Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - August 24, 2010 SSLODI CITY COUNCIL SHIRTSLEEVE SESSION CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2010 A. Roll Call by City Clerk An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday, August 24, 2010, commencing at 7:00 a.m. Present: Council Member Hansen, Council Member Johnson, and Mayor Pro Tempore Hitchcock Absent: Council Member Mounce, and Mayor Katzakian Also Present: Interim City Manager Bartlam, City Attorney Schwabauer, and City Clerk Johl B. Topic(s) B-1 Presentation on Transit Sunday Service Statistics, Transit Route and Schedule Modifications, and Parking Structure Security Services Update (PW) Interim City Manager Rad Bartlam provided a brief introduction to the subject matter of transit status and statistics. Transportation Manager/Senior Traffic Engineer Paula Fernandez provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the transit service statistics, transit route and schedule modifications, and parking structure security services update. Specific topics of discussion included Fiscal Year 2009/10 transit passengers, total ridership for 2009/10, passengers per revenue hours, service costs, transit route and schedule modifications, parking structure security service statistics, and security services recommendations and implementation. In response to Council Member Hansen, Ms. Fernandez stated the ridership statistics represent the numbers for Fiscal Year 2009/10. In response to Council Member Hansen, Ms. Fernandez stated that, when hours were reduced, the fare collection and ridership numbers went down and therefore increased the subsidy per passenger. In response to Council Member Hansen, Ms. Fernandez stated the subsidy is calculated based upon operating costs for a year minus the fare collected for that year, which results in the average subsidy. In response to Council Member Johnson, Ms. Fernandez stated Sunday operating hours are 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. In response to Council Member Hansen, Ms. Fernandez stated revenue hours are hours that all the buses are actually operating. In response to Council Member Hansen, Ms. Fernandez stated the cost for Sunday service is approximately $1,000 and the cost for Saturday service is approximately $2,000. In response to Council Member Hansen, Ms. Fernandez stated the cost for Sunday service is approximately $1,000 for 90 passengers. In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Hitchcock, Ms. Fernandez stated there was not a trend of Continued August 24, 2010 popular hours for Saturday service and currently the Saturday service runs from 7:45 a.m. to 3:09 p.m. In response to Council Member Hansen, Ms. Fernandez stated the minor modifications are proposed to start on September 7 unless the City Council directs otherwise. In response to Council Member Hansen, Ms. Fernandez stated staff has not looked into the school district paying toward providing the bus service in light of the amount of student ridership. Ms. Fernandez stated the City of Stockton may have such a program between the City and the Stockton Unified School District and staff will research and bring back to Council additional information regarding the same. In response to Myrna Wetzel, Ms. Fernandez stated the new fare box card does not work like a debit card. In response to Council Member Hansen, Ms. Fernandez stated staff has received the majority of equipment for the new fare boxes and installation is ready to begin. In response to Council Member Hansen, Ms. Fernandez stated the route modification will add a stop for Lodi Memorial Hospital, which will take riders to the back side of the hospital as requested. In response to Council Member Hansen, Ms. Fernandez stated 32 people participated in the public meetings. She stated sufficient notice was provided in English and Spanish through newspaper publications and flyer distribution. In response to Council Member Johnson, Ms. Fernandez stated there have been arrests in the parking garage over the last few months. In response to Myrna Wetzel, Ms. Fernandez stated the arrests occurred at all different hours. In response to Council Member Hansen, Ms. Fernandez stated security was on duty when the ten thefts occurred in April, May, and June. In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Hitchcock, Ms. Fernandez stated staff would need to check with the Police Department regarding specific incident details but word is out that violators can be arrested in the parking structure. In response to Council Member Hansen, Ms. Fernandez stated it is expected that the grant funds for the security cameras will be received soon. She stated the security company can manage and monitor the security cameras once installed. In response to Council Member Hansen, Ms. Fernandez stated security cameras will not be installed at the small lot because it is not a transit facility. Jason Oringer of SEW spoke of his concerns regarding the Securitas company and training of employees. