Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Light and Power 1985-06-06or · 1. LIGHT AND POWER COMMITTEE JUNE 6, 1985 AGENDA 1, GROOTERS REQUEST TO ADDRESS COMMITTEE .5. 2, NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE 1984 EDITION - ADOPTION 3, LIGHT AND POWER SERVICE BUILDING RELOCATION AVAILABLE SITES 4. OLYMPUS DAM HYDRO AUTHORIZATION TO CONTINUE WITH PERMITTING PROCESS 5. WEST ELKHORN STREET LIGHT CONVERSION HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM 6. CASCADE DAM & HYDRO NORTH AMERICAN HYDRO FALL RIVER TREATMENT PLANT 7, CABLE SYSTEMS, INC, CUSTOMER REPORTS POLE RENTAL RATE RATE INCREASE - PRELIMINARY INQUIRY 8. DEPARTMENT PROJECTS REPORT A, CAPACITOR INSTALLATIONS B, STANLEY VILLAGE C, FALL RIVER - MORAINE TIE LINE D, CRAGS OVERLOOK CONDOS E. ST, VRAIN QUARTERS F, PARK RIDGE APARTMENTS G. SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE FEEDER H, RECREATION DISTRICT - HIDDEN VALLEY I, FISH CREEK TIE LINE J. STREETSCAPE . e 1 ./ . 9, PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY A, LABOR STATUS B, BURLINGTON NORTHERN COAL HAUL RATES c. NERCO COAL SUPPLY D. FEDERAL POWER RATES E, HYDRO RE-LICENSING F. FINANCES G, CAPITAL ADDITIONS LIGHT AND POWER MEETING, 6 JUNE 1985 ITEMS OF CONCERN: 000 A. ELECTRICAL DEPOSIT POLICY , B. IMPN 04441483 AND HiEYWAY 36 SIGN!3 1.J,OWIT'113WN A. WE TOOK OVER STERLING CDTTAGES ON 2 FEB 1985 AS INTERIM MANAGERS WHILE NEGOTIATING ITS PURCHASE. THE TOWN WAS THREATENING TO CUT OFF SERVICE BECAUSE THE OWNERS WERE ABOUT $2400 BEHIND ON PAYMENTS FOR ELECTRICITY. WE NEGOTIATED WITH THE TOWN TO KEEP THE SERVICE ON, AND WE WOULD PAY A i'% r '·,• AMOUNT EVERY TWO WEEKS. WHICH BROUGHT THE BALANCE DOWN TO ABOUT $1800 AT CLOSING, AND WE AGREED TO PAY THE BACK BALANCE UPON PURCHASING THE PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH WE WERE NOT LIABLE FOR IT BY LAW OR BY CONTRACT. FRAN DEALT EXTENSIVELY WITH THE PEOPLE ON THE MAIN DESK, IN PERSON EVERY FWO WEEKS, AND WE ASKED QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS ABOUT WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO, AND AT NO TIME WAS THERE EVER A DEPOSIT MENTIONED FOR NEW OWNERS. THIS WAS A PERIOD OF 1 1/2 MONTHS SO THERE WAS AMPLE TIME AND OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE TO SAY SOMETHING !!! ON MARCH 14TH, DATE OF PURCHASE, WE PAID THE FINAL $1800 DUE AND AGAIN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE NEEDED 10 KNOW, BECAUSE WE WERE l RYING TO DO THINGS RIGHT AND NOT HAVE ANY SURPRISES. WE WERE TOLD THAT WE NEEDED 70 GET OUR OCCUPAT1ON LICENSE AND FHERE WAS NOTHING FURTHER THAT WE NEEDED TO DO, THAT WE WERE ALL SET. WE DID GET OUR OCCUPATION LICENSE RIGHT THEN. THIRTY DAYS LATER. WE GET A LETTER FROM THE FINANCE OFFICER OF THE TOWN TELLING US THAT WE HAVE NOT PAID THE REQUIRED ELECTRICAL DEPOSIT. AND THAT WE NEED TO COME UP WITH *2450 OR THEY WILL CUT 0 OFF THE ELECTRICITY. IN TALKING Wlln THE APPROPRIATE TOWN OFFICIALS, THE ANSWER CAME BACK BASICALLY THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE TOLD ABOUT THE DEPOSIT, THAT THIS HAPPENS 95 OR 6 TIMES A YEAR WITH PEOPLE, THAT IT IS A PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE WHEN IT HAPPENS AND THEY'RE SORRY, BUT PAY OR THE ELECTRICITY WILL BE CUT OFF. WE UNDERSTAND YOUR NEED FOR THE DEPOSIT, BUT YOU HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN YOUR SYSTEM WHICH NEEDS CORRECTING. FROM A PERSONAL VIEWPOINT, 11 WAS PARTICULARLY FRUSTRATING THAT WE WENT OUT OF OUR WAY TO SEE THAT THE 'FOWN WAS TREATED FAIRLY AND DID NOT LOSE MONEY BY PAYING THE $1800 THAT WE WERE REALLY NOT LIABLE FOR, AND THEN 10 HAVE THEM SAY THAf WE OWED ANOTHER $2450 AFTER ALL THE FINANCING WAS DONE, AND WE OWNED AND WERE OPERATING THE PROPERTY. IN A SMALL BUSINESS, SUCH AS STERLING COTTAGES, THIS'AMOUNT OF MONEY THROWS OFF A WEI...1.. ·····1:-*'l.ANNED BUDGET. 11 WE HAD BEEN TOLD OF THIS POLICY IN THE BEGINNING, WE WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE PLANNED FOR Il ALL ALONG! » . 