HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-20-1975 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, SERVING AS
A COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF THE OPERATION OF THE
RICHMOND POWER & LIGHT PLANT, OCTOBER 20, 1975
1 The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana, met in regular
2 session October 20, 1975 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers
3 in the Municipal Building in said City serving as a committee in charge
4 of the operation of the Richmond Power & Light Plant. Mr. Brown presided
5 with the following members present: Messrs. Cornett, Elstro, Geier,
6 Hilton, Marino, Merchanthouse, Mills and Williams. Absent: None. The
7 following business was had to-wit:
8
9 Mr. Williams moved to approve the minutes of the previous meeting,
10 seconded by Mr. Mills and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
11
12 Mr. Hilton moved to approve the following bills, seconded by Mr. Elstro
13 and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried:
14
15 APPROVE THE FOLLOWING:
16 Bills in the amount of $575,788.67
17 Interest Coupons None
18 1 Payroll 66,334.90
19
20 TRANSFER FROM CASH OPERATING FUND TO:
21 Depreciation Reserve Fund $ 91 ,000.00
22 Cash Reserve Fund 60,000.00
23 Utility Bond Fund 68,745.82
24
25 John Brown, Chairman of the Board, presented the following statement:
26
27 On Oct. 15, 1975, the Republican City Committee caused to be printed
28 in the Palladium-Item a political advertisement which was completely
29 erroneous in content. In this ad they attempted to make a rate
11/ 30 comparison between Richmond Power and Light and various other cities
31 in Indiana. They note that the Richmond rate includes the recent
32 15% .rate increase but they neglect to mention that the other cities
33 listed have had a substantial increase also, some more than Richmond,
34 and, therefore, they are comparing apples and oranges. They also
35 fail to mention whether the rates quoted are for one kilowatt hour or
36 for 100 kilowatt hours. Over the past four years the Economic Growth
37 Group (EGG) of the Chamber of Commerce, along with the City Administra-
38 tion and with the complete co-operation of RP&L, have been attempting to
39 obtain new industry for the City, this kind of irresponsible information
40 does a pretty good job of submarining all the efforts of the Chamber,
41 the City and RP&L.
42 '
43 During an election campaign I think all parties have the responsibility
44 to the voters to inform them of the issues and to give their respective
45 solutions and suggestions for improvements, but for one party to
46 deliberately mislead the voters with mis-information, is unforgivable.
47 For the past three meetings Mr. Cornett, has been trying to change a
48 procedure that was agreed to by a majority of this body, i .e. , that we
49 would be furnished,by the General Manager of RP&L, with a rate
50 comparison between Richmond and certain other cities of Indiana on a
51 quarterly basis. I probably overstepped parlimentary rules by
52 allowing Mr. Cornett to make three motions to change this procedure
53 but, while Mr. Cornett and I have not seen eye to eye in the past, I
54 have respected his right to vote and to be heard according to his
11/ 55 conscience. When Mr. Cornett made these above mentioned motions , I
56 then believed that he wanted the information for a reason that would
57 be for the continuing effort of this governing body to improve the
58 operation of RP&L, Ifind now that he wanted the information for
59 purely political reasons. I believe Mr. Cornett and the Republican
60 City Committee have done irrepairable harm to Richmond. People who
61 have read the ad will not read this statement and will not read the
62 correct figures Mr. Geier is going to present.
63
64
65
RP&L Minutes
October 20, 1975
Page 2
1 Chairman Brown's letter cont.
2 If I am criticized for making the above statement in an official
3 public meeting of this body, I will agree that usually this is not
4 the place for political debate, but in this case, when the integrity
5 of this body and the General Manager of RP&L is impugned then, I
6 believe it is the duty of the Chairman to answer in his official
7 capacity.
8
9 Mr. Brown stated the correct rate comparisons are as follows:
10
11 June Oct.
12 Richmond $19.64 $19.30
13 Anderson 16.37 17.61
14 Evansville 17.76 22.51
15 Indianapolis 18.16 16.29
16 Kokomo 19.82 24.18
17 Muncie 15.78 18.63
18 Mich. City 21 .26 24.01
19
20 City Attorney Robert Burton examined proof of publication for bids
21 to be received for a new auto and found it to be in order.
22
23 Mr. Geier moved to accept and file proof of publication, seconded by
24 Mr. Hilton and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
25
26 Bids were received from the following: Fred First., Inc. , $4,091 .68
27 less trade-in allowance of $1 ,300.00 for a net difference of $2,791 .68;
28 Kurdy's Brookbank Chevrolet, $4097.00, less trade in of $1 ,700.00 for
29 a net difference of $2,397.00; and Raper Sales, Inc. $4,240.00.