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Oringer stated Securitas employees are non -unionized and SEIU comes from a labor perspective and would like to see industry standards for security training raised. In response to Council Member Hansen, Jim Beltz, representing Securitas, provided an overview of the hiring and training process for employees. Mr. Beltz stated the current site supervisor has been on location since 2004 and has recently asked to be transferred based on the recent media attention. N Continued August 24, 2010 In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Beltz stated Securitas has implemented the use of bicycles and increased the number of officers on duty to address the recent security concerns at the parking structure. He stated officers do follow-up as necessary and sometimes ask for identification depending upon the situation. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Beltz stated in two years of managing the account this is the first time he is having challenges with this site and affirmative steps have been taken to address the concerns. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Beltz stated Securitas employs approximately 800 people in Lodi, Stockton, and Modesto. In response to Council Member Johnson, Mr. Beltz stated Securitas has experience in operating and managing security cameras as a number of their existing clients have security cameras. Mr. Beltz stated Securitas has added to the foot patrol additional officers and bicycles to address recent concerns. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Beltz stated the company has onsite and national communication centers, provides services in hospitals, and monitoring will be onsite for the parking structure. Ms. Fernandez stated staff is researching options for onsite monitoring by looking at other local agencies and how they address similar concerns. In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Hitchcock, Mr. Beltz stated golf carts are expensive and there is no place to park. Mr. Beltz stated he believes the concerns will be addressed with the implementation of bicycle patrol and additional officers onsite. C. Comments by Public on Non-Aaenda Items None. D. Adjournment No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 a.m. ATTEST: Randi Johl City Clerk i, AGENDA ITEM V� &% CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Im AGENDA TITLE: Presentation on Transit Sunday Service Statistics, Transit Route and Schedule Modifications, and Parking Structure Security Services Update MEETING DATE: August 24, 2010 (Shirtsleeve Session) PREPARED BY: Public Works Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: Presentation on transit Sunday service statistics, transit route and schedule modifications, and parking structure security services update. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The following items will be presented at the Shirtsleeve Session: Transit Sunday Service Statistics During the Comments by Public on Non -Agenda Items portion of the March 17, 2010 Council meeting, the City received a comment about low transit ridership on Sundays and the suggestion that the City should consider eliminating Sunday service. Staff will present Sunday, Saturday, and Weekday passenger and revenue hour statistics at the Shirtsleeve Session. Transit Route and Schedule Modifications City staff recently hosted two public information meetings to review the fixed route transit service after receiving suggestions and recommend ati ons from customers and transit drivers. The following items were discussed at the public information meetings: • Suggested Route and Schedule Improvements—Add Casa de Lodi area, reroute weekend route to Hutchins Street and Lodi Avenue, add express route bus stops at the Lodi Transit Station, add a morning express route from the Lodi Transit Station to Lower Sacramento Road/Kettleman Lane Transfer Station, and adjust all bus schedule times to improve on-time performance • Fare Structure Changes — 31 -day pass to replace the monthly pass • Public Communications— Google Transit, Facebook, and regional promotion (Stuff the Bus) • Transit System Improvements—Automated fare boxes/fare structure, bus shelters/ benches, and bus route signage Staff received positive feedback and will present this information at the Shirtsleeve Session. Transit Parking Structure Security Services Update At the June 16, 2010 and August 4, 2010 City Council meetings, the City received comments from the public and Council members about the security services at the transit parking structure. City staff regularly meets with the security service company and will present a brief report on security incidents and recommendations. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable. F. Wally Sfthdelin Public Works Director Prepared by Paula J. Fernandez, Transportation Manager/Senior Traffic Engineer FWS/PJF/pmf cc: Robin Rushing Lodi Feed and Fuel Securitas Security Services MV Transportation APPROVED: K \WP\TRANSIT\CctransitstatsshirtsleeveAug24.doc Bartlam, Interim City Manager 8/18/2010 The City of Lodi Public Works Transportation Division 0rI August 24, 2010 Transit Shirtsleeve Session a a a Shirtsleeve Transit Ridership Statistics Route and Schedule Modifications Parking Structure Security Services Update Transit Ridership Statistics FY 09/10 Transit Passengers C�IO' o--r o 70 3 0 ■ ■ ■ Weekday Weekday Sat Sat Sun Sun Ridership Statistics Total Ridership (FY 09/10) Passengers Fixed Route 175,325 77% DAR/VineLine 341122 15% Fixed Route 81905 4% DAR/VineLine 2,720 1% Fixed Route 41893 2% DAR/VineLine 17935 1% Total 2277900 100% Subsidy $6.45 $34.30 $6.45 $34.30 $6.45 $34.30 DAR/VineLine Sunday Fixed Route Sunday DAR/VineLine Saturday Fixed Route Saturday DAR/VineLine Weekday Fixed Route Weekday Passengers per Revenue Hours 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Passengers per Revenue Hours ■ January - March 2010 ■ April - June 2010 Service Costs Data from April, May, and June 2010 90 Sunday passengers 194 Saturday passengers 23 Sunday revenue hours 49 Saturday revenue hours +/- $1,000 per Sunday +/- $2,000 per Saturday Transit Route and Schedule Modifications Purpose: Review the GrapeLine Fixed Routes •'• Transit Data Review • Ridership Statistics • Bus Stops — Most popular bus stop •'• Items in the Works • Suggested Route and Schedule Improvements • Fare Structure Changes • Public Communications • Transit System Improvements Parking July 2009 2 2 of 2 August 2009 2 2 of 2 September 2009 2 1 of 2 October 2009 0 N/A November 2009 1 0 of 1 December 2009 1 0 of 1 January 2010 2 2 of 2 February 2010 0 N/A March 2010 0 N/A April 2010 3 3 of 3 May 2010 4 4of4 June 2010 3 3 of 3 0 Month July 2010 Number of Occurrences of Larceny D Security on Duty During Larceny Occurences 6of9 Security Service Recommendations/ Implementation ➢ Securitas met with concerned business owners. ➢ Patrol Officers to provide more presence at the parking structure entrances/exits. ➢ Patrol officers are using bicycles. ➢ City to install security cameras after receipt of Proposition 1 B funds. ➢ Security Service Contract expires October 2010 and City staff will pursue Request for Proposals including monitoring new cameras. Questions? United Service Workers West PMEMONEtr waiiliiiiiiim 0 SE1U Local 1877 SOULA 2006 Local 24/7 Local 2007 Southern California Headquarters 828 W. Washington Blvd. LosAngeles, CA 90015 (213) 284-7705 (213) 284-7725 fax Orange County office 1200 N. Main Sheet Suite 900 SantaAna, CA 92701 (714) 245-9700 714-245-9710 fax San Diego office 4265 Fairmount Ave. Suite 260 San Diego. CA 92105 (619) 727-5703 Northern California Headquarters 3411 East 12th Street Suite 200 Oakland, CA 94601 (800) 772-3326 (5I0) 261-2039 fax San Francisco office 45 Polk Sheet San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 552-1301 (415) 552-1307 fax San Jose office 1010 Ruff Drive San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 280-7770 (408)280-7804 fax Stanford office 42 Arguello Way PO. Box 19152 Stanford, CA 94309 (650) 723-3680 (650) 723-3650 fax Sacramento office 1401 21st Sheet Suite 310 Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 498-9505 (916) 497-0806 fax August 24, 2010 Mayor and City Council City of Lodi 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Delivered by hand I am writing to raise issues of contractor responsiveness and responsibility regarding Lodi's private security contractor, Securitas Security Services, USA. As you know, Securitas provides security officers to guard Lodi Station and Parking Structure under a three year contract approved as Resolution No. 2007-166 in August 2007. I understand that there has been a rash of automotive burglaries in City lots along with other criminal activity. You should know that Securitas has cut corners which negatively impacted other public clients and workers in ways that undermineithe quality of service. Indeed many cities have developed responsibility and responsiveness contractor screening to avoid just such a situation. Securitas has been accused of violating a variety of local, state and federal laws, for example: California Wage and Hour Violations: In 2009, Securitas agreed to a $15 million settlement for meal and rest violations on behalf of California-based security guards.' According to the complaint filed against Securitas by a class of current and former employees, Securitas knowingly and willingly prevented those identified class members and potentially thousands others from having break and lunch periods guaranteed to them under California state law. The complaint suggests the purpose of this prevention was so that Securitas could maintain its competitive advantage by underbidding their competition? City of Sacramento Breach of Contract Suit and Living Wage Investigation: In September 2007, Sacramento city leaders and union officials charged Securitas with violating Sacramento'sliving wage ordinance. The company provided guards at Sacramento's City Hall, Community Convention Center and other municipal buildings. Vice Mayor Kevin McCarty noted, "(Securitas) should be paying employees a fair, living wage. It's embarrassing for the city when one of our contractors right under our nose is not living up to the policy." 3 In 2008, City chose to award its contract to another bidder after reviewing Securitas' compliance with living wage and responsible contractor laws. In December 2008, the City sued Securitas for breach CE contractfo r multiple issues including damage at Cityparking lots.4 Improper or Inadequate Training: Securitas has been named in multiple lawsuits charging the company with negligence or failure to properly train and screen employees. • Sexual Harassment and Discrimination: Securitas has faced numerous charges of sexual harassment and gender discrimination by employees. In the past two years alone, Securitas has been forced to settle five federal cases alleging sexual harassment. ' Michelle Quinn, "Employee Breaks Are a Growth Area in the Law," East Bay Express, January 27, 2010. 