4 11 . A 1. I- 1 /,1 f i j 1 1 , . It WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE DEALT WITH THE TOWN IN EXTREMELY GOOD FAITH! AND THAT THE TOWN I S NOT DEAL I NG W I TH US I N GOOD' FAITH IN RETURN. THE TOWN'S ALLOWING A LETTER OF CREDIT, WHICH YOU NOW HAVE FROM US, TAKES THE STRAIN OFF THE BUDGET, HOWEVER IT MAY RESTRICT THE PROGRESS OF FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS. WE ARE REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: 1. A COPY OF YOUR OFFICIAL POLICY CONCERNING UTILITY DEPOSITS, HOW IT IS HANDLED, AND HOWEIT IS MADE CERTAIN THAT THE CUSTOMER RECEIVES ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION. 26,==e ZUZZAtit>°75~°'AMALIE-r-:TAN?-t22 CUWL,;1~RDUEHWASAFIS'y=2& BECAUSE BY ~ USEAGE. ., 4 3. A COPY OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR ~· IHE TOWN CONCERNING SUCH DEPOSIT'S. WE ARE DISTURBED ENOUGH ABOUT THIS SITUATION AND HOW THE TOWN HAS HANDLED IT THAT IF WE SEE THAT THE TOWN HAS BEEN IN VIOLATION OF THE PUC REQUIREMENTS AND IS NOT GOING TO CORRECT THE SITUATION, WE WILL GO TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, OR WHATEVER AGENCY COVERS THIS, AND REQUEST AN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE MATTER. SUGGESTIONS: 1. A FORM BE DRAFTED WHICH IS GIVEN TO ANYONE REQUESTING INFORMATION ABOUT REQUIREMENTS FOR UTILITY USERS WHICH SPELLS OUT THE DEPOSIT PROCESS. FOR THE TOWN'S PROTECTION. AN ONGOING LIST MIGHT BE SIGNED BY ANYONE WHO RECEIVES THIS FORM. 2. A REWORDING OF THE FORM LETTER AND APPLICATION FORM WHICH WAS SENT TO US ON APRIL. 12, 1985„ THE LETTER NOW SPECIFIES "NEW UTILITY USER" INSTEAD OF "NEW UTI TLITY USAGE". NEW USER IMPLIES THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME A PERSON HAS BEEN SERVICED BY THE TOWN. THIS POINT IS FURTHER CONFUSED BY THE APPLICATION FORM WHICH SPECIFIES THAT THE "APPLICANT" AGREES TO PAY ALL BILLS AS RENDERED AT ALL LOCATIONS WHERE APPLICANT IS RECEIVING, DUE TO RECEIVE OR HAS REQUESTED SERVICE FOR SOMEONE ELSE. FROM THE WORDING 01- - THESE TWO ITEMS. IT IMPLIES THAT' ANYONE ALREADY RECEIVING SERVICE, SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY THIS DEPOSIT. WE HAVE BEEN RECEIVING SERVICE FROM THE TOWN AT A DIFFERENT ADDRESS SINCE 1974. MR. DEKKER HAS INDICATED TO US THE REASONING BEHIND THE DEPOSIT AND THE FORMS SHOULD STATE THE SAME POLICY. 4*10*, Jatt 4*0& L & P SERVICE BUILDING SITE OPTIONS PRICE INCLUDING SITE SIZE SITE PREP. COMMENTS Negative 1. 1 Ac. $185,000 Great amount of fill dirt needed; 604·~D probably would require retaining walls; downhill from future sewer; limited space; expensive. Positive Close to other Town shops; south slope; existing buildings may have some value. 2. 1.5 Ac. $215,000 Negative 1*Bat~o Site preparation would require cut and fill; access limited because of slope; lose sun in early afternoon; expensive. Positive Close to other Town shops; could easily connect to future sewer. 3. 1 Ac. $90,000 Negative ' Site preparation would be quite 41AA,\L , extensive; may require zoning change; limited space; lose sun early after- noon. Positive Close to other Town shops; easy to connect to future sewer; fairly reasonable price. 4. 2.3 Ac. $232,500 Negative N )90, Over 4 miles from other Town shops; *Al 4, 7 14 r.3 close to residential area; zoning may not permit outside storage; would ~F>z,y. &2-6 7, 01-~/00 >102-. require all L & P operation to be moved to this site; well water and 93 ) fu~,000,> septic system. Positive Ou.JA= 69,7.53 Very level property; adequate space; adjacent level lot could be purchased to double total area; existing 5000 0-04 »' 03 0 r J ~u- useable; good south exposure. square foot shop building would be i PRICE INCLUDING SITE SIZE -TE PREA) COMMENTS Negative 5. 2.4 Ac. $30,000 Property owners on south side of highway may object. Positive Easy access; close to other Town shops; all utilities close by; good south exposure.