So in summary:
CBE probably can read it and understand what it means, excepting of course, question #3.
Gregg can probably understand it. He might even be able to read and understand the MCA, and City Ordinances.
Joe has a couple points. First, he notes “EPC can not make the city pay for any debt EPC incurs.” In this present circumstance, the City appears willing to pay without anyone making them. Why?
#3 is the necessary byproduct of 2. If Daddy won’t give you money, you need a job, gotta pay the bills.
Joe finds the ”Purpose of the Corporation” to be evasive and confusing. This is likely because it was written very broadly, to cover as many different scenarios as possible.
Lance, while accurate in his assessment, offers no substance to the discussion.
Then the captain apparently bows out, and we have an interesting comment from Publius. You see, one of the reasons I posted this question was because of a discussion relevant to the (alleged) e-mail between Gliko and Doyan.
I maintained that the e-mail did little to prove ECP was in violation of City Code, that the information needed to prove any violation resided in other documents, accessable and understandable to virtually anyone who wishes to read it. All that is left is to form your own opinion. I still think that.
It simply floors me that the City simply does not seem to care. The electric utility is blowing money out its, umm, roof, the City is burning up money on legal fees keeping public documents from the public, Colleen Balzarini is apparently burning the midnight oil deciding which of those documents you don’t get to see, and the City acts like this is all just business as usual.
It isn’t.
MEIC and CCE have my respect. I disagree with the majority of their views, but the people in these organizations have looked at the available information and see that there are a lot of wrong things going on here. And they are doing something.
One voice in a crowd will quickly be drowned out, unless every person is saying the same thing. It may be the environmentalists fighting for freedom of information, but that is one fight I do agree with, not so much for myself, but for all the people who have asked for information, and been shut down.
I don’t care that Ed McKnight wants to figure out incomprehensible (to me) numbers. He has a right to that information. Mary Jolly has the right, not just as a Commissioner, but as a citizen to ask for water rights information, and she asked, before she was ever a commissioner, if ECP was required to be self sustaining. And Dona Stebbins had a right to question the City spending on Explore!. Susan Overfield had a right to ask questions about the Animal Shelter. (but not to smack a cop.)
People have a right to ask the City questions when they see something that doesn’t look right. If you saw a bat, flying backwards, you would ask why. You have just as much of a chance of the bat answering as you do our City.
I have a question.
I have been following a discussion relevant to ECP and whether or not they are in violation of City Code. I am struck by something and I happen to think it is important.
So I am asking this: does the average person out there feel capable of reading a section of City Code and understanding what it says?
Here is Title 5, chapter 20, of the Great Falls City Code.
If you are willing to read it and give me a little feedback, please do. I do not care who you are, where you live or what you do for a living. I even have some specific questions you could try answering if you are so inclined.
1. What is the purpose of ECP?
2. If ECP incurs debt, is the City of Great Falls liable for it?
3. Is ECP required to be self sustaining at all times?
4. Who approves the rates and charges for electrical supply and other services provided by ECP?
5. Who approves the rules of operation for ECP?
Ordinance 2925, 2005
Ordinance 2861, 2003
Title 69, Chapter 7 parts 1 & 2, MCA
Title 35, Chapter 2, MCA Non Profit corporation act.
Thanks.
Update - the good captain requested another link.
This one looked good.
This is a rant.
If you are easily insulted, or have overblown ideas of what constitutes “civility” you should probably run now, because you will not like this post. Oh, and there may be cursing and some folks might take it personal. If you are one of those persons, feel free to tell my why you disagree with me, because I would really like to try and understand your point of view.
If some people would educate themselves, and actually get a clue about the issues, it would really help. Instead of sounding like a shrill cacophony of meaningless garble, meaningless at least for anything except fodder for critic’s to tear apart at will, there might be some hope for a single united voice to come through and actually express something that people will listen to.
Simply regurgitating other peoples assumptions, innuendos and conspiracies theories in poorly written posts and comments is counter productive, and makes everyone look like idiots. I personally prefer to NOT be considered an idiot.
Just an example:
“Thank God the Dearborn Ranch filed a extension for water rights and hope the City will come to it’s senses and STOP listening to the hypnotic ‘chant’ of the water rights consultant that advised Lawton to give away water rights…will Mr. Doney stand up for water rights for economic development tomorrow or remain mute?”
