Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLight Comm 11/13/1984BOARD Of LIGHT COMMISSIONERS A G E N D A NOVEMBER 13, 1984 1. 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order a) Minutes of October 9, 1984 b) Bid Awards 2. Old Business a) Light Plant Manager b) Light Commissioners 3. New Business a) Light Plant Manager b) Light Commissioners 4. 8:30 P.M. M.I.S.E.R.Y 5. Adjournment NOTE: Next meeting November 26, 1984 7:30 P.M. BOARD OF LIGHT COMMISSIONERS MINUTES OF MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 1984 PRESENT: Chairman Wills, Commissioners Dunn, D'Onofrio, McNair. Commissioner Levine arrived at 7:40 P.M. Manager John Larch 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order. * Minutes of October 9, 1984 approved. D'Onofrio/Dunn VOTED: 3-0. McNair abstained. Mr. Larch informed the Board that they would be contracting a uniform service to provide 11 shirts and 7 pants for the production personnel at a cost of $4.00/wk. Bid award for manhole and ductline construction for High & West Church Streets was discussed. There was a question on Items 14 & 15 on the bid summary and Commissioners requested that the cleanup process be better than previous work done in town. * MOTION: To award the bid to L.A.L. Construction of Fall River at a cost of $76,572. D'Onofrio/Dunn VOTED: 4-0. Old Business - Light Commission There was a discussion regarding the Electric Advisory Committee purpose and function. It was decided to have the committee look into the pros and cons of separating the light commission duties from the Board of Selectmen. This will be an ad hoc committee which will report to Selectmen by the 1985 town meeting, if possible, but no later than the 1986 town meeting. It will consist of 5 permanent members and 2 associates. There was a question of if there should be an operating budget which will be discussed at the next meeting. MOTION: That we appoint an Advisory Committee to study the pros and cons of separating the Electric Light Commission, consisting of 5 permanent members and 2 associates to bring in a report as soon as possible by 1985 town meeting and no later than 1986 town meeting. Dunn/Levine VOTED: 5-0. New Business - Light Manager Mr. Larch asked the Commission to adopt a resolution regarding public power preference rights to hydro power. Fifty year licenses at nine sites are coming up for re -licensing and investor owned utilities are lobbying to eliminate the public power rights to these sites. This would not be in our best interest to support this legislation. MOTION: To adopt the resolution and send letters to senators and congressmen. Dunn/D'Onofrio VOTED: 5-0. BOARD OF LIGHT COMMISSIONERS MINUTES OF MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 1984 PAGE 2 New Business: Workshop meeting November 26, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. on budget. Commissioner D'Onofrio requested Mr. Larch to look into the lights at the train station. 8:09 P.M. M.I.S.E.R.Y. Representing the MISERY group were John Brandt, 386 Essex Street and Martin Cahill, 1024 East street. The group was present to ask questions on electric power in Mansfield and rising power costs in the town. The first topic discussed was Seabrook and what the cost to Mansfield would be for this project. ,This was shown on a bar graph Mr. Larch had which included what we would pay if we agreed to pay for test power. He then gave the group a presenta- tion on Mansfield's power goals, alternative energy sources, what MMWEC does for the town, the town's growth rate and power needs and what R.W. Beck did to check on MMWEC's projections. With re- gard to a power supply plan, Mr. Larch noted that Mansfield will need more base power in the future and that it will not be easy to find a big base power source. There was discussion on Canadian hydro plants and power being used from Canada into New England. He mentioned that it is not just Mansfield that will be having a power shortage, most of New England will experience the same problem. Estimated completion date for Seabrook is December, 1986. There was discussion on the sale of the light plant, which a previous advisory committee did not investigate. Mrs. Jellinek noted that NEP00L owns the land under the substation so that the town would probably have to buy the land back before it could be sold as a whole. With regard to the separation of the Light Commissioners from the Board of Selectmen, Commission members noted that some of the problems of separation would include union bargaining, efficiency and cost factors with two separate boards. It was suggested that interested persons apply at the Town Clerk's office for a position on the advisory committee. A short discussion was held on street lights and it was noted that persons should call in specific lights if they feel it is a problem. All commissioners agreed that the meeting this evening was very productive. This meeting with M.I.S.E.R.Y. is available on cassette tape if anyone would like further information. * There being no further business, the meeting was ADJOURNED at 11:09 P.M. Dunn/Levine VOTED: 5-0. R E S O L U T I O WHEREAS, most hydroelectric facilities in the New England region have been licensed by the federal government under the provisions of the Federal Power Act of 1920; and WHEREAS, licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are issued for up to fifty years; and WHEREAS, the Federal Power Act includes a municipal preference clause that gives states, municipalities, and other governmental agencies a preference in the issuance of licenses for hydroelectric projects on public streams; and WHEREAS, the municipal preference extends to relicensing situations where the municipal proposal is equally well adapted as any other plan to utilize the water resources in the public interest; and WHEREAS, municipal preference was accepted as a reasonable political compromise by all parties concerned, including private utilities, at the time the legislation was passed; and WHEREAS, private utility investments in hydroelectric projects were made with full knowledge that the licenses were for a limited term and would be subject to municipal preference upon renewal, and there has been ample opportunity to amortize the investment and earn a fair return over the license term; and WHEREAS, the municipal preference provision provides a meaningful form of competition in an otherwise monopolistic industry inasmuch as the competition for licenses results in improved applications and better use of a limited public resource and also helps provide a yardstick by which the per- formance of private monopolies can be measured against that of publicly -owned power systems; and WHEREAS, ownership of these licenses by publicly -owned systems will be of significant help in maintaining lower electric rates that will directly benefit Mansfield's consumers in the Town of Mansfield. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mansfield Board of Light Commissioners supports retention of the municipal preference provisions of the Federal Power Act of 1920 and opppoepes pending or future legislation which would repealer he mubibipal preference in project relicensing: ,,/1 i CbMmiSS November 21, 1984