|
Air Pollution
<br />Mayor Beltran read a letter dated September 7, 1976, from Mr. Donald M. Thomas, Air Pollution Control Officer,
<br />San Bernardino Zone of the Southern California Air Pollution Control District, outlining the District's investigations
<br />that were made in response to complaints received regarding a grain mill located in Colton, and the dust and
<br />air pollution the mill was supposedly creating.
<br />Mayor Beltran said the letter advises that after several investigations and many tests were made, it is the
<br />District's conclusion the grain mill is not creating any adverse effects on the community and the dust and
<br />pollution problem is typical to all of the San Bernardino Basin.
<br />Mayor Beltran stated Mr. Thomas' letter concluded that due to threatening incidents from the complainants and
<br />for the safety of the District's employees, the District has elected to withdraw sampling equipment from the
<br />area and continue to monitor all sources in the area on routine patrol.
<br />Mr. Smith said he does not care what the A.P.C.D. says, the grain mill is definitely creating a serious air
<br />pollution problem, and he felt that the City Council should investigate this matter and have talks with Mr.
<br />Kelley.
<br />Mayor Beltran gave Mr. Smith copies of the two letters that he had read from Mr. Sanford of Union Pacific, and
<br />Mr. Thomas of the A.P.C.D., stating he wanted Mr. Smith to know that he had taken action and responded to Mr.
<br />Smith's requests and complaints on the two incidents that have been discussed.
<br />Mayor Beltran announced that at this time, the City Council will divert from the regular agenda, and discuss
<br />Item No. 20 - Report regarding Electric Utility Rates.
<br />Electric Utility Rates
<br />City Manager Huffaker stated that the following report is Staff's responses to charges and questions raised by
<br />representatives of the Colton Citizens Utilities Committee at a previous Council Meeting. Mr. Huffaker advised
<br />that the information contained in the report was furnished by the Electric and Finance Departments.
<br />Mr. Huffaker then read the entire report, consisting of 20 pages, and outlining figures from statistical charts as
<br />indicated on Exhibit A, Comparative Statement of Revenues and Expenses for the Two Years Ended June 30, 1976 and
<br />1975; Exhibit B, Comparative Schedule of Operating Expenses for the Two Years Ended June 30, 1976 and 1975; Exhibit
<br />C, Fuel Cost Adjustment for the Two Years Ended June 30, 1975 and 1976; Exhibit D. General Fund Charges to Enterprise
<br />Funds for the Two Years Ended June 30, 1975 and 1976, and also referred to Billing Analysis Charts that had been
<br />prepared on three individual customers.
<br />Mr. Huffaker also read in full two letters dated October 1, 1976, addressed to the Attorney General, Evelle Younger,
<br />and Glenn A. Duke, Foreman of the Grand Jury, advising that the Colton Citizens Utilities Committee is calling for
<br />investigations into electric rates charged by the City of Colton, and that the City of Colton would be more than
<br />pleased to cooperate in such an investigation and would, in fact, encourage it.
<br />Mr. Huffaker concluded he is hopeful that this report answers the questions and charges that have been raised, and
<br />suggested that Staff be directed to meet with representatives of the Colton Citizens Utilities Committee to answer
<br />any additional questions they may have.
<br />Miss Marlene Alexander, 2255 Cahuilla Street, representing the Colton Citizens Utilities Committee, presented the
<br />Mayor and City Council with additional petitions, containing approximately 1,066 signatures, of citizens protesting
<br />the excessively high electric utility rates being charged in the City.
<br />Miss Alexander said the Committee will investigate Mr. Huffaker's report and the answers given, and would then like
<br />to respond at the next regularly scheduled Council Meeting.
<br />Miss Alexander again charged the City of Colton with high utility rates, causing undue hardship on the citizens of
<br />Colton.
<br />Miss Alexander then said she would like the City Manager, Mr. Huffaker, to personally answer the following questions:
<br />1. What ordinance gives you the right to take utility funds and use them for General
<br />or Operating Expense?
<br />We demand the need to set up an electrical utility commission to be responsible
<br />for the total operation of the electrical company, whereby the electrical company
<br />will be self sufficient, and not more than 10 percent of gross revenues can be
<br />put into General Operating funds of the City, and that the people of the community
<br />be allowed to serve on that commission.
<br />2. Why did you not inform the Council during budget sessions of the high utility rate?
<br />If you, as City Manager, had the interest of the people in mind, certainly this
<br />should have been a top priority for the Council to be aware of.
<br />3. In 1974, in your own Budget books, there was one-half million dollars profit from
<br />utility funds. What happened to this money?
<br />We the Citizens of Colton feel this is a part of your administrative duty, as City
<br />Manager, to be able to tell us where this money is and what it has been executed
<br />for.
<br />4. In your response, you are charging the Southern California Edison Company with
<br />high, excessive rates - and we, in turn, are charging you. Other cities do not
<br />have these high utility problems. Maybe the City of Colton should not have their
<br />own electric utility company?
<br />5. In your presentation you compare the City of Colton with other Orange County cities -
<br />Anaheim, Azusa, - not once did you mention the City of San Bernardino, and their
<br />rates are lower than ours.
<br />6. You personally told one of the Committee members that you did not know where the
<br />$891,000.00 of gross profit from the utility funds were. Aren't we paying you,
<br />as the City Manager, to know this? Again, we demand to know where the gross profit
<br />from utility funds is going. Certainly not as a rebate to the utility consumer.
<br />7. A committee member was given an extension on her bill. You just stated in your
<br />presentation that the City's Resolution does not allow for this; therefore, if you
<br />gave this one customer a special extension, do you plan to give all of the citizens
<br />in Colton an extension if they need it?
<br />OCT V 1976
<br />363
<br />
|