The Patterson City Council has not yet made a decision on whether to appeal a Fresno Superior Court judge’s decision regarding its lawsuit against the proposed West Park industrial development.

Mayor Becky Campo said last week that the council requested more information from staff and legal counsel at a special closed-session meeting Jan. 15. She said the council is concerned about the cost of the case and wants to make sure the appeal could accomplish the city’s goals.

Campo said the council will likely reconvene soon to make a decision. George Logan, Patterson’s city attorney, said the ruling has not yet been entered into the court record — once that happens, the city will have 60 days to appeal.

Cost has become one of the main issues in the decision.

The city recently made mid-year adjustments to its budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year. The amount initially allotted for the West Park case was $140,000 — the adjusted amount was $275,000.

That does not include whatever the city spent on the case in the 2007-08 fiscal year or what it might spend on an appeal. The lawsuit was filed May 15, 2008.

“That’s a big concern,” Campo said. “We had allotted a certain amount, and now it’s doubled.

“I’m not sorry about that, because I think we need to do whatever we can to protect the interests of the community, but sometimes you’ve gotta say, ‘This was way too much.’”

Campo said the decision will also hinge on what the city could potentially accomplish. Ideally, the city would like to altogether derail PCCP West Park LLC’s proposed 7.5-square-mile industrial park and inland port at the county-owned Crows Landing Air Facility.

The sheer size of the project is a concern of the city’s, as are air quality, traffic, increased population and increased rail traffic through town.

The project has so far been skating through the county approval process, and that has brought about a pair of lawsuits — one by the city and one by local opposition group WS-PACE.org.

Both suits claim the county committed to the project on April 22, 2008, when the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors approved a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to choose a master developer for the site and create a project description before an environmental impact report was complete. The environmental review is currently under way.

The city’s lawsuit was dismissed earlier this month, and the WS-PACE.org suit appears to be in a holding pattern.

The city claimed that the county showed strong commitment to the project in its January 2008 application for bond money from the California Transportation Commission. Patterson claimed that commitment should have triggered the full environmental review, and it used a recent state Supreme Court decision as support.

On Oct. 30, the state Supreme Court ruled in the case Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood that the city violated state law by joining two developers and obtaining a federal grant for a senior citizen housing project before an environmental review had been completed.

But Judge Tyler Tharpe ruled that Stanislaus County’s actions merely indicated its support of the project, not an irreversible commitment that would preclude the county from ultimately selecting a different project or taking any measures necessary to mitigate environmental concerns.

Logan said that because Save Tara also lost in a trial court and later won on appeal, the city should not be afraid to push forward.

“Trial judges are just not as particular at enforcing environmental laws as appellate judges are,” Logan said. “You get a better sense of justice in the appellate courts.

“I think we’d have a very good chance on appeal, but the council will have to make that decision.”

County counsel John P. Doering disagreed with Logan’s logic. He said Save Tara went to the California Supreme Court precisely because there was no framework in place for judges to use on these types of cases.

The court’s decision on Save Tara, Doering said, created that framework. And that framework was used by Tharpe in his ruling on Patterson’s suit against West Park.

“I have to almost laugh at (Logan’s) rationale,” Doering said. “Obviously, the 5th District Court of Appeal could see things differently, but frankly, it’s our opinion that (Tharpe’s ruling) was a well-reasoned analysis. We think we’re on solid ground.”

Another question the council must consider is what, if anything, Patterson would gain even if the appeal is unsuccessful. If the appeal process itself slows down the project, it might be beneficial to the city regardless of the outcome of the case.

Part of the process for the county to receive the CTC bond money — about $22 million earmarked for the inland port and short-haul rail portion of the project — is obtaining rail rights of way from Union Pacific Railroad. The county’s negotiations with Union Pacific had been on hold because Union Pacific was named in the city’s lawsuit.

Now, those negotiations can and soon will begin. Keith Boggs, the county’s deputy executive officer of economic development and its project manager for West Park, said the county will likely send a letter requesting a meeting with Union Pacific in the next couple of weeks.

Doering said the negotiations were put on hold primarily because both the county and Union Pacific were uncomfortable negotiating amidst an ongoing lawsuit, but an appeal by the city wouldn’t necessarily stop the process like the initial case did.

Union Pacific could still decide to hold off on the negotiations, but Boggs said he doesn’t believe that would put the county in jeopardy of losing the bond money.

“I think we’ve shown signs of progress to the CTC staff, and they know we’re being as diligent as we can,” Boggs said. “So I think we’re in a good place.”