East Point council keeps winter-only electric rate after tense debate over transfers and shortfall

The East Point City Council voted April 20 to keep the city on its winter-only electric rate while an independent operating-cost analysis and full rate study are completed and presented to the council and the public.

The decision followed public-comment testimony from residents reporting high monthly bills and repeated calls for financial transparency, and a lengthy council debate about a reported structural shortfall in the electric fund and transfers into the general fund. Council member Dr. Martin Rogers, who led the case for delay, said, “I am not going to support a rate change at this time,” and pressed for answers about roughly $4.9 million that council members and staff traced as transfers from the electric fund into other city accounts during recent years.

Why it matters: Council members and residents argued that moving immediately to a seasonally higher summer rate would shift costs to residents before the city had documented the extent of the shortfall, reconciled prior interfund transfers, or completed a consultant rate study. City staff and the council’s outside consultant recommended several short-term and long-term steps — including temporary use of reserve/MCT funds, delaying capital projects and a comprehensive rate analysis — but advised that any use of trust or reserve funds should be accompanied by a repayment plan.

Council and staff described the next steps. The independent rate study and a full operating-cost analysis (work already under way by ECG, the city’s electric consultant) will be finalized and presented to council; the council’s adopted motion requires the results to be shared publicly before any change from the current winter-only billing structure is implemented. The city manager acknowledged the MCT (MAG Competitive Trust) balance and told council that MCT holdings exceed $20 million, but he and the consultant cautioned that borrowing from funds or reserves would require a clear repayment plan tied to a sustainable revenue change.

What council members and residents said: Residents testified at length about steep bills, high single-month readings and the difficulty fixed-income households face. Marie Terry asked for audits and transparency, urging the council to avoid raising taxes or utility rates before accounting for spending. Kendall Phillips, who had reviewed open-records data, said camera-citation revenue exceeded initial expectations and urged the city to publish how special revenues are being used.

Council members also emphasized legal and procedural limits: Council member Cwell repeatedly cited the municipal ordinance that “All rates for utility services shall be recommended by staff and approved by the city council,” urging that staff present formal rate recommendations before any change. The council then voted in a roll call to keep the winter-only structure until the study is complete and publicly presented (motion carried). The clerk recorded a roll-call tally showing more yes than no votes on the motion to maintain the current rate pending the study.

What to watch next: Council directed staff to complete the study, reconcile the recorded interfund transfers, and present the findings in a public meeting. The municipal utility advisory commission was also reconstituted to provide resident input; council voted to seat the commission promptly so that its members can review utility matters and participate in the forthcoming rate discussion.