The Dearborn Ranch filed an extension for objections to water rights. This does not necessarily help Great Falls. In your bloodlust to make this an issue, you lose sight of the fact that Dearborn Ranch could object to OUR claimed water - we have to actually prove use of the water we claim. Dearborn has hundreds of claims for water rights, many with earlier priority dates than ours, and they are upstream water rights. Think about it!
Lawton, and the City did not give water rights away. THEY DIDN’T HAVE THEM TO GIVE AWAY in the first place!
Historic Water Rights have nothing to do with water for economic development in the future! For shits sake, do you REALLY not understand what PRE 1973 HISTORIC USE means?
If you don’t believe me, go ask DNRC.
Here is another example: “I don’t know anything about the logistics of this office, but it seems kind of interesting that both oversights are related to the coal plant.”
Really? You know nothing about what you are writing? Do you have any freaking clue if there are just as many, if not significantly more, instances totally unrelated to the coal plant where things were not done as you assume they should have been?
Yet another example of something not researched, something that has potential as an issue, But Isn’t! And no effort was made to find out if there was something there, hell no, let’s just throw it out on the damn internet and let everyone bash on the Clerks office for being prejudiced against the Coal Plant!
Do you realize every time someone makes a totally stupid, meaningless comment about one of these issues, all of our voices are minimized, and opened up to ridicule?
There are some bloggers that take time to research, and investigate and write serious posts about serious subjects. Yet most times, we are all grouped together as enviro insane, or the blogger who cried wolf, because some idiot who probably has a tough time finding two socks that match throws some insane conjecture out there, with nothing to back it up except all the voices of the blind joining in.
This is how witch hunts start.
“Here’s the trick…”
Instead of reading this comment literally, or giving the benefit of the doubt to the City Attorney, on a turn of phrase multiple commenters immediately accused Gliko of plotting to trick the citizens. When I read it, I thought, why would he tell the City Manager what the trick is? Because, you see, the “trick” I saw was how to prove ECP was operating illegally! Gliko noted the error, and the City Code that confirmed it. He did not try to deny it, or try to gloss it over.
And yet, he is being accused of trying to trick you into believing there is nothing wrong?
It is freaking stupid, and embarrasing, humiliating really, to read comments on the Tribune Forums, comments about bloggers, and to find myself agreeing with them.
Part 2
“The City of Great Falls is embarrassed to defend an 1889 53,000 acre-ft/yr water right.”
I don’t agree the City is embarrassed. I think the City is realistic. Below, I posted the issue remarks on municipal claims for the City of Billings. They are multiple, on every right, and are very legitimate.
Right now, on the abstracts that I can see, the only issue remarks for these three Historic Great Falls claims are relative to no volume being claimed on two of them. This is because the three claims share the 20,140 a/f volume, and this should not be an issue with DNRC.
Great Falls has reasonable claims, backed up by historic, beneficial use. CCE stated “City documents show Great Falls pumped between 48 million and 55 million gallons of water per day in the sixties”. I would like to see those documents, but apparently, WRSI has recently been asked to review them. From the letter, we get an idea of what the documents are.
There is some information in the DNRC files. This is pages 13 and 14 of the claim record for 41QJ 123411, the 1966 right. This is page 30 from the same 1966 right. I will be refering to them below.
In the second paragraph of the letter, Mr. Schmidt discusses a memo, and if he is correctly reporting what the memo says, it doesn’t seem to have great value.
Regarding the third paragraph, I have a copy of the Location of Water Right Notice of Appropriation. It is a very poor copy, but it states the claim is for 74 cfs. I don’t really see anything suspect about it.
Fourth paragraph, I agree, this has no bearing on historic use.
The first paragraph on the second page shows volume calculations and notes that this volume would be difficult to justify. Excessive volume is also a concern in the DNRC issue remarks on the pre-amendment claim file, which notes that the claimed volume equals 1083 gallons per capita, per day. 250 gallons is apparently standard.
The last sentence of the last paragraph caught my notice. “In my view, this question has been vetted, rational explained and voted upon, and there is no smoking gun.”
Voted apon by whom? And when?
Now in my primer below, I noted the basic facts regarding the Historic Water rights claimed by Great Falls. In my opinion, based on the information in the DNRC files, and the work of WRSI that I have access to, I believe the action taken regarding these rights was appropriate.
