|
14 �Mr. Greg Fife, Chairman of the Utilities Commission, advised that the Commission
<br />discussed this matter at the meeting held December 7, 1981, and possible uses of
<br />the refund monies, and had recommended this matter be referred back to Staff for
<br />advice from the City Attorney as to the actual legal aspects and permitted uses
<br />of these funds.
<br />City Attorney Edwards stated the refund monies are City monies, there are no
<br />strings attached, they can be used as the City sees fit, and are on the same
<br />order as the General Fund monies.
<br />Councilwoman Cisneros stated she would like to hear some comments from our
<br />Electric Utility Director concerning his recommendations.
<br />Mr. Gale Drews, Electric Utility Director, referred to his memorandum and report
<br />on recommended alternatives for the use of the refund monies, advising that
<br />Southern California Edison has increa"sed.the City's amount of refund by an addi-
<br />tional $3,505.85, which. came about wherr Edison re -calculated the fuel cost adjust-
<br />ment for the period from 1976 to 1979. Mr. Drews commented on the various alter-
<br />natives outlined in his report, stating he felt it was most important that the
<br />City Council pay the fuel cost adjustment deficit, $160,597.29, which will create
<br />an immediate cash benefit, and then decide, at the Council's discretion, how to
<br />use the balance of funds remaining.
<br />Councilman Hayes stated he agrees with comments made by Mayor Gonzales, however, he
<br />also feels that there should be a refund made to the consumers, as this is their
<br />money too, and the people will definitely want a refund and want some of their money
<br />back. Mr. Hayes also felt it was important to clear the fuel cost adjustment deficit.
<br />Utilities Commissioners Blinkinsop, Carrasco and De La Torre, respectively, addressed
<br />the City Council with regard to the refund monies and proposed uses, each stating they
<br />felt there should be some refund made to the consumers, and also that the Utilities
<br />Commission should have an opportunity to meet again to discuss this matter in greater
<br />detail.
<br />Chairman Fife stated that he would definitely like to see the Utilities Commission
<br />have a meeting to discuss the refund monies, as soon as possible, and make some
<br />definite recommendations to the City Council with regard to the future use of these
<br />funds. .—
<br />Mr. Jerry Young, Assistant to the Finance Director, advised that the City Council
<br />should make a decision within the next week with regard to the allocation and/or
<br />deposit of these funds.
<br />Councilwoman Garcia stated she felt that paying the fuel cost adjustment deficit
<br />would create a benefit, or refund, to the consumer, and the rest of the monies could
<br />be placed in the bank, drawing interest, until a final decision is reached as to how
<br />they will be used or refunded. Mrs. Garcia stated if these monies are spent now, the
<br />City has nothing to work with, or refund, however, if they are put in the bank, draw-
<br />ing interest in the interim, they can be used in the future to benefit everyone.
<br />After additional discussion among Council Members, Staff and Utilities Commissioners,
<br />Councilwoman Garcia moved that the City authorize payment of Fuel Cost Adjustment
<br />deficit in the amount of $160,597.29, and that the balance of funds remaining be
<br />placed in a high -yield, interest-bearing account for future use.
<br />Councilman Rehrer stated he would second the motion, and would like to add an amend-
<br />ment to the motion that these funds are not to be used or distributed until the
<br />Utilities Commission has met and made firm recommendations to the City Council for
<br />their proposed use. Councilwoman Garcia stated she was in agreement with the amend-
<br />ment as made.
<br />Motion carried unanimously.
<br />Business License
<br />Ordinance No. 1614
<br />City Attorney Edwards introduced a proposed ordinance, Ordinance No. 1614, amending
<br />the Business License Ordinance as it relates to rentals to private vendors, such as
<br />an auction business, flea market, etc. Mr. Edwards stated the change, basically,
<br />would provide that the $2.50 daily fee would apply whether or not an auction is
<br />conducted on the premises, and a $2.50 rental fee per vendor instead of per space.
<br />Councilwoman Garcia felt that this matter needed more study before taking any action
<br />and stated she would like to know how much the auction business was charging the
<br />vendor to rent the booths on the premises.
<br />JAS: i 3 1982
<br />
|