Item N6
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date:
January 16, 2002
Division:
County Attorney
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Approval of Letter of Understanding from Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson to provide Special
Counsel Services related to the facility and financial feasibility analysis of the provision
of wastewater utility services to the Lower Keys by KW Resort Utilities.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
A "Sunshine" meeting between Commissioners Spehar and Williams was held on
January 3, 2002 (see attached minutes).
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
Numerous prior meetings, at which little was accomplished.
CONTRACT I AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval.
TOTAL COST:
COST TO COUNTY:
BUDGETED: Yes 0 No 0
APPROVED BY:
County Attorney. OMB/Purchasing 0 Risk Management 0
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: ~ ~/;;l
T. NDRIC
DOCUMENTATION: Included 0 To Follow 0 Not Required 0
AGENDA ITEM #
/ - /VitJ
NABORS, GIBLI N & NICKERSON, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 200
1500 MAHAN DRIVE
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32308
THE POINTE. SUITE 1060
2502 ROCKY POINT DRIVE
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33607
TELEPHONE 1850) 224.4070
TELECOPY (8501224-4073
CNL CENTER. SUITE 510
450 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE
ORLANDO. FLORIDA 32801
(813) 281.2222
(4071426-7595
TELECOPY 1813) 281-0129
TELECOPY 14071 426-8022
January 4, 2002
Via Overnight Delivery
lD)~cgm:7
) ~\~
~'c JAN 0 7 _
James Hendrick, Esquire
Monroe County Attorney
310 Fleming Street
Key West, Florida 33040
Re: Special Counsel Services Relating to the Provision of Wastewater Utility
Service in the Lower Florida Keys
Dear Mr, Hendrick:
This is written to outline a scope of services for our firm to direct a facility and
financial feasibility analysis of the provision of wastewater utility services to the Lower
Florida Keys (Stock Island to Bay Point) by Key West Resort Utilities, Inc. ("KW") to
Monroe County (the "County"),
It is our understanding that KW will immediately submit to us a proposal for the
provision of wastewater service to the Lower Florida Keys (the "KW Lower Keys
Proposal"). Included in such submittal shall be a geographic description of the proposed
wastewater service area and the engineering and financial assumptions supporting the KW
Lower Keys Proposal. It is our further understanding that the engineering and financial
consultants of KW will be available to us and our consultants in the performance of our
analysis to explain and clarify the supporting engineering and financial assumptions.
Specifically, such scope of service includes the following:
1. A facility analysis of the wastewater treatment, effluent disposal and
collection facility plan incorporated into the KW Lower Keys Proposal. Such facility
analysis shall include: (a) consideration of the adequacy and capacity of the existing KW
wastewater facilities to accommodate the contemplated expansion program, including
specifically, the availability of sufficient wastewater treatment and disposal capacity; (b) a
review of existing permits and certificates of necessity to determine the regulatory ability
of KW to implement the contemplated expansion program and to identify existing and
potential permit conditions that will impact wastewater facility capital and operating costs;
(c) a review of the adequacy of the capital cost estimate utilized by KW; and (d) a
James Hendrick
January 4, 2002
Page 2
determination of whether the contemplated expansion program will result in a Florida
Departmentof Environmental Protection requirement for Advanced Wastewater Treatment
("AWT"), or, absent such a requirement, whether AWT would provide substantial benefits,
and the impact on permit conditions and non-operating capital costs associated with such
determination. There will also be an analysis of the availability of nutrient credits as a
result of the KW project and a similar nutrient credit analysis if the project is at A WT levels.
2. A financial analysis of supporting financial assumptions of the KW Lower
Keys Proposal. Such financial analysis shall include: (a) a review of the capital costs,
annual operation and maintenance expenses, required reserves and depreciation
assumptions and the allocation of such costs between monthly service charges and
connection fees and other charges sufficient to test the adequacy of the financial
assumptions in the contemplated expansion program; (b) a determination of the timing and
necessity for mandating connection of existing improved property to support the financial
assumptions; (c) a review of the EDU assumptions of potential connections by customer
class; and (d) a determination of the estimated cost to the property owner for connection
to the contemplated expansion program,
3. A review of any legal or statutory restraints on the use of FEMA or other
public funds assumed in the supporting financial assumptions.
4. An analysis of the constitutional requirements or governance alternatives for
the implementation of the KW Lower Keys Proposal. Included in such analysis will be
necessary contractual assurances required under the existing Florida Keys Aqueduct
Authority statutory authority,
Additionally, we would be available, if required, to provide special counsel services
in the implementation of the KW Lower Keys Proposal, including drafting of required
contracts.
It is contemplated that we will use the services of Government Services Group, Inc,
("GSG") in the performance of the facility analysis described in paragraph 1 and the
financiCj,l1 analysis described in paragraph 2. As you know, several members of our Firm
are also stockholders of GSG.
We have requested that GSG prepare a workplan to describe the specific tasks
required to perform the analyses contemplated in paragraph 1 and 2 above. Such
workplan would include a method of compensation for the services provided by GSG and
a cost matrix of the time and estimated costs to complete each task. Such cost matrix
would also identify any required subcontractors necessary for the performance of the
outlined tasks. Any additional subcontractors subsequently determined to be necessary
by our Firm and GSG to complete any of the contemplated scope of services would be
subject to prior approval by the County.
James Hendrick
January 4, 2002
Page 3
The method of compensation for legal services for the Firm shall be on an hourly
basis calculated pursuant to the following hourly rates:
(a) stockholders
(b) senior associates
(c) junior associates
(d) law clerks
$200 per hour
$175 per hour
$150 per hour
$ 70 per hour
In addition, the firm shall be reimbursed for actual costs incurred on long distance
telephone charges, travel expenses and overnight delivery charges. Photocopies shall be
billed at 25~ per page, Any travel expenses shall be reimbursed in accordance with
section 112.061, Florida Statutes.