The volume of water is the only thing that decreased, and the volume now claimed, 20,140 a/f, is the amount of water that an estimated population of 71,920 would use. The City has preserved that as the claimed amount for pre 1973 historical, beneficial use. At this time, there appear to be no issue remarks of any significance on that claim. During the adjudication process, DNRC will probably review it and enter it in the decree as it is.
If the amount had remained at over 73,000a/f, there is every likelyhood that other water rights holders in the Missouri and Sun River Basins would have objected to it. DNRC already had issue remarks on it for excessive claimed volume. In the adjudication process, DNRC would accept evidence from the objectors, proving what they think the volume should be, evidence from the City on what we think the volume should be, they would review everything, and then decide what volume we get.
Page 30, link above, shows how the population figure for the current claimed amount was reached.
Page 14 shows water withdrawals by year and acre feet. I simply do not see any evidence WRSI should have done anything differently.
However, I certainly believe this information should have been presented and explained to the City Commission, before all interested citizens, and should be considered public record, maintained by the City Clerk, and available for inspection and copying to any and every citizen who walks in City Hall and requests it.
I find it quite troubling that a City Commissioner repeatedly requested information relative to this water right file, and was denied access to it. The DNRC file has many documents that are not scanned and posted online. WRSI has those complete files, and they are easily available to the City, if in fact, they are not in someones office.
a quick primer
I see confusion about the actual amounts of water involved here. As has been noted, I sometimes assume readers know more of the background information on what I am writing about than they actually may.
1889 right, 41QJ 123410. This is a Filed Appropriation Right with a priority date of 8/30/1889. Flow rate claimed is 74 cfs. Volume claimed was 53,574 a/f per year.
Water rights 123408 (1971) and 123411 (1966) are supplemental to this original right.
The 1971 right was for flow of 7 cfs and volume of 5,068 a/f. The 1966 right was for flow of 20 cfs and volume of 14,480 a/f.
This brings our totals to flow of 101cfs and volume of 73,122 a/f. To achieve anything near this volume of use, Great Falls would have to divert the maximum flow of 101 cfs of water 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This volume is unsupported by any historic use. Historic use is water we can prove we diverted for beneficial use prior to the 1973 Water Use Act. We cannot show we used that much water, and we cannot prove we have the capacity to store that much water.
So, in 2006, these claims were amended.
1966 right was amended to 0 volume, flow remained 20 cfs.
1971 right was amended to 0 volume but cfs was raised from 7 to 60.
1889 right remained 74 cfs and the volume was adjusted to 20,140 a/f, which volume is shared with the other two rights, as they are supplemental.
This brings the total for these three rights to flow of 154 cfs and volume of 20,140 a/f.
If you compare this flow rate to other cities, (excluding Billings) you will see it appears appropriate, and while many of them claim higher volume amounts, these typically have issue remarks and will probably be lowered during the adjudication process to conform to the flow rates. If you claim 2 a/f, but can only support usage for 1 a/f prior to 1973, DNRC is going to take your other a/f of volume.
Now the Water Reservation comes in. Based on growth predictions, and the knowledge that the adjudication process was coming, Great Falls wanted to secure additional water beyond the 1973 historical beneficial use allocations. Municipalities were given the option of filing water reservations, which Great Falls did. This 1985 reservation claims flow of 9,155 gpm, and volume of 6,489 a/f.
This is what Balzarini noted was about .004 % of the river flow. This reservation has no bearing on any historic use, and must be proven before it is a right.
Remember, these historic water rights listed above are based on pre 1973 water use. If we need more water in the future, we have to find it somewhere else.
Hmm.
While researching Part Two, I have run across an Interesting Document. The scanned water rights document files on the DNRC website are rather cumberson to navigate, and I can’t link to them. The following text is handwritten, on lined paper, and is part of the DNRC file for Claim 41QJ 123408 for the City of Great Falls. I will make an effort to post it. Later.
“Gayle Phillips stopped in and picked up copies of the 3 water right Files for the City of Great Falls around March 23, 2006.”
“Gayle Called (5/31/2006) and asked about amending the Flow Rate of 1971 Claim To the capacity of the Diverision Structure which would increase Flow Rate to 155 cfs.”
“Gayle stopped by 6/27/2006 Picked up copies of the reveiw abstracts. Discussed the claims and wondered about amending.”
Gayle stopped by 7/10/2006 to drop off the amendments to the Great Falls City water rights.”
