07-28-08 Common Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 If a majority of the registered voters within the City vote in favor, then South Bend is withdrawn.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