the timeliness and relevance of the information with the owning agency. Additionally, a data refresh schedule will be published by the System Administrator to enable a user to determine the potential timeliness of each agency's data. c. Hold Harmless: To the extent permitted by law, agencies agree to hold information owners harmless for any information which is in the COPLINK repository, or any action taken as a result of that data, regardless of whether the data is accurate or not, or any time delay associated with changes,. additions, or deletions to the information contributed. V. USER ACCESS a. Login Application Process: Each user agency shall appoint their own agency - specific System Administrator who is responsible for management of user accounts at that agency. An overall Network System Administrator will also be appointed. The user may submit a request for a login and password to their Agency System Administrator. The agency agrees that all users shall be current employees and be authorized to review criminal history data for legitimate purposes. The Agency System Administrator may deny or revoke individual access in their sole discretion. b. Login Assignment: Each individual user will be issued a user login and a default password by their Agency System Administrator. Upon logging into COPLINK for the first time, each user will change the default password to another password. Users may also be assigned to groups that have different access rights to the information in the system based on the level of restriction of the information. c. Provision of Policy: The Agency System Administrator must provide a copy of the terms and conditions of this policy to all users when they are issued a login ID for the system. d. Limitations on Use of Logins: Each user must comply with the System Use Policy guidelines. A user may not access COPLINK by using a name or password that was assigned to another user. A user cannot give his or her password to another person, including another user, to access the system. e. Audit Trail: Each transaction on COPLINK is logged and an audit trail created, which is resident on the System for a minimum of three years. Requests for transaction logs shall be made in writing through the requestor's chain -of- command to their Agency System Administrator. f. Termination of Logins: Participating agencies will be responsible (through their Agency System Administrator) for timely removal of any login accounts as users leave the agency or as they fail to meet the requirements for access to the System. Page 4 of 11 RMS / CMS Information Sharing Scope Change Request Form 11/14/2005 VI. INTENDED USE OF THE SYSTEM a. Intended Use: Each user agrees that the use of the COPLINK System, the information contained in it, and the networking resources provided are for reasons related to the mission of the OCILJ agencies. Users acknowledge that the information hosted in the COPLINK System will be shared and used for authorized purposes only as permitted by law. No user can use or share the information for any unethical, illegal, or criminal purpose. VII. UNDERSTANDING ON CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION a. Information Confidentiality: Each user agrees that information in the COPLINK System is confidential and is not subject to public disclosure, except as required by law. Only agency employees that have an authenticated login and password are allowed to view and use the information. The information will otherwise be kept confidential. b. Internal Requests for Information: A COPLINK System user who receives a request from a non - authorized requestor for information in the COPLINK System (of which they are not the originating source) shall not release that information, but may refer the requester to the agency that is the source. A COPLINK System user who receives a court order to release information in the COPLINK System will immediately provide a copy of the court order to the owner /source agency that originally provided the information and to his /her own Agency System Administrator. The owner /source agency is responsible for preparing a timely response to the court order or, in the event of a failure to respond, allows the receiving agency to respond as necessary to comply with the order. Any challenge or objection to the order is the responsibility of the owner /source agency. c. Confidential Records: An agency that does not want data made available from its records management system to any COPLINK user is responsible for ensuring that the data is not included in a data transfer to the COPLINK System. An agency that only wants data from its records management system to be made available to a select group of COPLINK users is responsible for placing the appropriate restriction indicator on the