2 Mambuki et al. v. Securitas Security Services, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1 -0.5 -CV - 047499. 3 Darrell Smith, "Security firm hit by allegation on living wage law," Sacramento Bee, September 19, 2007. ° City of Sacramento v. Securitas Security Services, USA, Inc, etal, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 2008-00030163. Page 2, SEN, Re: Securitas Security Services USA and City of Lodi, August 24,2010 Contractor Liability and the State of California Contractors' lack of responsibility can have direct monetary and operations implications for government entities. When a private security firm is sued by an employee for discrimination or wage and hour violations, many times the government agency contracting the work is named in the suit. In one discrimination case, the Justice Department was the remaining defendant after a private security company contracting for the Department filed for bankruptcy. The j ury issued a verdict of $257,000 in favor of the plaintiff and the judge ruled to uphold the verdict after the Justice Department requested a directed verdict. Citing the Justice Department's function as a j oint employer, the court ordered the government to pay the plaintiff. After appealing the ruling, the Justice Department reached a settlement with the plaintiff. The parties agreed to dismiss the case and appeal.5 In another case, the County of Los Angeles contracted for many years with security contractor International Services (ISI), which had record of numerous and repeated federal wage and hour violations, which led to federal debarment.6 The County was plunged into crisis in 2009 when the ISI stopped paying County officers and declared bankruptcy after its principals were arrested on charges of conspiracy, grand theft, making false statements and insurance fraud.? While most guards showed incredible dedication by continuing to work despite not being paid, after 5 weeks without pay some officers abandoned post, exposing the County to potential security lapses. The County also faced financial liability when over 100 officers filed claims against the County for unpaid wages for the time they protected County facilities without pay. As of mid -2010, the County has offered financial settlements to most of those officers. We urge you to examine Securitas' record of responsiveness and responsibility closely before awarding additional contracts to this company. Please feel free to contact me at 510-437-8138with any additional comments or questions you may have. 7nior y, ringger es cher 5 Ruiz v. U.S. Protect, Southern District of Texas, Case number 6:07-cv-00056. 6 U.S. Department of Labor AdministrativeReview Board case number 05-136. Final Decision and Order, December 21,2007. 7 "L.A. County reserve deputy is accused of fraud at his security fhmy'Zos Angeles Times, April 16,2009. The Sacraments See Wednesday, September 19,2007 Security Firm Hit by Allegation on Living Wage Law By Darrell Smith BEE STAFF WRITER Securitas USA, the private firm that provides security guards at Sacramento's City Hall, the Community Convention Center and other municipal buildings, is violating Sacramento's living wage ordinance, a group of city leaders and union officials alleged Tuesday. "It's wrong. (Securitas) should be paying employees a fair, living wage," Vice Mayor Kevin McCarty said at City Hall. "It's embarrassing for the city when one of our contractors right under our nose is not living up to the policy." He was joined by Securitas employees, officials of Service Employees International Union Local 24 and Councilwoman Bonnie Pannell, who said many Securitas employees reside in her south Sacramento district. "We have to correct it. We have to take action as a council as an example to the region," Pannell said. The city's living wage pact, approved amid controversy in 2003, mandates that city contractors pay their employees at least $10 an hour plus health insurance costs or $11.50 without a health care contribution. Among the employees who are filing wage and benefits complaints against Securitas is Sacramentan Diane White. The 49 -year-old former resident of Louisiana, who said she was displaced by Hurricane Katrina, moved into her sister's Sacramento home and found a job last year with Securitas. She earns $10.60 an hour as a security guard at the city's Southgate library, but said she did not know until a May doctor's SacramentoBee (9/19/07) visit that she did not have health insurance. Medi -Cal takes care of her medical needs until she can receive employer -supplied insurance. "Securitas is supposed to be paying (insurance)," White said. "The only thing 1 ask is that they secure me like Isecure their clients. They need to look out for their security guards." Union officials want the city to investigate the charges, saying the firm's 100 affected employees could each be entitled to