A statement for professional services rendered and costs incurred shall be
submitted monthly for the fees and costs incurred the previous month.
It is contemplated that the method of compensation for services provided by GSG
shall also be calculated on an hourly basis. As discussed previously, such method of
compensation and an estimation of costs will be included in the workplan GSG has been
requested to prepare,
We understand that time is of the essence in the completion of the scope of service
described in paragraph 1 through 4 above and estimate that the contemplated analysis can
be completed within 90 days from the receipt of a notice to proceed to our Firm and GSG.
I trust the scope of services outlined in this letter meets your expectations, Thank
you for your consideration of our Firm on this important project.
Very truly yours,
U1~
Robert L. Nabors
RLN/adg
cc: Commissioner Dixie Spehar
Commissioner Nora Williams
James L. Roberts, Monroe County Administrator
Robert E. Sheets, CEO, Government Services Group, Inc.
WASTEWATER IN THE LOWER KEYS
January 3~-2002
DRAFT
MONROE COUNTY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON
WASTEWATER IN THE LOWER KEYS
JANUARY 3, 2002, TWO O'CLOCK PM
Members Present: Jim Hendrick, County Attorney, Jim Roberts, County
Administrator, Commissioner Dixie M. Spehar; present by telephone: Commissioner
Nora Williams and Robert Nabors, Attorney with Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A.
Public Attendees: Laurie Karnatz, Key West Citizen and Elizabeth Knoffo, Weiler
Engineering.
Commissioner Williams started the meeting by saying that when the BOCC first
talked about the project, there were two alternatives for Mr. Nabors to consider:
1. FKAA was to move forward with their own facility, or
2. Expansion of Key West Resort Utility (KWRU) Facility and extension of
lines beyond Stock Island.
However, because the FKAA is no longer interested in taking on this additional
responsibility, we only have one Lower Keys project to consider.
Mr. Nabors was requested to put together a feasibility study of a Lower, Lower Keys
Wastewater Facility serving the area of Bay Point to Stock Island, which is to include
analysis of:
a. Steps needed to accomplish it, and
b. how the FKAA will function as a pass-through of FEMA funds, and will
exercise its statutory wastewater authority.
This would be accomplished through formation of a tri-party agreement among
FKAA, County, and KWRU. This will mirror the Hawks Cay/Conch Key proposal for
utilizing FEMA funds in the expansion of a private Facility.
Commissioner Williams reiterated that the county has two issues:
1. Production of nutrient reduction credits; "we are out of them", and
2. Whether advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) should be required prior
to 2010. Monroe County's role in this process should be as Facilitator, and
potentially a source of funding.
If KWRU does not go to AWT, it minimizes the nutrient credits we will get for hooking
up the Lower, Lower Keys. Is it worthwhile to go forward at this point with AWT
because AWT will be required by the year 2010? In any event?
Mr. Hendrick said that the County needs a facility analysis to make sure the existing
infrastructure can accommodate the increased flow, because there has been a
question of the condition of the pipes, the need to update them, and odors that are
coming from the existing treatment facility. Also, we need an analysis of the cost to
upgrade the AWT so that we can get the nutrient credits.
1
. .
WASTEWATER IN THE LOWER KEYS
January 3;-2002
Mr. Nabors questioned if there was completed information from KWRU and FKAA as
to costs, He reminded that at the November 19, 2001 meeting he was to be
supplied with the information by December 10th. As of this date, he has not received
the figures. Commissioner Williams assured him that he would receive the
information as it does exist and will be provided.
Commissioner Spehar asked for a time frame for completion of the analysis and if it
could be within 90 days. Mr. Nabors felt that it could be done, assuming FKAA's
involvement and cooperation.
Mr. Hendrick stated that one important part of the analysis will be how to transition
from FKAA jurisdiction to expansion of KWRU's PSC Franchise, to let private
enterprise take over. Commissioner Williams agreed that this is the ultimate goal.
Commissioner Spehar asked Mr. Nabors if he had the December 7th memo from
Roger Braun, which said that since FKAA was not going to be part of the feasibility
study he was submitting 10 points for comparison of capabilities. Mr. Nabors said
that he had not, so Commissioner Spehar will fax the memo after this meeting is
terminated.
Mr. Nabors asked if consideration should be given to KWRU serving as a bulk
provider. Commissioner Spehar stated at the November 19, 2001 meeting there
were three scenarios:
1. FKAA would administer,
2. KWRU would administer, or
3. FKAA would administer and KWRU would provide treatment under terms
of a service agreement.
Commissioner Williams felt that it was not sure that KWRU is set up for the billing
aspect so FKAA billing should be considered as part of the scenario to make it work.
Mr. Nabors requested that the memorandum be sent to him so that he can redefine
the scope of his engagement based on the concerns spoken today.
Commissioner Spehar summarized: Mr. Nabors will perform a Facility analysis and
Financial analysis of both AWT and Secondary, which will address the ten points from
FKAA, and will include a capital cost estimate. Mr. Nabors replied that he would send
a letter to Mr. Hendrick outlining the scope of the proposed analysis. Mr. Hendrick
said that he would include the proposal letter agreement and the minutes of the
meeting in his report to the BOCC at the January meeting.
Commissioner asked for addition questions before terminating the call. Guest
Elizabeth Knoffo asked for Mr. Nabor's address and numbers, which were supplied.
There being no further questions, the conference was concluded.
jdboccWW
2