MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Council . January 6th,

City Administrator

FROM: L.D. Pollock i
Sess

-{¥

Ap.
N40 977

Re: Joint Operating Agreement ~ Justice Building

The City entered into an Agreement with the District of Coquitlam in
November 1973 coverirg the operation of the Justice Building. Since
that Agreement was signed there ‘has been a change in the operation of
the building, in particular, the fact that the Court operation is now
entirely separate, it is therefore necessary to make some changes in the
basic Agreement.

I have attached a copy of a new Draft Agreement and there are two main areas

of change. One is in removing any reference to the Court part of the operation
and the second is in the timing of Budget approval by the respective Councils.
The changes are as follows:

1. Section 1, Page 2, provides that the Budget is to be prepared and
submitted to both parties on or before the 36th day of November (this was
previously the 30th day of September). Both parties are to approve the
Budget by the end of February (this was previously the second Monday in
November). Similarly, the final date for a decision ~ should the Budget

g0 to arbitration - has been set at April 15th and previously this had

been December 15th.

I have always felt that it was difficult for us to approve a Budget
for the coming year when we had not yet got into our own Budget discussions.
These changes will at least permit us to consider the Budget in the current

Budget Year.

2. Section c) of subsection 1 in the previous Agreement based the
cost sharing on three ‘actors: —

the population

the number of police calls received in each
jurisdiction

‘the number of first appearances in Court in
‘each jurisdiction.

In view of the fact that the Court is no longer under our jurisdiction and
the Provincial Government is, in fact, renting this portion of the buiiding
from us, it was felt that the reference to the third item, that is, the first
appearances in Court, be deleted from the calculation. The new Agreement
will therefore provide for cost sharing on the basis of the proportion of
population and police calls. ‘

3. Section 2 covers the types of costs to be included in the cost
allocation to each municivality. Previously this listing included prosecutien