Laserfiche WebLink
TUESDAY. JUNE 8. 1999 <br />transportation priorities, and that any additional priorities would have to be considered within <br /> <br />this perspective. Mayor Crabtree stated that he did not think these other issues should be <br />considered outside the City's formal Transportation Plan. Vice-Mayor Teague stated his view <br />that these additional issues could be added to those under consideration by the Transportation <br />Safety Commission and Council Member Roop agreed, stating that the concerns in question <br />should be considered by the Commission along with other transportation priorities. Mayor <br />Crabtree agreed with this strategy. There were no other speakers on the City Budget, and the <br />Public Hearing was closed. Council Member Roop thanked Mr. Jones and all other speakers for <br />their comments, and noted that comments made confirmed his belief that most folks in the city <br />wanted Council to consider a better use of the AEP Rebate Funds than a rebate to utility <br />customers. He stated that Council needed to consider other uses for the funds, including the <br />Sewer Fund, the General Fund Fund Balance, additional Fire Department personnel,and other <br />needs identified and was interested in further discussion of the matter. Council Member Dallas <br />then suggested that Council should approve placement of the entire $220,000 in question in the <br />General Fund Fund Balance. Vice-Mayor Teague then suggested that half of the funds be placed <br />in the Sewer Fund to reinforce its fund balance and the other half be used to establish an <br />Economic Development Fund. Council Member Haskell stated her feeling that the funds ought <br />to be shared with electric utility consumers through rebates. Mayor Crabtree then stated that he <br />liked Vice-Mayor Teague's idea for the use of the funds. Council Member Roop stated that two <br />additional facts needed to be considered; First, that the increased costs for electricity paid by the <br />City which had been refunded were never passed on to the consumer; Second, those who <br />benefited from a consumer rebate might not have been utility customers during the period of <br />overcharges. Council Member Dallas then moved that the entire $220,000 in rebate funds in <br /> <br /> <br />