King City council approves contingency retainer with Grossman and Kelly to pursue water-related settlement

King City’s council voted unanimously at a special meeting to authorize a contingency retainer with law firm Grossman and Kelly, LLC to pursue recovery from a multi‑city water-related settlement and related claims.

The staff presenter told council the firm would "file a claim, do all the testing necessary, to submit that claim," and that the arrangement is structured so there is "no cost to us unless there's an award made," a contingency the city said reduces upfront fiscal risk.

City staff said potential uses for any award include wastewater system upgrades and interconnections to bring safe drinking water to nearby communities; staff added regional purveyors such as Cal Water have already been involved in the litigation and settlement discussions. The presenter also named the regional pipeline in discussion as the "Fair Connect."

Council members pressed staff on how costs would be apportioned and how recoveries would be shared. One councilmember warned that "testing can be extremely expensive" and asked that the city consult the solid‑waste authority about local contamination sources such as the closed city dump or runoff near Polo Road. Another member noted county projects in the area and asked staff to clarify how King City’s percentage share would be calculated.

The council’s questions also focused on the retainer’s fee and expense language. Council members noted the contract lists disbursements and allowable charges ("expert fees, testing, environmental analysis, court fees, deposition and discovery expenses, and travel and litigation fees") and asked staff and the city attorney to negotiate tighter language and consider caps or exclusions for certain expert fees so testing‑related costs do not unduly reduce recoveries.

Staff said some categories of awards have expenditure timelines and cited a 2029 deadline for certain allowable uses; staff also referenced a small category of allowances (examples discussed included limited firefighter equipment funding) tied to the settlement paperwork.

After discussion, the mayor moved approval of the retainer; the motion passed unanimously. Council directed staff to finalize the agreement with clarifications to exhibits and fee/expenditure language before executing the retainer.

The council did not adopt a specific dollar recovery estimate for King City during the meeting; staff described some cost figures as ballpark estimates and said final eligibility and amounts will depend on testing and the firm’s claims work. The council expects staff to return the finalized contract for recordkeeping once negotiated.