During this time period (February to August) there were 0 Commission Meetings that mentioned amending water rights claims. There was 1 mention in Work Sessions, but alas, it was for the reservation amendment, regarding Highwood. There was no “Comission Action”, or apparently, Commission information.
Gayle Phillips is a Water Rights Specialist for WRSI, and the notary for John Lawtons 6/26/06 signature on the Amendments to the Claim, the day before the reveiw abstracts were picked up and Gayle “wondered about amending”.
Defensible? Part 1
A recent post regarding Billings water rights came up on Cataract City. I understand that it was written by CCE folks, and originally posted on the CCE website site, but the blog is easier to link to, and it is a reprint of the same post.
“Billings is planning on defending 400,000 acre-ft per year of water rights. The City of Great Falls is embarrassed to defend an 1889 53,000 acre-ft/yr water right. Billings is defending a water right over seven times as large as Great Falls, but its population is only twice as large.”
I cannot find anything, on the Billings City site, or any news article, that discusses this “defense” of the Historic Billings water rights.
The first thing to note is there isn’t actually a whole lot you can do to defend a municipal water right. You basically have to prove historic beneficial use of that amount of water. I believe it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for Billings to support it’s currently claimed rights.
Billings has three major municipal water rights claims, all out of the Yellowstone River, and all with pretty good priority dates. There is a lot of water being claimed there, and all three of these rights are being challenged by multiple entitys, entitys with very legitimate claims.
43Q-W-208213-00
OWNER: SOURCE:
CITY OF BILLINGS: YELLOWSTONE RIVER
OBJECTOR: NATURE OF OBJECTION:
CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS: PLACE OF USE, MAXIMUM ACRES, VOLUME, FLOW RATE, ABANDONMENT, NON-PERFECTION
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: ABANDONMENT, NON-PERFECTION
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS: PLACE OF USE, MAXIMUM ACRES, VOLUME, FLOW RATE
DNRC EXAMINATION REPORT ISSUES: FLOW RATE, PLACE OF USE, MAXIMUM ACRES, VOLUME
(Claim: 3000 cfs, 2,172,000 volume)
43Q-W-208214-00
OWNER: SOURCE:
CITY OF BILLINGS: YELLOWSTONE RIVER
OBJECTOR: NATURE OF OBJECTION:
CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS: PRIORITY DATE, PLACE OF USE, MAXIMUM ACRES, VOLUME, FLOW RATE, ABANDONMENT, NON-PERFECTION
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: ABANDONMENT, NON-PERFECTION
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS: PRIORITY DATE, PLACE OF USE, MAXIMUM ACRES, VOLUME, FLOW RATE
DNRC EXAMINATION REPORT ISSUES: FLOW RATE, VOLUME, PLACE OF USE
(Claim: 2000 cfs, 1,448,000 volume)
43Q-W-208215-00
OWNER: SOURCE:
CITY OF BILLINGS: YELLOWSTONE RIVER
OBJECTOR: NATURE OF OBJECTION:
CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS: PRIORITY DATE, PLACE OF USE, MAXIMUM ACRES, VOLUME, FLOW RATE, ABANDONMENT, NON-PERFECTION
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: VOLUME, FLOW RATE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS: PRIORITY DATE, PLACE OF USE, MAXIMUM ACRES, VOLUME, FLOW RATE
DNRC EXAMINATION REPORT ISSUES: FLOW RATE, PLACE OF USE, MAXIMUM ACRES, PRIORITY DATE, VOLUME
(Claim: 648 cfs, 469,152 volume)
As you can see, DNRC has some work to do. The claims by Crow Tribe and BIA are fairly serious, and on the last water right, it appears DNRC will be examing the priority date. This is actually the earliest Billings right, with a volume of 648 cfs, a volume of 469,152 a/f and a priority date of 6/2/1885. (one acre foot is equal to 43,560 cubic feet)
This is in fact, the smallest claimed municipal right for Billings. Crow Tribe has a priority date of 1868, and some pretty bad-ass documents to defend its claims. They are challenging flow rate and volume on each of these Billings rights, and if the amounts claimed by Billings are correct, they are so outragously high, I really see no way the City can prove historic, beneficial use at these levels for any of these municipal rights, let alone all three.
If I am reading these right, Billings is claiming a total volume of 4,089,152 a/f and flow of 5,648 cfs total for just these three rights. For comparison purposes, the Yellowstone River USGS gauge at Billings MT is discharging about 9,000 cfs right now.
These amounts are outragous. Using Billings claims to rationalize that Great Falls should claim excessive water use strikes me as petty, and counter productive. We don’t get to decide how much water we want, we must prove how much water we justifiably need.
As the City turns…
Days of our City…?
I have been watching the drama unfold, with a mix of emotions. There is a definite humor factor, but it is mixed with a bit of incredulity, and some embarrasment.
The claims of SME attorneys that a document attached to a change application for a CITY owned water right could somehow be confidential, and properly withheld from the public stuck me as deceptive, and wrong. Then the realization that a government entity, subject to the State public records disclosure rules, had given another government entity, also subject to the State public records disclosure rules the “confidential” documents. Had these ”confidential” documents been properly protected from disclosure?
No.
And I think it would be a lot harder for SME to convince an impartial DNRC attorney that there is an individual privacy issue here than it is for SME to convince our City staff.
Then I started thinking. These documents, which, quoting the SME attorney, are “found at Exhibits G1 and G2 to the “Application to Change a Water Right.” were given to the public. (Mistakenly! Oh my!) This leads me to believe, although I am not sure, that the entire Application to Change a Water Right may be in the possession of the City of Great Falls.
But no, that couldn’t be. For some reason, the City simply has those two attachments lying around, and there was no reason to identify them as “found at Exhibits G1 and G2 to the “Application to Change a Water Right.”"
But if the City does have a copy of the Application to Change a Water Right, they must have, for some reason, acquired it since April 15th, 2008. Colleen Balzarini stated very clearly that the City was not in possession of water files, denying Mary Jolly’s questions which specifically referenced this Application to Change a Water Right.
The events of the last couple weeks can certainly reassure us all that the City, our City, has no problem with open government, and the rights of the citizens to examine all public records in the City’s possession.
Yeah.
“The lawsuit dealt with the city’s refusal to hand over documents to critics who wanted to know more about the city’s dealings with Southern Montana Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative.”
From the audio of the Commission meeting. This is not verbatim, but I tried to be accurate.
3 points. Speakers interpretation of ruling.
1. Draws a distinction between two definitions in separate statutes. Public writings 2-6-101 and Public records 2-6-401. 401 being the one the City relied on. He believes there is no difference. Believes this point that has no relevance.
2. Statute City relied on is 2-6-401. The Court stated it only relates to retention of records. Speaking of public records Gliko believes it doesn’t matter where it is in the statute, just what it says. Then he is back to Becky. The City relied on Becky heavily. Claims public record is not defined in Becky. Claims public writing has been defined as public records. Becky did not analyze the section of statute we are discussing, relating to public drafts. Believes the Supreme Court has already defined public records, and District Court is in error for drawing distinction. Disagrees with the Court on this issue.
3. Drafts must be disclosed pursuant to publics right to know. He believes this point is unsupported by anything, no precedent or authority, nothing but the state Constitution. No supporting authority. Interestingly he notes that the courts decision is unsupported by any citation of supporting authority, out of all the decisions rendered regarding the publics right to know since the Constitution was adopted in 1972. Then he theorizes that the Court didn’t use any other authority because Becky is the primary authority. He believes the Court would struggle trying to use Becky as precedent, and it is the primary authority that discusses this issue. Apparently, none of those other decisions rendered since 1972 support the City’s position, either.
Rambles on about how progressive our Constitution is, and how the Courts are very vigourous about supporting individual rights, especially the publics right to know.
He reads a letter from the SME attorney, which request that regardless of the Courts decision, the City not disclose documents listed as trade secrets.
There is some discussion of trade secrets, and the procedure behind the affidavit process. I have noted a couple comments regarding this. No, SME cannot just proclaim something a trade secret. They have to prove it, and the City attorneys are aware of this issue.
At 17:00 in the audio file of the meeting: “There is another check and balance involved. When an affidavit is filed with a government entity the government entity has to review the documentation claimed in the affidavit. City staff has done that.”
Remember Great Falls Tribune v PSC? I expect this to be an issue here pretty soon.
In closing, one of them notes this order is from the 8th District. It is binding for the 8th only. Outside our district it is considered precedent.
Lets rewind for a moment.
Ordinance 2681, Before the Great Falls City Commission, October, 2003.
This Ordinance noted ” The City Commission may issue bonds, payable from the revenues of the electric utility, to design, construct, acquire, install and improve, from time to time, electrical utilities in accordance with the provisions of Title 7, Chapter 7, Part 43 and 44 of Montana Code Annotated. If bonds are to be issued that are payable in part from the general fund or taxes levied by the City, such bonds may be issued only if approved by the electors of the City in accordance with Title 7, Chapter 7, Part 41, M.C.A.”
City Manager John Lawton reported that this proposed ordinance would allow the City to establish an electric utility.
Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2861 as amended on final reading.
Mayor Gray stated that while this ordinance was not slated for a public hearing, he would entertain comments from the public.
Commissioner Hinz asked what the difference was between a municipal utility and a co-op?
John Lawton replied stating co-ops were owned by their customers. Municipal governments were owned by the tax payer.
Ordinance 2861 passed.
Ordinance 2925, Before the Great Falls City Commission November 1, 2005.
Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open.
Ms. Wiggins concluded stating that she supported the coal plant and believed it was a great project. However, she was not certain that tax dollars should fund its construction and operation. She asked the Commission to consider the fact that lawsuits would be filed which could ultimately increase the cost of power and that the Department of Environmental Quality could impose severe mercury standards which could cripple if not eliminate any chances of building and operating the proposed plant.
Commissioner Beecher addressed Ms. Wiggins concern about using tax dollars for the construction of the coal plant. He explained that the funding for the plant would be through revenue bonds and that tax dollars would not be used for its construction.
Mr. Lawton further explained that the ordinance before the Commission was to restructure the Electric City Power company the Commission created about 18 months prior. Electric City Power would be wholly owned by the City.
Commissioner Hinz asked if the non-profit entity the ordinance created would remove the decision making authority from the City Commission. Mr. Lawton stated that the Commission would retain the basic powers which included setting rates and selling bonds for the electric utility. The non-profit board would make recommendations to the Commission and would not have independent authorities.
The actual text of 2925 states in part:
“WHEREAS, the City intends to authorize the issuance by the Corporation of certain bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness on behalf of the City, the interest on which is intended to be excludable from the gross income of the holder under the Internal Revenue Code and intends that both the City and Electric City Power, Inc. shall comply with the requirements of Revenue Procedure 82-26, 1982-1 C.B. 476, or any successor thereto, in the issuance of such bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GREAT FALLS, MONTANA that Title 5, Chapter 20, OCCGF, be amended as follows:
Section 1. Ordinance 2861 is hereby repealed.
Section 2: OCCGF 5.20 pertaining to establishing and operating an electric utility is hereby enacted to read in its entirety as set forth in Exhibit A.
Exhibit A to Ordinance 2925 states in part:
Exhibit A to Ordinance 2925 states in part:Exhibit A to Ordinance 2925 states in part:
B. the Corporation shall have no power to bind or create obligations of the City, and each bond, note or other evidence of indebtedness of the Corporation shall contain a statement to the effect that:
1. neither the City, the State, any agency, authority or instrumentality of the State or any municipality or local governmental unit is obligated to pay the principal thereof or interest thereon; and
2. neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the City, the State, any agency, authority or instrumentality of the State or any municipality or local governmental unit is pledged or in any way obligated to pay the principal thereof or interest thereon.
Flash forward:
“If the Highwood Generating Station is not built, and the utility arm cannot raise customers’ rates enough to cover the loan payments, the city’s general fund, as co-signer to the loan, will be responsible for the annual payment.”
“I’m not clear on what kind of additional investment would be needed,” Doyon said.
He added he is not sure the City or its utility arm, Electric City Power, has the means to put additional money into the power plant.
City officials also want to know what would happen to the City’s initial investment if it opts out of the new group.
Last year:
If the coal plant is not built, what happens to this debt created by selling power at a loss?
Lawton said Electric City Power would be responsible for this amount, which is approaching $1 million. City taxpayers would not be responsible, he said. Lawton said there has been no discussion with SME about how that amount would be repaid, if the coal plant is not built. (3/01/2007 Tribune article.)
Looks to me like the City would have been better off keeping 2861. Right now, apparently, the City is liable for the debt. The language of 2925, while clear on the ability of ECP to incur debt on the City, was apparently circumvented by the City Co-signing the loan.
Either way you look at it, the Commission, not the taxpayers, made the decisions that will cause taxpayer money to pay for the expenses incurred by ECP participating in the coal plant project.
They should have let us vote, and then it wouldn’t be their asses on the line.