and furthermore...

Concerning the Joint Venture agreement between SME and ECP- I found an outline (Basic Terms and Provisions of the Development Agreement between the City of Great Falls and Southern Montana Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative) of what it would, could, should be.
Exhibit A of Resolution 9537 states that "ECP would own a 25% undivided ownership interest in the Highwood Generating Station, including all common facilities, transmission facilities and rights and other interests which are part of the Highwood Generating Station." This agreement will also address the parties’ ability to mortgage or encumber their respective ownership interest for financing purposes and to dispose of their ownership interests. (Sounds like something that needs to be set in stone before we start building and financing this project. Oops, to late.)
It also says,
"5. The City and SME agree to negotiate in good faith to develop mutually agreeable and definitive forms of all other agreements necessary in connection with the ownership and operation of the station, including:"

"5(c) A resource integration agreement under which SME will provide specified services for the City to support its ownership interest in the Station, and the parties will agree to make available to one another any surplus output to their respective ownership interest in the Station."

5(d) A raw water supply agreement under which the city will supply all non-culinary water necessary for Station operations, and will take all actions necessary, including obtaining any needed regulatory approvals to provide this water supply.
I haven’t heard, has this been discussed with the Army Corp of Engineers? Does it need to be?

Let’s go back to Resolution 9537 for a minute.

“WHEREAS, the City commission has previously adopted Ordinance 2925, which authorized and approved the creation of Electric City Power, Inc., a Montana nonprofit corporation, (the “Corporation”) in order to secure and provide reliable and economic supplies of power to the City of Great Falls (the “City”), its residents and other electric consumers served by the City."

I believe that stated, with absolutely no hedging, that ECP wishes to supply power to the RESIDENTS of the City. Let’s read a bit further, shall we.

"WHEREAS the Project is reasonably expected to provide firm and reliable supplies of electricity at stable cost-based rates for the benefit of the City, its residents and the electric consumers served by the City and the Corporation, and the City expects to derive other substantial benefits from the Station as described herein; and "

Here’s the “herein”

"(a) The continued growth, economic development and prosperity of the City and its residents requires the availability of secure, reliable and economical supplies of electricity at stable economical and cost-based rates for all residential, commercial, industrial and other electric consumers within the City; "

There is that RESIDENTS word again. Now, does that mean if they cannot sell to all the consumers, and that includes 56,000 RESIDENTS the City will NOT have growth, economic development and prosperity? I think it is pretty plain that the city has always intended to attempt to sell power to the residents of the City, and any claims to the contrary are in direct contradiction to the stated purpose and intent of Electric City Power Inc.

Now let’s skip down a bit.
Section 2, Development of the Project
"(b) the City Manager is further authorized and directed to engage in all discussions and negotiations with SME that are necessary or desirable in connection with the Highwood Generating Station and the Project, including the preparation of a development agreement between the City or the Corporation and SME (the “Development Agreement”). It is the intention that the Development Agreement shall be substantially consistent with the terms and provisions attached hereto as Exhibit A. Upon the completion of such negotiations, the City Manager shall present a substantially final form to the Development Agreement to the City Commission for final approval."

Resolution 9537 was passed by the City Commission on Dec 6 2005

In the minutes of the March 6 2006 ECP Minutes “The Board briefly discussed a draft of the Development Agreement between the City and SME. Executive Director Balzarini explained the purpose of and need for such an agreement and noted that City staff and The City’s bond counsel would be discussing the agreement with SME officials on March 13th. Balzarini briefly discussed the cogeneration facility before detailing for the board two upcoming meetings with SME:
The SME annual meeting in Billings on March 13th
The March project update meeting and Meeting of the SME Board of Directors on March 16-17, 2006.”

So, where is that Development Agreement? I want to know how much we are actually going to be spending, and have it in writing somewhere. We all know prices of things can change in a short period of time. Like in December of 2005, this coal plant only cost 300,000,000. (section 1.04) (holy crap. did you see what else that said right there? 1.03. "in place of the current default supply of electricity" did it really say that?)
Seems like that Agreement should be showing up at a Commission Meeting soon.

Concerning the missing Feasibility Study of November 4th, 2003.
I question that it even exists.
I would welcome any attempts to prove me wrong. In April of 2005 this document shows up to justify money requested from the City. There are several studies on there, but I see nothing that could be considered a feasibility study aimed at our specific, local, economic benefit.

Regarding the statement by our Mayor on the GreaterFalls Coal Plant post. I had a friend contact the Tribune. They have little knowledge of documents relating to the managerial or financial aspects of ECP. The extent of documentation they have been “given full access to” is promised access to the EIS and Engineering Reports that will be coming out “Soon” and anything else that would be considered public record, that anyone else can get. (Page 5, section 7.01)
I would guess we will all have access to those two documents, and many of us can write about them as competently as a newspaper reporter.

I also cruised over to the State site, and looked up Nonprofit Corporation Act, since that is what ECP states it is, a nonprofit corporation.

I will leave you with this, I have bolded pertinent parts:

(5) A corporation shall keep a copy of the following records at its principal office or a location from which the records may be recovered within 2 business days:
(a) its articles or restated articles of incorporation and all amendments to them currently in effect;
(b) its bylaws or restated bylaws and all amendments to them currently in effect;
(c) resolutions adopted by its board of directors relating to the characteristics, qualifications, rights, limitations, and obligations of members or any class or category of members;
(d) the minutes of all meetings of members and the records of all actions approved by the members for the past 3 years;
(e) the financial statements available to members for the past 3 years under 35-2-911;
(f) a list of the names and business or home addresses of its current directors and officers; and
(g) its most recent annual report delivered to the secretary of state under 35-2-904.