Carbon County commissioners approved a contract Monday with a Salt Lake City law firm to represent the county in nationwide litigation targeting opioid distributors and manufacturers.
Jones Waldo was selected from a group of four firms that bid on the contract.
Christian Bryner, the county’s civil attorney, said he believed the firm represented the county’s best option to recover monetary damages from opioid makers.
“The firm we are going with is representing over 450 of those firms. They are probably the top. They are affiliated with six or seven other firms and they are some of the top litigators involved in this lawsuit,” he said.
Jones Waldo is already representing Utah County in the proposed federal lawsuit. The firm is also involved in the case management, making it in a position to be part of any negotiated settlement of the case.
“I feel like by choosing this firm we are at the center of the litigation; we are with a firm that will be driving the litigation,” Bryner said. “This firm gives the county its best chance as far as a monetary recovery.”
Commission Chair Jake Mellor explained the purpose of the pursuing legal action.
“We are doing this in an effort to encourage pharmaceutical companies to not focus a lot of their marketing and sales efforts on the physicians to push narcotics before other procedures and other methods,” he said, “in an effort to help get to the root of the problem of the opioid issue here in Carbon County. We feel this is one of many efforts we can engage in to do that.”
In May Utah’s attorney general filed a civil lawsuit against Purdue Pharma, makers of OxyContin, in 7th District Court in Carbon County.
Bryner said the county’s lawsuit would be handled in federal court. No specific companies were named during discussion on the contract during the commission meeting.
Jones Waldo would cover all up-front litigation expenses and fees associated with the litigation, Bryner said, reaping a 35 percent portion of any recovered money instead. Should any settlement come in lower than the costs of litigation, the firm agreed to take only 25 percent of any recovered money.
“There is no fee to us if there is no recovery. So I feel like we’ve signed on with excellent attorneys that are at the cutting edge of the litigation and that are driving the litigation,” Bryner said.
In other county commission news, estimates for a road improvement project in Hill Subdivision hit a major obstacle when bids for engineering and paving on a mile-and-a-half stretch of road far exceeded an earlier estimate for the work.
Commissioners previously agreed to cover the project at an estimated $700,000, allowing residents through their homeowners association to buy into a special assessment arrangement that would allow repayment of the funds over a 10-year period.
However, the $700,000 estimate for the work was substantially less than the lowest bidder on the project, Nielson Construction, who agreed to do the work for $840,000, not counting additional costs related to engineering and financing the special assessment.
“We are also going to have engineering fees that are going to be, probably near $100,000. There is going to be a bond fee to get the funds, which I’m told will be about 1 percent of the total amount bonded for. And there will also be attorney fees,” Bryner cautioned commissioners.
Commissioners were scheduled to meet with homeowners to discuss the situation during an informal meeting that took place after Monday’s regular commission meeting. So no action was taken.
“You do have the authority to go ahead and go forward with the levy at a significantly higher amount, which right now would be closer to $980,000 to a $1 million if you went forward. That is significantly over the amount that was estimated. So the question is, do you wish to go forward at this point anyway? Or perhaps you’d like to see whether the subdivision or homeowners association wants to pay a bill that is going to be significantly over what they were expecting,” Bryner asked.
Commissioners agreed to table the item.
But before moving onto other business, Mellor allowed a Hill homeowner address the board.
The man said he and his wife purchased their home in the subdivision in late 1999 and moved in in 2000. He said he was astonished by the costs to pave such a short road, suggesting that only 500 yards of the road really required any serious engineering effort.
The homeowner expressed his displeasure with the county not willing to help pay a portion of the project, for instance the engineering.
“Do you have any idea how much we’ve paid in taxes in the past 18 years? I’ll tell you, $423,189 in taxes, into the county,” the man said, citing a figure that represented taxes paid by all of the homeowners in the subdivision for the last 18 years. “And you have the gall to tell me you can’t pick up the engineering? It angers me unbelievably. It makes me want to put my house up for sale and move.”
In other commission news, the same people who have a contract to clean the county administration building also won a contract to clean the new courthouse. There was only one bidder for the contract, which pays $4,600 a month for janitorial services, including an annual window cleaning.
Commissioners also agreed to match a $7,000 summer 2019 tourism grant offered by the state’s office of tourism. The funds would go toward marketing Carbon County to grow the area’s tourism base.
Commissioners also adopted minor changes to the county’s hiring and retention policy, its grievance policy and its drug testing policy. Most of the changes were mandated by the state during the last legislative session.
During discussion of the county’s hiring and retention policy, language was added that protected the county from waiving its constitutional and statutory rights.
“I agree with this that we add a line that says nothing contained herein shall be construed as limiting the right of the county commission to determine or adjust the budget of any department or elected official,” Bryner said during the discussion. “In other words, even though the change says if there is a job classification that is going to be eliminated and it requires consultation with the department head or elected official before doing so, that consultation simply is meant to require a discussion take place. It doesn’t give the elected official or the department head a veto over that reduction in forces. The commission retains the right to do that, by budgetary means as well.”
[dfads params='groups=4969&limit=1&orderby=random']
[dfads params='groups=1745&limit=1&orderby=random']