City Commission Agenda, April 15, 2008
I hate to sound like a broken record, but the fact the City Commission votes on expenditures after the fact, really bothers me. This just does not seem right, much less legal.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but the fact the City Commission votes on expenditures after the fact, really bothers me. This just does not seem right, much less legal.
Commissioner Jolley will vote against the Electric Fund expenditure of $57,202.60, because ECP is supposed to be self-sustaining. She's the only commissioner who thinks obeying the ordinance is important and has said numerous times she will not vote to break the law. (This expenditure is for additional power used in January).
But other than Ms. Jolley going on record as voting against the expenditure, the payment is a done deal. All of the payments are a done deal.
Unfortunately, voting on the expenditure report is nothing more than a formality. It should be more than that. It is after all, our money.
6 comments:
This looks to me like a bill for electrical usage. Surely she can't believe that self-sustaining means that the City gets its electricity for free - or can she?
According to ordinance 2925, ECP is supposed to be self-sustaining. In other words, expenses should not exceed revenues.
The Electric Fund has only lost money and is projected to continue to do so.
Even it were operating at a profit, wouldn't it still have to write a check to SME to purchase electricity? It may be a spite vote on her part, and if all Commissioners voted against this expenditure, wouldn't the City find its electricity shut off?
Would not ECP keep their own books? I thought the city was a customer of ECP. Why would the city send payments to SME?
In 2005 the City decided it wanted to get into the power business. As a result, Electric City Power (ECP) was formed. It is not a separate entity from the City.
The City/ECP went out and recruited commercial customers as well as a very select group of residential customers, who are part of what the City calls the "pilot program". The City itself is a customer as well.
These customers of the City/ECP are getting their power from SME, who invoices the City for this usage. The City is billed for their usage as well. The City in turn invoices its customers, except the customers are being charged less than what the City pays for this usage.
This is only one of the very many concerns citizens have with regard to this entire relationship between SME and the City.
Classic Flim-Flam
Post a Comment