underlying data in the agency's internal records management system or database. d. Removal or Expungement of Records: As part of the design of an agency's data updates, the period at which a record deletion, removal expungement or other edit is transferred to the repository from the source system will be defined. If an agency requires a record edited, removed, or otherwise changed in a more timely manner, they are responsible for contacting the maintenance contractor (currently Knowledge Computing Corporation) directly and arranging for such a change to be manually processed to their data. Page 5 of 11 1A RMS / CMS Information Sharing Scope Change Request Form 11/14/2005 VIII. SYSTEM ACCESS a. Network Access: Access to other member agencies' information will be provided utilizing a virtual private network maintained by the City of Santa Ana or any other secure network. configuration that is mutually acceptable to the member agencies. b. Svstem Availability: The information residing in the COPLINK System shall be available on a 24 -hour a day, 7 days a week basis with downtime limited to those hours required for any necessary System maintenance activities. Agencies agree to inform each other in advance, whenever possible, of scheduled System downtimes. For policies related to the network, service levels, and security, please refer to the Service Level Agreement document. IX. POLICY TERMS a. Term: The term of this policy will commence on the date that it is adopted by the first OCILJ agency. b. Changes to Policy: After implementing the COPLINK System with Phase 1 agencies, it is anticipated that the System will also be implemented across the other Phase 2 agencies. New agency members may be added to this policy by signing an amended copy of the agreement and accepting its conditions and obtaining an approval for their membership by a majority of the OCILJ Steering Committee. Based on ongoing monitoring of the System, agencies may propose other changes to this policy. Such proposals require the approval of a two - thirds majority of the participating agencies and the OCILJ Steering Committee. c. Supplemental Policies: All participating agencies that operate their own computers or networks may add individual guidelines which supplement, but do not relax, this policy. d. Sanctions for Non - Compliance: If any agency violates the guidelines of this policy with regard to accessing, sharing, or using information, that agency may be disconnected from the COPLINK System. The offending agency will be provided with a 60 day written notice of the violation and the opportunity to correct the violation. Failure to meet the guidelines will result in the termination of System access for the offending agency. All disputes concerning access shall be determined by a two - thirds majority vote of the OCILJ Steering Committee. X. SIGN -OFF ON EXECUTION OF POLICY By signing this agreement, all representatives and their participating agencies contributing or using information from this System agree to implement and adhere to the provisions as outlined. Page 6 of 11 17 RMS / CMS Information Sharing Scope Change Request Form Page 7 of 11 6( Signa e jrj / /V Date /� C.PC/vr -c Printed Name and Title S'gn tur Date /0 _c fyv U7 V--c Printed Name and Title 4G� nn f— 4 N . L7 � • SigndtqrV • Date /o - c -es' Printed Name and Title �� az ignature e�l I S' S Date v2 — Printed Nam a d Title uu • • Signature . Qn6 HC�)weii � C(n��Dof PoUc- Printed Name and Title • - , Si nIt e '08` 7- i>', Gksr><lFsod to /b •- /0 - bS Gfi&�G of i'oc IFCd�" Printed Name and Title • Signature • _ � / - / Date to C 7 Painted Name and Title Page 7 of 11 6( RMS / CMS Information Sharing Scope Change Request Form 10/4/2005 Signature Date Printed Name and Title -�- Name and Title i Date i D - t C- Signature Date f,7 � Printed Name and Title RA- q MO. crMc l-� aF fvcte k{ Signature Date l Printed Name and Title (�^( • � n fps �/ / Signature (r�c1�f� t< �. r•.cC.ti -Sa r-� Date , 'nted Name and Title C Sign ure 1�1ti j -,� WE5 Date 2-0 S Printed Name and Title PO cr— C-01 E r Signature `064/ /P,C� ItJ'" -� j/"�� Date Printed Name and Title 5S(,Av- M Page 8 of 11 a RMS l CMS Information Sharing Scope Change Request Form 10/4/2005 Page 9 of 11 4 cG v(--� pcuc� 4G RMS / CMS Information Sharing Scope Change Request Form 1, A- Signature -• --Prohn-5 C 140a3o>J Date 10 PrintedAlame and Title _ L Si nature - Date Title rJ'°"`�� J ^�� ✓' Printed Name and Signature • . Date �W Printed Name and Title • Signature Date • Printed Name and Title • Signature Date (2a3 ate L Printed Name and Title Robert Griffin, President and CEO Signature Date Printed Name and Title Page 10 of 11 0 RMS /CMS Information Sharing Scope Change Request Form 10/4/2005 Signature Date Printed Name and Title Page 11 of 11 tU" ✓'