nearly $1,700 in back pay. "We expect that the city will conduct an investigation. We expect that they will make these employees whole," said SEIU spokeswoman Deirdre Lehn. Securitas officials in Sacramento say the tempest is a non -issue, accusing the SEIU of using Sacramento as leverage in ongoing contract negotiations with Securitas in the Bay Area. The firm's previous five-year contract with Sacramento, approved in 2002, had no health insurance requirement because it was signed before the living wage provisions went into effect, said Securitas area vice president Pete Niles. He said insurance and living wage provisions are contained in a temporary, six-month contract signed in late August. The six-month extension gives Sacramento officials more time to develop a new contract proposal, according to Reina Schwartz, director of the city's general services department. 1 Under living wage law, firms under city contract or that receive city funding must pay their workers a wage high enough to support a family above the federal poverty line, now at $20,650 annually for a family of four. Advocates say a living wage helps the working poor afford housing and child care. Opponents, including the National Federation of Independent Businesses, say the ordinances push out competition, artificially drive up wages and contribute to a confusing climate for employers. "They vary from locality to locality and it creates a confusing mish-mash of varying ordinances across the state," said Michael Shaw, the business federation's assistant state director. "Government interference doesn't really help businesses compete in the marketplace." Sacramento Bee (9/19/07) 2 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 47 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 31TY OF SACRAMENTO, vs. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY CE' SACRAMENTO Department Assignments Case Management 45 Law and Motion 53 Case No.: Minors Gompr$mise a � t SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC. a corporation, and Does 1-50, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiff CITY OF SACRAMENTO hereby alleges as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 1. At all times herein mentioned herein, Plaintiff was and now is a municipal ;orporation situated in the County of Sacramento, acting under a duly adopted municipal ;harter pursuant to the laws of the State of California. 2. Plaintiff alleges an information and belief that SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC. was and now is a corporation. 3, The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, partnership, joint venture, associate, proprietorship, or entity, individual(s) or person(s), of sued herein as )oes 1 through 50 inclusive, are at this time unknown to Plaintiff and are therefore, sued by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each 1 DEFENDANT CITY OF SACRAMENTO'S CROSS-COMPLAINT EOR TORTIOUS BREACH OF INSURANCE CONTRACT seers • r ED ; EILEEN M. TEICHERT, City Attorney (SBN 167027) SHERI M. CHAPMAN, Sr. Deputy City Attorney (SBN 215��5)et mit iia G3&I by CITY OF SACRAMENTO R mar 6-tr Mailing: P.O. Box 1948, Sacramento, CA 95812-1948 Office: 9151 Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 808-5346 Telecopier: (916) 808-7455 _ = DF; P U ty . caac- dumber, Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF SACRAMENTO ZAI-W8-NIB1 L9-CO-Gn5 31TY OF SACRAMENTO, vs. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY CE' SACRAMENTO Department Assignments Case Management 45 Law and Motion 53 Case No.: Minors Gompr$mise a � t SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC. a corporation, and Does 1-50, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiff CITY OF SACRAMENTO hereby alleges as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 1. At all times herein mentioned herein, Plaintiff was and now is a municipal ;orporation situated in the County of Sacramento, acting under a duly adopted municipal ;harter pursuant to the laws of the State of California. 2. Plaintiff alleges an information and belief that SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC. was and now is a corporation. 3, The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, partnership, joint venture, associate, proprietorship, or entity, individual(s) or person(s), of sued herein as )oes 1 through 50 inclusive, are at this time unknown to Plaintiff and are therefore, sued by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each 1 DEFENDANT CITY OF SACRAMENTO'S CROSS-COMPLAINT EOR TORTIOUS BREACH OF INSURANCE CONTRACT seers • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 fictitiously named Defendant is legally responsible in some manner, negligently, contractually, or in total and/or equitable indemnity, for the events, happenings and things set forth below, and that each Defendant sued herein by such fictitious names, was and at all times mentioned herein, is a resident of cr conducting business in the County of Sacramento and/or State of California. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, each Defendant designated or fictitiously named as Does 1 through 50 inclusive herein, was the agent, servant, employee, principal, officer, director, partner, co - venturer, or in some manner agent or principal or both, for each other, and was acting within the course and scope of their agency and employment, or in the furtherance of the employment, partnership, joint venture or other agency relationship at the time of the acts alleged herein. II, FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF CONTRACT 5. Plaintiff alleges that on or about August 22, 2007, Plaintiff and Defendant SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC. entered into a written professional services agreement for the provision of searity services. A copy of said agreement is attached hereto, as Exhibit"A." 6. On or about February 15 and 16, 2008, Defendant SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC. breached said professional services agreement by failing to provide security services, in accordance with the terms of the parties' agreement. As a result of Defendant's failure to provide security services, Plaintiffs propertywas damaged. 7. Plaintiff has performed all obligations owed to Defendant SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., pursuantto the written professional services agreement, 8. Plaintiff suffered damages proximately caused by Defendant's breach of the agreement including but not limited to, property damage, toss of revenue, and fees incurred o replace Plaintiff's property. Plaintiffs damages are in excess of $50,000. 'll 2 DEFENDANTCrrYOF SACRAMENTO'S CROSS•COMPLAINTFORTORTJOUS BREACH OF NSURANCECONTRACT seem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9. Plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to the written professional services agreement and/or by statute. SECOND CAUSE CTE ACTION - NEGLIGENCE 10. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as though set forth fully herein, the allegations in paragraphs 5 through 9, above. 11. Plaintiff alleges Defendants were the proximate cause of injury to Plaintiff, including but not limited to, property damage and loss of revenue. 12. By the following acts ur omissions to act, Plaintiff alleges Defendants regliently caused injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that on or about February 15 and 16, 2008, Defendants failed to act to prevent trespass, damage to, and theft of Plaintiffs property. Defendants had a special relationship with Plaintiff; they entered into an agreement to provide security services to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to competently provide such security services, which resulted in damage to and theft of plaintiff's property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants and each of them, as follows: 1. For damages plus interest, in a amount to be determined at the time cf trial; 2. For attorney's fees and costs of suit; and 3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem reasonable, just and proper, in its discretion. DATED: December23, 2008 EILEEN M. TEICHERT, City Attomey By SHE I M. CHAISMAN Sr. Deputy City Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF SACRAMENTO 3 DEFENDANT CITY OF SACRAMENTO'S CROSS -C OWLAINT FORTORT(CUS BREACH OF INSURANCE CONTRACT 9=5 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EILEEN M. TEICHERT, City Attorney (SBN 167027) SHERI M. CHAPMAN, Sr. Deputy City Attorney (SBN 215776) CITY OF SACRAMENTO Mailing: P.O. Box 1948, Sacramento, CA 95812-1948 Office: 915 1 Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 808-5346 Telecopier: (9116) 808-7455 Isy. Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF SACRAMENTO CITY OF SACRAMENTO, Plaintiff, VS. SUPERIOR COURT CE' CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., a corporation Defendant. JUL 14 2009 Case No.: 34-2008-00030163 NOTICE OF MOTIONAND MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING ISSUE AND/OR EVIDENCE SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTANDMONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT'SATTORNEY FOR FAILING TO OBEY DISCOVERY ORDER [Code Civ. Pro. §§ 2023..010, 2023.030; 2030.300; 2031.3001 Date: August 10,2009 Time: 2:00 p.m. Dept: 53 Trial Date: None set TO: OEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that at the time, date and department listed above, Plaintiff CITY OF SACRAMENTO will and hereby moves the Court for an order imposing issue and evidence sanctions against Defendant SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA., INC. Specifically, Plaintiff moves the Court for an order precluding Defendant from asserting the affirmative defenses pled in its Answer to the Complaint at arbitration or trial, 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 110697 F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and prohibiting Defendant from introducing evidence in support of said defenses. Plaintiff will and hereby does further move for an order imposing a monetary sanction against Defendant SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., and its attorneys of record James T. Anwyi, Anwyl, Scoffield & Stepp, LLP, in favor of Plaintiff CITY OF SACRAMENTO, in the amount of $1090.00. The motion is made on the ground that Defendant has failed to provide any response to Plaintiffs first set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories and requests for production of documents, and Defendant has disobeyed the Court's order of June 10, 2009, ordering Defendantto provide responsesto the discovery requests by June 22,2009. The motion is based on this Notice, the memorandum of points and authorities and the supporting iDeclaration of Sheri M. Chapman and exhibits filed herewith, the complete files and records in this action and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of said motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.04,the Court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. You may access and download the Court's ruling from the court's website at http:l/www.saccourt.com. If you do not have online access, you may obtain the tentative ruling over the telephone by calling (916) 874- 8142 and a Deputy Clerk will read the ruling to you. If you wish to request oral argument, you must contact the courtroom clerk at (916) 874-7858 (Department 53) and the opposing party before 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m, on the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held. (See Local Rule 3.04(D).) DATED: July 13,2009 EILEEN M. TEICHERT, City Attorney B' ERI M. C AP ANt� Senior Deputy City Attorney 2 Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF SACRAMENTO NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 110697 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF CIE' SERVICE CASE NAME: City of Sacramento v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. COURT: Sacramento County Superior Court CASE NUMBER: 34-2008-00030163 declare that: am employed in the County of Sacramento, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause; my business address is 915 1 Street, Room 4006, Sacramento, CA 95814-2604. 1 am familiar with the mail collection and process cf the City of Sacramento in which the mail is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day that it is deposited for collection and mailing, in the ordinary course of business. Ch the date executed below, I served the following document(s): NOTICE OF MOTIONAND MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSINGISSUE AND/OR EVIDENCE SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTAND MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY FOR FAILING TO OBEY DISCOVERY ORDER [ X ] Via the United States Postal Service by causing a true copy and/or original thereof to be placed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail. [ ] By Personal Delivery on the parties in this action by causing a true copy and/or original thereof to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee(s). [ ] Via Facsimile by causing such document to be served via facsimile on the parties in this action via facsimile numbers as stated on this proof of service. [ ] Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested by causing a true copy and/or original thereof to be placed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail. addressed as follows: James T. Anwyl Anwyl, Scoffield & Stepp P.O. Box 269127 Sacramento.. CA 95826-9127 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that the declaration was executed cn July 13, 2009,at Sacramento, California. ERICA D. DILLARD 110961 PROOF OF SERVICE CITY COUNCIL PHIL KATZAKIAN, Mayor SUSAN HITCHCOCK, Mayor Pro Tempore LARRY D. HANSEN BOBJOHNSON JOANNE L. MOUNCE CITY OF LODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Robin Rushing 1390 W. Lockeford Street Lodi, CA 95242 CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209) 333-6706 FAX (209) 333-6710 EMAIL pwdept@lodi.gov http: \\www .lodi.gov Securitas Security Services 6820 Pacific Avenue Stockton, CA 95207 August 23,2010 Lodi Feed and Fuel 27 W. Elm Street Lodi, CA 95240 MV Transportation 24 S. Sacramento Street Lodi, CA 95240 KONRADT BARTLAM Interim City Manager RANDI JOHL City Clerk D. STEVEN SCHWABAUER City Attorney F. WALLY SANDELIN Public Works Director SUBJECT: Presentation on Transit Sunday Service Statistics, Transit Route and Schedule Modifications, and Parking Structure Security Services Update Enclosed is a copy of background information on an item on the City Council Shirtsleeve Session agenda of Tuesday, August 24, 2010. The meeting will be held at 7 a.m. in the City Council Chamber, Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street. The City Council will hear a staff presentation on the item but no action will be taken. If you wish to write to the City Council, please address your letter to City Council, City of Lodi, P. O. Box 3006, Lodi, California, 95241-1910. Be sure to allow time for the mail. Or, you may hand-deliverthe letterto City Hall, 221 West Pine Street. If you wish to address the Council at the Council Meeting, be sure to fill out a speaker's card (available at the Carnegie Forum immediately prior to the start of the meeting) and give it to the City Clerk. If you have any questions about communicating with the Council, please contact RandiJohl, City Clerk, at (209) 333-6702. If you have any questions about the item itself, please call Paula Fernandez, Transportation Manager/Senior Traffic Engineer, at (209) 333-6800, extension 2667. F. Wally Sandelin - jr Public Works Director FWS/pmf Enclosure cc: City Clerk NCCMTG.DOC