My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-28-08 Common Council Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2008
>
07-28-08 Common Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/12/2008 10:38:23 AM
Creation date
8/21/2008 4:32:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 2008 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />COSS and almost 1 ½ years after record closed. Issues can be addressed in a more <br />efficient and timely manner because the cost of the last IURC proceeding cost currently <br />over $3.25 million; the direct cost was currently over $687,000 for Legal, Financial <br />Advisory and Engineering costs related to the IURC investigations and proceedings and <br />still no final order. The lost revenue is over $2.6 million of lost incremental revenue <br />from filing of petition to issuance of interim order. <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Nicholas Kile, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, advised that there is two processed <br />allowed for withdraw from the IURC. Indiana Code 8-1.53-9 states that the Council <br />determines to submit a public question to the voters. Indiana Code 8-1.5-3-9.1 allows the <br />Council to adopt and ordinance and question is potentially submitted to the voters in a <br />referendum. The Public Questions resolves to submit the question. Certify the question <br />st <br />to the Council Election Board before August 1 to make the November general election. <br />If a majority of the registered voters within the City vote in favor, then South Bend is <br />withdrawn. The Council will hold two public meetings in different locations where the <br />removal process is explained, not public hearings. Then mail 30 days notice to all <br />customers and IURC prior to final action, and then takes effect in 60 days unless petition <br />is received which is signed by required number of registered voters to place a candidate <br />on the ballot. If the petition is receive, then it must certify the question to the registered <br />voters of the municipality as a public question. He stated that it is highly unlikely that a <br />public question can be avoided using either process. He stated that there is not time to <br />use the Section 9.1 the ordinance process and still place the question on the ballot in <br />November. Using Section 9, the Council can place the question on the ballot in <br />November and let the voters decide. <br /> <br />Councilmember Varner commented on today’s date being July 28, 2008 and the irony of <br />this Resolution having to be certified to the County Clerk by Friday, August 1, 2008. For <br />the reasons of the undercurrents of this bill more than anything else it is the idea of being <br />able to make some reasonable charges outside the city limits as opposed to inside the city <br />limits, or additional charges for which he is fully supported of, he just wonders if it is <br />really totally fair, particularly that since there will be a public campaign to adopt this, if <br />there will really a an opportunity to get all the information out to the public, both positive <br />and negative and that this had to be adopted so it can be put on the ballot this fall. He <br />stated that he thinks that if that is going to be the approach, the Council going forward is <br />going to have to assume a responsibility that which they haven’t in the past is to see to it <br />that when these rate requests come forward that the Council gets outside independent <br />assessments of the proposal. He stated that he did not want to be critical, but he <br />reiterated what he said in this afternoon’s meeting and that is the City wants a rate <br />increase, they hire an agency to do a study and pay for it with city money like Mr. <br />Skomp’s firm and they do an in depth study which are very expensive. But on the other <br />hand they could always say that the IURC will review the proposal after it is adopted <br />knowing that someone with lots of background and experience is going to get a second <br />look at it. Going forward unless the Council makes some dramatic changes in how they <br />do this, if this bill is adopted there is that inherent conflict and that the Council is going to <br />have to get past this if this bill is adopted. Because that conflict exists however well <br />intended with the data and the information that is brought before the Council and as a <br />Council once this changes, the Council adopts that responsibility or assumes that <br />responsibility and will need to have in place mechanisms that the Council does their part <br />to look out for the rates increases. <br /> <br />Mr. Kile stated that there are three responses to that. First, with the money that would be <br />saved on the expense of going to the commission, the Council could readily retain <br />someone to perform that independent study. It would cost far less to do that, than it <br />would to go to the IURC to prosecute a rate case. Secondly, there is always if you <br />withdraw although he stated that he has never seen a municipality go the other way there <br />is always in the statute the process for the voters to put the question back on the ballot to <br />go back before the IURC. It is not a permanent decision although; as he reiterated that he <br />has yet to see a community that has withdrawn go back before the commission. Thirdly, <br />this cuts right to the question, that the Council ultimately becomes the final say. The <br />voters will tell you if they agree with what you are doing. He doesn’t disagree that <br /> 25 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.