Res 1990-119 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

36 August 21, 1990 ~ E. P. HAMILTON AND ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERING AND CONSUL TING Mr. Larry Gilly - ~ City Manager City of San Marcos 630 E. Hopkins San Marcos, Texas 78666 Dear Mr. Gilly: This letter is in regards to the contract between the City of San Marcos, Texas and E.P. Hami I ton and Associates, I nc ., for engineering and related professional services associated with PUC Docket 9427, LCRA application for rate increase. We were contacted and retained for the City by your attorney, Mr. Bob Kahn, of Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson and Troilo, Austin, Texas. E.P. Hamilton and Associates, Inc., agreed to provide the City of San Marcos with the aforementioned services, executed primarily by its President, E.P. Hami I ton III, Ph . D ., P.E., and billed at our commercial rate of $110.00 per hour plus expenses (expenses loaded with 20% overhead fee). Staff personnel assisting Dr. Hami I ton are billed at hourly rates commensurate with their position but lower than the aforementioned rate. As a matter of information, our corporate pol icy is to delegate appropriate supporting tasks to staff personnel to minimize client costs, and we have attempted to do this as much as is possible on this project. Per your request, we consulted with Mr. Kahn and, based on his estimates of work expected, we set a cap of $15,000 on this contract with the understanding that '... could be increased if necessary. Based on 1... our understanding of the expected scope of work, this level of effort appeared to be reasonable. I understand that Mr. Kahn has informed you that the scope of work in this matter has changed significantly. At least part of this change results from the delays i'n the hearing imposed by the examiner; these delays have allowed for the introduction of additional discovery materials which we have been required to analyze by Mr. Kahn. other factors indirectly resulting from Commission action have also changed the scope of work considerably. For example, the original work scope was based on the premise that my hearing attendance required by Mr. Kahn would consist of 2-3 days total, as no friendly cross-examination would be allowed. As I am certain you are aware, the examiner clarified his rul ing on this matter only a week and a half ago, permitting friendly cross examination so long as it was not rehabilitative. The immediate effect on us was to lengthen the time required to assist Mr. Kahn during only the direct-related examination of Mr. Belk of LCRA on the issues which we addressed from an estimated day and a half to in excess of one weekì plus it raised additional issues which I am certain Mr. Kahn will want us to address during the rebuttal phase of the hearing. Additionally, Mr. Kahn has requested that we revie~1 significantly greater amounts of testimony than he 1406 THREE POINTS RD., SUITE B-9 PFLUGERVILLE, TEXAS 78660 512-251-4279