BOARD MEETING DATE: June 3, 2005
AGENDA NO. 15

Appropriate Funds from Designation for Litigation and Enforcement and Authorize Amending Existing Contracts to Appropriate Such Funds

SYNOPSIS:

The District is currently involved in several major lawsuits employing outside counsel. These include the Fleet Rules, the challenges to the most recent amendments to the architectural coatings rule, to the refinery ESP rule, to the ConocoPhillips ultra-low sulfur diesel project, to the aggregate mining rule, and to AQMD’s permitting of a power plant in Riverside. This action is to appropriate $300,000 from the Designation for Litigation and Enforcement to the District Counsel budget, Professional and Special Services account, and to authorize the Executive Officer to amend existing contracts with Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger and Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart to appropriate these funds.

COMMITTEE:

Administrative, May 13, 2005, Recommended for Approval

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. Appropriate $300,000 from the Designation for Litigation and Enforcement to the District Counsel’s FY 2004-05 budget, Professional and Special Services account.
    
2. Authorize the Executive Officer to amend existing contracts with Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger by an additional $175,000 and with Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart by an additional $75,000 with $50,000 to be appropriated to either firm as the need arises.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

Background

In the FY 2004-05 Budget the Board created a $1 million Designation for Litigation and Enforcement to cover outside counsel expenses for this fiscal year. At the December 2004 Board meeting, $350,000 of these funds were appropriated to the District Counsel’s budget for outside counsel expenses. These funds have been expended much faster than anticipated due to several important lawsuits. These lawsuits include litigation over the Fleet Rules, AQMD’s permitting of the ConocoPhillips ultra-low sulfur diesel project, the architectural coatings rules, the refinery ESP rule, the aggregate mining rule, and AQMD’s permitting of a power plant in Riverside.

Proposal

In order to defend this litigation, it is necessary to appropriate additional funds for expenditure by outside counsel. The CEQA cases will require at least an additional $75,000 to be appropriated to Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart. The Fleet Rules case and the appeals on the architectural coatings and refinery ESP rule cases will require at least an additional $175,000 to be appropriated to Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger. Staff recommends an additional $50,000 to be appropriated to either firm, as the need arises.

Resource Impacts

Sufficient funds ($300,000) are available in the Designation for Litigation and Enforcement.

/ / /