HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-03-1981 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, SERVING AS A BOARD
IN CHARGE OF THE OPERATION OF THE RICHMOND POWER
& LIGHT PLANT, AUGUST 3, 1981
1 The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana, serving as a Board
2 in charge of the operation of the Richmond Power & Light Plant, met in
3 regular session August 3, 1981 at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal
4 Building of said City. Chairman Welch presided with the following members
5 present: Messrs. Elstro, Williams, Ahaus, Hankinson, Mills, Parker, Carter
6 and Paust. Absent: None. The following business was had, to-wit:
7
8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1981
9
10 Councilman Hankinson moved to approve the minutes from the previous
11 meeting, seconded by Councilman Carter and on unanimous voice vote
12 the motion was carried.
13
14 APPROVAL OF BILLS, TRANSFERS AND INVESTMENTS
15
16 APPROVE THE FOLLOWING:
17 Bills in the amount of $1,179,203.88
18 2 Payrolls 232,034.94
19
20 TRANSFERS FROM CASH OPERATING FUND TO:
21 Bond Sinking Fund 70,040.42
22 Cash Reserve Fund 83,428.25
23
24 INVESTMENTS PURCHASED
25 Cash Operating Fund 1,735,322.08
26
27 Councilman Hankinson moved to approve the following bills, transfers and
28 investments as submitted, seconded by Councilman Parker and on unanimous
29 voice vote the motion was carried.
30
31 REMARKS BY GENERAL MANAGER
32
33 In response to Councilman Ahaus' question concerning selling power, General
34 Manager Irving Huffman said they are trying to work out a sale to eastern
35 Maryland by next week. He also stated that even though the Federal Energy
36 Regulatory Commission encouraged the replacement of oil fired power by
37 coal fired power, RP&L was not replacing any from the east.
38
39 PRECIPITATOR & STACK ELIMINATOR
40
41 Mr. Huffman, answering a query from Councilman Welch, stated there is a
42 new SO2 remover with mist type scrubber available, but no utilities are
43 showing indications at this time that they may purchase them. There is
44 a possibility that the EPA may lessen some of their restrictions, which
45 would be beneficial to small companies such as ours, in that a new stack
46 could cost about $2,000,000 to correct one or two violations that may or
47 may not have happened. Even though a new stack may be added which meets
48 EPA criteria, someone may say it now adds to the acid rain problem. The
49 height of the stack is also in dispute. Even when the SO2 problem is
50 corrected, the fertilizer problem may arise because there is some bene-
51 fit from it.
52
53 ADJOURNMENT
54
55 There being no further business on motion duly made, seconded and passed
56 the meeting was adjourned.
57
58 - Bing Welch
59 Chairman
60
61 ATTEST: JoEllen Trimble
62 City Clerk