TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Sheryl L. Bratton, County Counsel
REPORT BY: Brandon Aguilera, Paralegal
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 3 to Agreement 200114B with Paris Kincaid & Wasiewski LLP
RECOMMENDATION
title
Approve and authorize Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 200114B with the law firm of Paris Kincaid & Wasiewski, LLP, exercising the biannual renewals provision through June 30, 2026. (Fiscal Impact: $60,000 Expense; General Fund; Budgeted; Discretionary)
[4/5 vote required]
body
BACKGROUND
The County entered into Agreement No. 20114B, effective as of July 29, 2019, with Paris Kincaid & Wasiewski LLP (“Paris Kincaid”), formerly O’Laughlin & Paris LLP, for the provision of specialized legal services pertaining to groundwater law and compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The Agreement was first amended on February 23, 2022, to increase the maximum compensation to $150,000 per fiscal year and extend the term to June 30, 2023, with two one-year extensions at the end of each fiscal year. The Agreement was amended a second time on September 26, 2023, to adjust hourly rates which had not been adjusted since 2019. Paris Kincaid is representing the County in the lawsuit Double Vee Properties, et al. v. County of Napa and the term of the agreement needs to be extended to allow this continued representation. County Counsel now requests approval and authorization for the Chair to sign a third amendment which will extend the term to June 30, 2026, with the possibility of two one-year extensions at the end of each fiscal year.
Requested Action: Approve and authorize Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 200114B with the law firm of Paris Kincaid & Wesiewski, LLP.
FISCAL IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
Yes |
|
Is it currently budgeted? |
Yes |
|
Where is it budgeted? |
County Counsel |
|
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? |
Discretionary |
|
Discretionary Justification: |
The County is involved in the lawsuit Water Audit California v. Napa County. Paris Kincaid represents the County in this matter. |
|
Is the general fund affected? |
Yes |
|
Future fiscal impact: |
Funds will be appropriated in future years, if necessary. |
|
Consequences if not approved: |
If the proposed amendment is not approved, litigation would have to be handled in-house. This would reduce the ability of County Counsel staff to tend to the needs of other clients. |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulations 15378 (State CEQA Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable.