ITEM:††††††††††††††††††††††† ACTION ITEMS


11.†††††† Consider Execution of representation agreement with ellison, schneider and harris for development of seaside basin management ordinances


Meeting Date:†††††††††† March 17, 2003††††††††††††††††††††† Budgeted: N/A

Program/Line Item No.:N/A

Staff Contact: ††††††††††† Joe Oliver†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Cost Estimate: N/A


General Counsel Approval: Counsel recommended Board consideration of representation agreement matter.

Committee Recommendation:N/A

CEQA Compliance: N/A



SUMMARY:At the December 16, 2002 meeting, the Board authorized a contract with Jones & Stokes (J&S) for technical assistance to facilitate public outreach and environmental review for interim ordinances regarding Seaside Ground Water Basin management.The contract agreement includes an optional task for independent legal review of the draft interim ordinances prepared by District counsel.This work will be subcontracted to the firm of Ellison, Schneider & Harris (ES&H) in Sacramento.As part of the conflict of interest check at their office, they identified one existing client, Rancho San Carlos, that will require them to obtain an informed written consent with the District regarding dual client representation.Both ES&H and District staff believe that, because the work that would be undertaken is in the hydrologically disconnected Seaside Basin, this dual representation does not pose a problem in this case.


RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board authorize the General Manager to execute the consent to representation agreement with ES&H for their work in reviewing the interim ordinances.


BACKGROUND:Development of a Seaside Basin Ground Water Management Plan was prioritized by the Board as part of its strategic planning process.The need for ground water management plan development has been highlighted by recent increased production and corresponding declining water levels in the basin.In addition, the existence of an adopted local ground water management plan is a key criterion in the evaluation of ground water assistance applications by state grant funding agencies.Two conceptual draft ordinances that address new and existing uses in the basin were reviewed at the June 17, 2002 Board meeting.This approach is consistent with the structure and format of the District Law.Given the potential for changes to the timing, location and quantity of water production from the basin as a result of ordinance implementation, District counsel advised that an EIR will likely be needed to satisfy the environmental review requirement.At the June 17, 2002 meeting, the Board requested that a Request for Proposals (RFP) for technical assistance on the ordinance development and environmental review process be solicited to interested consulting firms.The proposal from J&S was approved for this work at the December 16, 2002 Board meeting, including an independent legal review of the proposed ordinances.As background on the ES&H law firm, a brief summary of the firmís expertise and experience is provided in Exhibit 11-A.In addition, a biographical summary of the staff person assigned to this task, Robert E. Donlan, is provided in Exhibit 11-B. Consideration of the representation agreement was on the agenda for the January 30, 2003 Board meeting, but was deferred due to the length of that meeting.It should be noted that this legal review is on the projectís critical path and is intended for completion prior to the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation of the environmental review.


IMPACT ON STAFF/RESOURCES:Development of ordinance and environmental review documents regulating Seaside Ground Water Basin management are anticipated to require considerable District staff and consultant effort.Consultantassistance to facilitate public outreach and environmental review for the proposed interim ordinances, including work with the Seaside Basin interest group, has been included in the District Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget (Summary of Project Expenditures, 2002-2003 year Budget, Objectives 2-6-2 E.).