Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutORD10182 BILL NO. g,3 —�34 SPONSORED BY COUNCILMAN ® ORDINANCE NO. L� D AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH WILLIAM M. BARVICK FOR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract with William M. Barvick for the provision of legal services for the sum of $30, 000. Section 2. The contract shall be substantially the same in form and content as that contract attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 3. There is hereby appropriated out of the Unappropriated General Fund Balance $60, 000 for the purpose of increasing the appropriations of UE Rate Case, Account Number 10- 15-336A. Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of its passage and approval. ® Passed 1q-1 7 - g Approved el -2n _�'cf Preq,4fding Off ice Mayor ATTEST: Of O City Clerk LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACT This contract is made and entered into this -�-- day of ® , 1984 , by and between the City of Jefferson, Missouri, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City" , and William M. Barvick, hereinafter referred to as "Attorney" . The parties agree as follows : 1. Attorney will represent the City in the Union Electric Company rate increase request case currently pending before the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC Case No. ER-84-168) . Such representation shall include reviewing all testimony in the case, consultation with the City regarding the position that it wishes to take in the case, the selection of, and consultation with, expert witnesses to present testimony in support of that position, consultation with the Commission's Staff and the Public Counsel regarding their positions in the case, briefing and arguing the case before the Commission, and such other similar matters as may be necessary to fully prepare and conclude the case before the Commission. 2. The City will pay for the services rendered by Attorney at $60/hour. The City will also pay any out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Attorney in connection with those services, including travel, long distance telephone calls, copies , and postage for mailing packages. 3. Attorney will submit to the City a detailed bill each month itemizing the cost of the services rendered. The City will pay Attorney on a monthly basis . The total cost of the services under this contract shall not exceed $30, 000 without the prior written approval of the City, even if other cities join with the City for joint representation. 4 . If the City decides to join with other cities in the presentation of a common position, Attorney will undertake the additional representation insofar as it does not conflict with representation of the City. The charge for this joint representation would be at the same rate of $60/hour. The City will pay Attorney for the entire cost of the joint representation. Contribution to the payment of those costs by the participating cities is a matter to be worked out between Jefferson City and the other cities . 5. City will hire the expert witnesses to be used in the case. Attorney shall consult with the City concerning the selection of the expert witnesses . 6. Attorney's letter to the City Counselor, dated March 29, 1984 , is hereby incorporated by reference into this contract . • 7. City may terminate this contract by giving notice in writing to the Attorney. Upon termination of this contract, City will pay Attorney for any unpaid services he has already 'performed and for any unpaid out-of-pocket expenses already incurred. CITY OF JEFFERSON By MAYOR ATTEST: c CITY CLERK WILLIAM M. BARVICK Attorney at Law WILLIAM M. BARVICK ATTORNEY AT LAW ® 124 EAST HIGH STREET JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI GS101 314-834-4737 March 29, 1984 Mr. Lyndel Porterfield City Counselor 320 East McCarty Jefferson City, MO 65101 Re: Union Electric request to increase rates charged for electric service, P.S.C. Case No. 84-168 Dear Mr. Porterfield: It is my understanding that Jefferson City will be faced with a substantial increase in the rates that it pays for electricity if the Union Electric Company's pending rate request is approved, and that, as a result, it is interested in obtain- ing the assistance of outside counsel to represent it in that ® proceeding. I have had extensive experience before the Missouri Public Service Commission, and, as you know, I recently represented Jefferson City and a coalition of similarly situated cities in an intervention in the Union Electric merger case in which the company was also proposing a major increase for municipal customers. As a result, I would like to submit the following proposal to provide legal services to the City and to any other city that joins with Jefferson City to protect a similar interest in the above proceedings. I will provide legal advice to the City and to any other city with a similar interest that has joined with the City in a common pursuit of their mutual interests in this proceeding. I will also provide representation before the Missouri Public Service Commission to protect and to promote the*City' s interests in the Union Electric rate case to insure that any action taken by the Commission on the Company's request to increase its rates does not result in any unwarranted and unreasonable increase in the rates currently paid by the City for electric service. The pending rate case is an extremely complicated case in which one can anticipate extensive hearings on a variety of issues in addition to those that one ordinarily encounters in a rate case. To lessen the cost to the City of an effective Mr. Lyndel Porterfield -2- March 29, 1984 intervention, my work would include a review and analysis of the Company's pre-filed testimony to identify and to distin- guish between those issues that directly impact upon the City and those whose impact would be indirect. It would also include an assessment of issues where the City's interests can be anticipated to be congruent with the interests of other parties, for example, the staff of the Commission and the Public Counsel. The employment of expert consultant assistance would be limited to those issues and areas where the City would have direct interests that are not likely to be protected or advocated by any other participant in the proceeding. My work will also include the review and analysis of proposals to provide consultant assistance and the selection and recommendation to the City of a suitable consultant. I will review and analyse the testimony of the Commission's staff, the Public Counsel and any other intervenor in this matter. I will work with the selected consultant and with city officials, where appropriate, in the preparation of pre-filed testimony. I will attend all hearings involving issues or matters where the City's interests are at stake. I will brief and argue the City's position before the Commission. In the conduct of my work, I will coordinate my efforts with the City Counselor and provide timely reports to the City on the status of the case throughout the proceedings. My charges for the above services are sixty dollars ($60.00) an hour for my time, plus the actual cost of such expenses as travel, long distance telephone calls, copies and postage for mailing packages or reports (e.g., the cost of mailing copies of testimony, briefs or other large documents to various parties in the proceeding) . Fees for services would be billed monthly. I would anticipate that the work associated with the pre- paration for and attendance at the hearings in Jefferson City, together with attendance at two or three local hearings in the Company' s service area would not require more than five hundred (500) hours. On that assumption, I would propose to do the work associated with this case at a maximum cost to the City of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30, 000) , unless otherwise authorized. In addition to the cost of my services, the City should anticipate hiring expert witnesses. I would anticipate that the sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30, 000) should be suffic- ient to pay for the cost of expert testimony in this case. In the event that other cities should join with .Jefferson City in the presentation of -a common position, I would be ® willing to undertake the additional responsibility insofar as t Mr. Lyndel Porterfield -3- March 29, 1984 it would not conflict with my duties to Jefferson City. The charge for my services would be the same. While I would look to Jefferson City for payment of my fees and expenses, con- tribution to the payment of those costs by participating cities would be a matter to be worked out between Jefferson City and the other cities. As you know, the deadline for intervening in this case is April 6, 1984. Intervening parties also have until April 19, 1984 to respond to a motion filed by the Company. In its motion the Company has asked the Commission to establish a procedure for an emergency rate increase which would take effect this year in the event that the Callaway plant became commercially operable ahead of schedule. It has also asked the Commission to adopt a procedure to deal with the eventuality that the plant comes on line later than anticipated. Under the Company's proposed procedure, it would be relieved of the obligation of filing a new rate case to bring the plant into rate base at the later date. I believe that a timely response to this motion is adviseable. If you have any questions about my qualifications and experience or about this proposal, please let me know. Very truly yours, A William M. Barvick WMB:mb