OCR Text |
Show Letters to the editor Unanswered Editor: Having considered the matter for some time, I feel it is important that I write in response to Mr. Bob Rowley of the Utah Department of Transportation and his statement in the "The Record Responds" of Oct. 15. Mr. Rowley attempts to discredit the question asked at the outset by pointing out "three misconceptions": 1. Boring is not necessarily more expensive than trenching." That is true if the contractor already has the necessary equipment for boring. Most contractors do not have such specialized equipment and must subcontract sub-contract the work, often to firms who then transport their equipment long and expensive-Klistances. This was the case in the, matter of the Enoch crossings. The two crossings at Enoch cost over $7,300 to install. Could open-cut open-cut trenching possibly have cost that much? Nearly all excavated materials are suitable for use in the trench from which they are removed. Although 1, would concede that my experience is more limited than Mr. Rowley's, I have' yet to speak to a contractor who would not rather open-cut,'given open-cut,'given the choice, and would do so "for less money. 2. "Access . , was asked for and granted to the bowling alley, not Cedar City." J fail to see the relevance of this point to the question asked. The distribution system is the property of Cedar City regardless of the name that appears on the application or permit. 3. "In both cases, the groups were given the choice of either boring underneath un-derneath or trenching." False. I enclose en-close a copy of the Application for Right-of-Way Encroachment Permit which Enoch town submitted to U.D.O.T., dated Oct. 13, 1980. Under Item No. 6, open-cut trenching is requested as the installation procedure desired. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter from U.D.O.T. to the Town of Enoch, dated Oct. 29, 1980. In response to the application,7 'this letter accompanied ac-companied a copy of the agreement applied for by the town, and states that said agreement". . .must comply with the attached specifications and should provide for boring under the highway pavement rather than trenching across it." Where is the choice given? The casing required for plastic pipe could have been placed as easily in an open trench as is ductile iron pipe. The type of pipe material used and the fact that casing is required for plastic pipe only clouds the issue. The question remains unanswered. I desire no vendetta with U.D.O.T. Some of my best friends are U.D.O.T. employees. em-ployees. As a concerned resident of Enoch, I asked the question with a sincere desire to know "Why?" The desire to know remains. Kerry Carpenter Power concern Editor: I am writing to express my concerns to the Utah Public Service Commission about negotiations between Utah Power & Light Company and Southern Utah communities wishing to purchase their power distribution systems. I'm speaking as President of the Southwest Utah Co-operative Power Federation, a member of the communities' negotiating team and as Cedar City's council member with the municipal power question assignment. . I believe there has been and still is a subtle campaign being waged to discourage and intimidate cities that want to purchase power distribution systems under the terms of the PSC order of June 1981. UP&L refused to negotiate until the expiration time for appealing of the June 1981 PSC order. They then informed in-formed cities that they would negotiate, options on Sept. 21 and 22 and on Oct. 5 ' and 6. Requests were made to UP&L for copies of options and data for study prior to the date of negotiations, but UP&L responded that they had none ready. At the Sept. 21 negotiating meeting both the cities and UP&L exchanged drafts of proposed option agreements. These were quite divergent and negotiations were suspended on Sept. 22 until UP&L could prepare their final options. On Oct. 1, 1981 UP&L sent out option agreements to communities that had requested them. The June 1981 PSC ruling orders UP&L to take a physical inventory of the distribution system located within the boundaries of each municipality and arrive at an actual purchase price within a reasonable time from the date of the order. There is none of this information in-formation included in the option form. However, there is a requirement that each community should pay for their inventory. Cedar City's inventory, if done by UP&L would cost $25,000 and Washington City's would cost $15,000, to cite just two. In August 1980 LEI Consultants, Inc., a subsidiary of LEMCO Engineers, Inc. was retained by the Federation to secure an inventory of 15 Federation member cities' distribution systems. In September 1981 LEI Consultants assembled cost estimates for the 15 cities. This cost estimate shows the 1981 value of each city's distribution system, taking into account depreciation for wood poles, crossarms and assciated hardware. The 1981 value for the 15 distribution systems is $2,974,179. This estimate also shows a total cost of $9,006,673 to build new systems in the 15 communites, while leaving existing, systems in place. These inventoried dicf 'not" include substations. ' I have arranged for LEI Consultants to send you copies of their report and the inventory sheets used to compile their estimates. This same data is being sent to UP&L. I think it pertinent to point out that LEI Consultants did all this work for 15 cities for only $20,000. The option agreements were dated Oct. 1, 1981, and yet the communities were given the ultimatum of signing these incomplete documents by Oct. 15, 1981 or UP&L would consider the options op-tions refused and the communities uninterested in purchasing distribution systems f from them. George Facel, counsel for the municipalities, has filed before the Pulbic Service Commission of Utah a petition for extension of time to exercise options to municipalities. The option forms received by each community asking for some legitimate price information contain proposed inventory charges, penalties to cities, time constraints and other unacceptable unac-ceptable stipulations that can only be construed as harrassment and intimidation in-timidation meant to stop communities from pursuing power systems. During the Sept. 21 negotiating session UP&L representatives stated that the transmission lines were valued at only $4.5 million. Our LEI engineers' estimate values the distribution ' systems within the 15 Federation communities at $2,974,179. If these two figures are anywhere close to accurate this approximately $7,500,000 falls far short of even the March 1979 purchase price of $19,457,034. Did UP&L pay an inflated price for an old system in order to keep us from purchasing it? Are they planning that we should pay inflated prices for old systems, making it economically unfeasible un-feasible for us to get into the power business? I am very concerned, not only as supporter of municipal power systems, but as a present cutomer of Utah Power and Light that the Utah Public Service Commission would approve a sale between t two large utility companies without ever having a difinitive answer as to what the systems are worth. We have two independent and reputable engineering studies showing that the value of the distribution systems if far short of what UP&L paid for them and what we, the rate payers in Utah will now pay for those old systems. During negotiations on Sept. 22, 1981, I asked UP&L representatives when we could see the documentation for the value of the systems upon which they had based their offer to CPNM. They said we would not at all have access to thai information, that it was confidential. How can information of what nature no! legally and morally be available to the people who will in the long run be paying the $30,958,334 for the CPN properties? Barbara Holt Starr, President . Southwest Utah Co-operative Power Federation |