|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
Consent-General Government # 15.
|
| Board of Supervisors |
County Counsel |
|
|
|
| Subject |
| Authorize County Counsel to sign agreements with three law firms: the Freeman Firm, Soluri Meserve, and Rossman & Moore for litigation services in connection with the California WaterFix. (General fund impact $75,000) (Pogledich) |
| Recommended Action |
| Authorize County Counsel to sign agreements with three law firms: the Freeman Firm, Soluri Meserve, and Rossman & Moore for litigation services in connection with the California WaterFix. |
| Strategic Plan Goal(s) |
Thriving Residents
Sustainable Environment
Flourishing Agriculture |
| Reason for Recommended Action/Background |
The County is presently participating in two lawsuits involving the California WaterFix: (1) as a petitioner with three other counties, two water agencies, and Local Agencies of the North Delta (consisting of various reclamation districts and other entities) in an action asserting claims under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and other laws against the California Department of Water Resources ("DWR") and California Department of Fish & Wildlife; and (2) as a respondent with substantially the same group of co-litigants (as well as Plumas and Butte Counties) in a bond validation proceeding initiated by DWR to support the issuance of over $8 billion in revenue bonds to fund WaterFix construction.
The attached legal service agreements provide for outside counsel assistance to Yolo County and other co-litigants in each proceeding. The Freeman Firm will serve as counsel in each action (Attachments A and B), with Soluri Meserve assisting in the CEQA lawsuit (Attachment C), and Rossman & Moore assisting in the validation action (Attachment D). The cost of such services will be split equally between the public agency co-litigants in each action. Anticipated costs to Yolo County are below the threshold for Board approval (and likely within the amount previously budgeted by the County Counsel's office for outside counsel assistance). Nonetheless, because the contracts do not cap potential costs per participant, they require Board approval. |
| Collaborations (including Board advisory groups and external partner agencies) |
| Contra Costa County took a lead role in drafting the attached agreements. |
| Competitive Bid Process |
| Legal service contracts are exempt from competitive bidding under County contracting policies. The law firms chosen to represent the County and other litigants were selected on the basis of their experience in Bay-Delta issues, their significant work in progress on both actions at the time the County joined on, and their reasonable billing rates. |
|
| Fiscal Impact |
|
|
| Source of Funds for this Expenditure |
|
|
Explanation (Expenditure and/or Revenue) |
| Further explanation as needed: |
| The $75,000 figure is a rough estimate of anticipated expenditures for outside counsel assistance in the two actions during the course of this fiscal year. Fees and related costs will be paid from the outside counsel component of the County Counsel's budget, and no additional expenditure authority is requested. |
|
|
|
|
|