HomeMy Public PortalAbout09-05-1978 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, SEPTEMBER 5, 1978
1 The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana, serving as a Board in
2 charge of the operation of the Richmond Power & Light Plant, met in regular
3 session September 5, 1978 at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Building
4 of said City. Councilman Ahaus presided with the following members present:
5 Messrs. Elstro, Williams, Austerman, Merchanthouse, Carter, Paust and Welch.
611/
Absent: Councilman Mills. The following business was had, to-wit:
7
8 Councilman Williams moved to approve the minutes ofthe previous meeting as
9 prepared, seconded by Councilman Welch and on unanimous voice vote, the motion
10 was carried.
11
12 Councilman Carter noted a letter from Murlin Clark of RP&L explaining the
13 departure from the regular agenda on bills not matching up with the agenda.
14 The letter explained why the bills do not appear on the agenda at the proper
15 time and what he is going to do about it. From now on all bills will be listed
16 on the proper agenda.
17
18 Councilman Carter moved to approve the following bills and investments,
19 seconded by Councilman Welch and on unanimous voice vote, the motion was
20 carried.
21
22 APPROVE THE FOLLOWING:
23 Bills in the amount of $ 321,815.66
24 Bonds and Interest Coupons 10,940.00
25 1 Payroll 83,932.96
26 - -
27 INVESTMENTS PURCHASED
28 *Depreciation Reserve Fund 136,760.45
29 **Cash Reserve Fund 67,115.92
30 **Utility Bond Reserve Fund 6,812.96
31 **Utility Bond Sinking Fund 69,260.43
32 ***Cash Operating Fund 300,000.00
33 ****Cash Operating Fund 120,000.00
34
35 *U.S . Treasury Notes maturing in 1 year, yielding 8.3%
36 ,**U.S . Treasury Notes maturing 1/5/79, yielding 7.55%
37 ***U.S . Treasury Notes maturing 9/25/78, yielding 7.56%
38 ****U.S . Treasury Notes maturing 10/20/78, yielding 7.43%
39
40 Chairman Ahaus had a news article from a Muncie paper indicating I&M reported
41 they are refunding more than 1.5 millon dollars to wholesale customers as a
42 result of a suit filed by I&M on behalf of its customers. This suit deals
43 with the cost of oil. According to this article, RP&L will receive $51,939.45.
44 Mr. Huffman stated he was told by Mr. Black, the Executive Vice-President who
45 is now the head of I&M, that RP&L would be receiving a refund but did not
46 know the amount. This is an outgrowth of the oil embargo.
47
48 Chairman Ahaus announced there will be an Executive Meeting on September
49 25, 1978 at 7:00 p.m. at RP&L.
50
51 General Manager Irving Huffman stated the meeting he had with I&M did verify
52 the amounts as being the same, which indicate that from the period of October
53 1, 1973 to January 2, 1977 there was a one million dollar ($1,000,000.00)
54 settlement. . From January 2, 1977 to July 22, 1978 there was a two million
55 one hundred twenty-five thousand eight hundred and two dollar ($2,125,802.00)
56 settlement. This settlement was based upon the difference in billing between
57 the rate they had been billing us and the new interchange rate. During
58 June 1977, August 1977, March 1978, and May 1978, RP&L had billing disputes with
59 I&M and withheld -a total of eight hundred five thousand seven hundred thirty-
60 three dollars and ten cents ($805.733.10) . When you total the figures and
61 deduct what was withheld, the total amount to be refunded is two million three
62 hundred twenty thousand sixty-eight dollars and ninety cents ($2,320,068.90) .
63 From June 1972 to September 1973, RP&L did receive refunds for the overcharges
RP&L Minutes Cont.
September 5, 1978
Page 2
1 for this period. October 1, 1973 to November 1, 1974, RP&L absorbed the
2 amount of money I&M was charging as a premium. In October 1974, RP&L
3 received a rate increase which permitted RP&L to increase the rates; however,
4 one stipulation was that any overcharges would be refunded after that period
5 of time. So, part of this money should go back to RP&L. The rest should
6 go to the consumer as a refund. After deducting expenses and the cost of
7 refund, which is estimated at four hundred thousand ($400,000.00) to a half
8 million dollars, if customers have to be traced, the balances will be the
9 refund amount. The Public Service Commission in wholesale rate tracking
10 case, set up a formula whereby refunds will be made in the future, not to go
11 in the arrears. Mr. Huffman met with the staff of the PSCI this week and
12 went over some of the things which might be encountered and offered
13 alternate plans. The staff will review this and report back to RP&L.
14
15 There being no further business on motion duly made, seconded and passed,
16 the motion was adjourned.
17
18 Rick Ahaus
19 Chairman
20
21 ATTEST: JoEllen Trimble
22 City Clerk