30
31 Mr. Geier moved to take bids under advisement, seconded by Mr. Merchant-
32 house and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
33
34 Mr. Irving Huffman, General Manager, presented the following statement:
35
36 As a result of our last meeting, Mr. Pat Clapper, Division Manager
37 for I&M, phoned to advise that when the I&M contract expires
38 January 1 , 1977, I&M supposedly will not have sufficient power
39 to serve RP&L. I asked that he put the information in a letter
40 in order that we could show the information to this group and
41 others. We naturally cannot go on just a phone call . As yet
42 we have not received a letter from I&M.
43
44 In our rate case, I&M is fighting to keep us from buying power from
45 other companies or our selling power to other companies. Now they
46 are saying somethingelse. The actions of the tongue are opposite
47 that of their continued resistance to our doing what they say we
48 must do in 1977.
49
50 Our rate case since 1972 has been an effort to get a complete
51 interchange contract which permits RP&L to enter into a contract
52 with whomever we choose to purchase power from or sell power to.
53 The F.P.C. has held this up through their inaction. We have
54 vigorously pushed this and I&M has vigorously opposed
55 it. The F.P.C. has followed its history of inaction. Now I&M is
56 saying something else, but still doing what they have been doing
57 all along---stalling and overcharging the municipals . When the
58 F.P.C. finally acts, which it must, we will get our problems
59 solved and not before. I&M will see to that.
60
6111/
62 Mr. Chairman, I reported to this body before, that the Public
63 Service Commission of Indiana, has engaged the services of Ernst
64 & Ernst to do a complete study of the coal purchasing practices
65 of the five stockholder--owned companies in Indiana and also
66 those of RP&L.
RP&L Minutes
October 20, 1975
Page 3
General Manager Huffman's statement cont.
1 Ernst & Ernst provided all six companies with very lengthy
2 question forms to complete. The information sought was an in-
3 depth sutdy of the various companies 'purchasing of coal practices ,
4 our philosophy of purchase, and plans for the future. Ernst
5 & Ernst had one of their men to interview Mr. Robert Ray, Plant
6 Supt. , and myself, in great detail , Ernst & Ernst also interviewed
111 7 all our employees involved in coal purchases and record keeping.
8 They thoroughly checked our contract and our records.
9
10 The study made on the six companies , which included RP&L, is being
11 submitted to the P.S.C. The expenses of the study is being paid
12 by the State of Indiana. The results of the very elaborate and
13 detailed study will be made public by the P.S.C. when the hearings
14 are conducted.
15
16
17 Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to submit testimony before the
18 P.S.C. concerning the proposed closing of Penn-Central 's 633.
19 Neither Conrail nor Governor Bowen is interested in keeping 633
20 open. We now have a volume rate on coal shipped via Penn Central
21 to Richmond, If 633 closes, we lose the volume rate. We don't
22 even know what the new freight rates will be, since the coal
23 wil be required to go through Anderson, Muncie, over to Ansonia,
24 Ohio where it will have to be sent on another train down to West
25 Manchester, and then on a third train back into Indiana.
26
27 Line 633 is now, and has always been, profitable to Penn Central .
28 In' no way can I see any reason to close 633, especially since
29 it can cost the citizens of Richmond as much as $426,024.00 per
30 year in increased fuel clause.charges. Good rail service is a
31 must to the future growth of Richmond. R.P.&L. has spent several
32 thousands of dollars and time of our people to help attract
33 industry to Richmond through the E.G.G. Group. It's important
34 that the city doesn't tie a hand behind its back with the proposed
35 closing of 633.
36
37 Every citizen in Richmond should be up in arms with the proposed
38 closing, because it will not only mean higher utility rates, but
39 but it will mean higher freight rates on all items purchased,
40 which also must be paid by the citizens of Richmond.
41
42
43 Mr. Chairman, as you may have noticed from the news media, RP&L
44 has had two sizable reductions in the fuel clause, and we have a
45 third reduction pending before the Commission. These reductions
46 come from our negotiating lower fuel rates from companies , other
47 than the contract rate. We, as always, will continue to
48 work to lower these rates. Each time we apply for either a
49 reduction, or an increase, in the fuel: clause, the P.S.C. sends a
50 representative to personally review our records and practices in
51 great detail . A complete report is given to the Commission by
52 the investigator for each hearing.
53
54
55 Mr. Chairman, I direct this to the Board and the news media. If
56 any consumer has any question concerning rates, services , financial
57 condition, operating practices , or desire a copy of a very complete
58 financial statement, please contact me for the information.
59
60 There being no further business on motion duly made, seconded and
61 passed, the meeting was adjourned.
62
63 John Brown -
64 Chairman.
65
66 ATTEST: Margaret Mellen
67 City Clerk