City Agency Backs Terremark Position Versus Fpl In Nap Controversy
Written by Paola Iuspa on May 24, 2001
By Paola Iuspa
The Community Redevelopment Agency said Tuesday they will throw financial support behind developers of the Network Access Point, a massive Internet-connection site being built in downtown Miami, to help the telecommunications consortium weather a storm FP&L is casting over it.
The utility is demanding security from the developer to guarantee it revenue from the huge, projected amount of power the network will use. The developer, Terremark Worldwide disagrees with the charge, saying FPL bought into the planned NAP but never mentioned the need for additional security funds.
The Community Redevelopment Agency, with city commissioners sitting on the board of directors but acting independently from the City of Miami, decided to support Terremark if bonds are needed for that security.
Such bonds were required after the Florida Public Service Commission supported FPL’s charge to the developer to post a $7.5 million bond to get the service it requires, a city document said. FPL says it must expand its capacities to provide the requested 100 watts per square foot for service needed to keep the NAP running, said a letter to Commissioner Arthur Teele from William Bloom, an attorney with Holland & Knight, on behalf of the developer.
Terremark is developing the NAP of the Americas, the fifth tier-1, network access point in the US in the Technology Center of the Americas in Park West.
"The CRA would assume the responsibility to reimburse the cost of any bond," said Mr. Teele at a Community Redevelopment Agency meeting Tuesday. "It will send the message we are committed to the development of the NAP and the entire neighborhood."
Brian Goodkind, executive vice president and COO with Terremark, thanked the board. He said it was the best way out considering Terremark "would not have enough time to petition the PSC ruling."
He said the technology center is schedule to open June 30.
Alex Vilarello, city attorney, said commissioners instructed him to look to outside counsels to revise the PSC’s approval and "go back before the PSC to make some changes" to the original ruling "to allow the NAP to go forward without some of the additional restraints."
The guaranty agreement, among other things, would require the developer to assure FPL that the requested demand would materialize by the end of three years, according to the letter. It said the developer would be obligated to reimburse FPL for a portion of the costs incurred by FPL in installing the infrastructure needed to service the facility if that demand does not materialize at the end of three years.
The letter indicated there were enough reasons to go before the PSC to convince members the agreement was approved under FPL’s argument not totally accurate or fair to Terremark.