08-16-2022 CC RPT 33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City °JArts &Innovation City Council Memorandum IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ISSUE: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FINANCE — RISK MANAGEMENT DATE: AUGUST 16, 2022 WARDS: ALL APPROVE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT OF ALL PARADA CLAIMS AND PAYMENTS DUE TO RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES CUSTOMERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $278,500, INCLUDING A 15% CONTINGENCY OF $41,775 FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $320,275 FROM AUGUST 16, 2022, TO AUGUST 16, 2027. Approve the Professional Services Agreement with Sedgwick Claims Management Services Inc. for the administration and management of all Parada claims and payments due to Riverside Public Utilities customers in the amount of $278,500, including a 15% contingency of $41,775 for a total amount not to exceed $320,275 from August 16, 2022, to August 16, 2027. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the City Council: 1. Approve the Professional Services Agreement with Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. in the amount of $278,500 for the period of August 16, 2022 to August 16, 2027; 2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $41,775 to support any additional service hours or support needed to satisfy the City's obligations under the Parada settlement agreement and; 3. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the agreement and any additional documents necessary for the agreement, including all amendments and extensions, and making minor and non -substantive changes to the agreements. BACKGROUND: In 2010, California voters passed Proposition 26 which provided that certain fees and charges unrelated to electric service must be approved by voters. In 2018, the City of Riverside was served with a lawsuit titled Parada v City of Riverside. The plaintiff's argued that the GFT was an added tax that required voter approval and that the City violated Proposition 26 by not securing voter approval for the 11.5% GFT.