We Don't Need A Development Agreement

because Tim Gregori says so.

I attended this evening, for the first time, an ECP board meeting. The city manager was there as well as Cheryl Patton, Bill Bronson and Mary Jolley. No sign of the other three commissioners.

Tim Gregori from SME was the main agenda item. When his presentation was over, Stuart Lewin commented that he was confused about the relationship between SME and the City. Was it a partnership? Mr. Gregori indicated that the City of Great Falls is a member of the co-op, and as such, has one vote. There exists between the two a contractual relationship to buy and sell power.

When comment was made about the development agreement between the City and SME, Gregori indicated the agreement was not necessary since RUS decided against loaning money to SME. Because of this, the City no longer has to find separate financing. SME is now the "single financing entity", carrying all of the liability. An exception would occur if the bonding agency would require guarantees from all of the co-op members. Gregori did not think this would happen.

Concerns:

The city is still going to have a financial responsibility. What will it be?

Resolution 9537, which was adopted Dec. 5, 2005, says nothing about a development agreement being unnecessary if federal financing falls through. One commenter pointed out that only the City Commission can rescind a resolution, not Tim Gregori, not ECP and not the "city".

Maybe it's time the City Commission rescind resolution 9537 and adopt a new resolution taking into account the changes that have occurred since 2005.