4.4. ERMUSR 05-12-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Commissioners Elk River Municipal Utilities FROM: Peter K. Beck RE: Legal Services DATE: May 5, 2009 This memorandum is to confirm that Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett has undertaken to provide general legal services to Elk River Municipal Utilities, effective with the Board's direction on April 14, 2009. We appreciate the opportunity to continue our service to the City of Elk River by undertaking this representation of the Municipal Utility. As the Commissioners may know, our fee arrangement with the City of Elk River includes a monthly retainer for general legal services, with matters outside of the retainer billed at the rate of $175 per hour. It is clear to me that the Utilities will generate less demand for general legal services than the City, but it is difficult at this time to estimate what that demand will be so that a reasonable and fair retainer amount can be arrived at. I suggest two alternatives for the Commission to consider: 1. We could proceed through the end of the year on an hourly basis only, at the City rate of $175 per hour. We should have enough experience by the end of the year to arrive at a fair amount for a monthly retainer, and the Commission could decide at that time whether to continue on an hourly basis or go with a retainer. 2. Alternatively, we could implement a $1,000 per month retainer, beginning May 1, 2009, with the understanding that we will revisit the amount of the monthly retainer at the end of the year to see if an adjustment is appropriate. $1,000 per month is roughly what the Utilities has paid over the last three years for legal services, and is less than one-third the amount of the City's retainer. Whichever approach the Commission selects, we will do our best to represent the Utility as efficiently and effectively as possible, providing top quality legal services at a fair price. However, the Commission should know that I expect the Utilities need for legal services going forward will be greater than it has been in the past, partially because we will have a more comprehensive approach to providing legal services to the Utility than in the past; and partially because there are a number of significant issues coming up, including the need to update the water ordinance and regulations to address foreclosures, mandatory hook-ups, etc., and the Big Stone II project. The Commission should, therefore, anticipate that its budget for legal services will go up. However, we will do our best to ensure that only the legal services needed are provided and that they are provided as efficiently as possible. I will attend the Commission's meeting on May 12 to answer any questions or discuss further these two options, or other alternatives the Commissioners might have in mind. GP:2564001 v2