The Amarillo City Council addressed complaints about the Amarillo Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) during a two-part, closed-door executive session at Tuesday’s meeting.
The council discussed concerns raised by a citizen group regarding financial transfers by the AEDC to The Range, a local entity. Mayor Cole Stanley stated that the executive session was productive, helping align the council with the facts and legal context of the transfers.
“We’ve had one executive session; it’s not a city investigation,” Stanley said. “The AEDC transferred some money to The Range, which was brought up by a concerned citizen group, so we’re looking into how this change from the budgeted amount to the amount paid happened.”
Stanley described the inquiry, as he prefers to call it, as an effort to scrutinize the process that led to the change from the budgeted amount to the amount paid to The Range. The council is now working with AEDC board members to rectify the situation and ensure similar issues do not recur. “We need to always be willing to look at anything that doesn’t seem right on the surface,” Stanley said, emphasizing the importance of oversight and transparency in handling public funds.
Stanley also mentioned that council representatives would meet with the AEDC board to discuss corrective measures. “This doesn’t look good,” Stanley said. “We need to clarify this policy, make changes, and then move forward. What are you [AEDC] willing to do to rectify this issue?”
When questioned about concerns raised by citizens Michael Ford and Craig Gualtiere, who have been vocal about the AEDC’s financial decisions, Stanley reaffirmed the council’s responsibility to oversee the expenditure of public money. He indicated that council representatives would meet with the AEDC board to discuss corrective measures.
A significant point of contention was the increase from a $100,000 approved expenditure to a $750,000 transfer for three years’ dues without formal council approval. Stanley, who was on the council when the original $100,000 was approved, stressed the importance of proper procedures and the necessity of transparency in such decisions. He acknowledged that while the council cannot retroactively recall the funds, the focus now is on ensuring such oversights do not happen again.
When asked why the AEDC, which originally came to the council for approval of the initial $100,000, did not return to the council for approval of the $750,000 payment, Stanley stressed that these are the questions being asked.
“Three years upfront for a $750,000 expenditure with the approval of a $100,000 budget item is an issue for all of us,” Stanley said. “It’s all of our money through sales tax dollars, so finding out why and how that happened and acknowledging that this shouldn’t have taken place is crucial.”
Stanley emphasized that the council is taking steps to address the issue. “We are taking the appropriate steps under the law to ensure everything is approved as it needs to be. There are several variables in all this due to the length of time and the requests that were made. But what we don’t have is a formalized meeting where it was properly notified to the public, voted on, and then returned to this council.”
As the situation develops, Stanley stressed the council’s commitment to working collaboratively with the AEDC to address these concerns and maintain public trust. “We are holding ourselves to the same standards for the rest of the budgetary monies,” he concluded.
In another matter, the Amarillo City Council once again revisited the wording of Proposition A, the Sanctuary City of the Unborn proposal, and Proposition D, which concerns the recall initiative. Proposition A, the abortion ordinance, is particularly slated for potential changes, with another vote scheduled for Sept. 10.
Stanley, who had thought the complexities of ballot language and city propositions were behind him, explained the need for these revisions, citing the length of the propositions and the difficulty of fitting all the required information within the columns at polling places. “Certain people were confused by the language, especially the way one ballot proposition had to state what it was and what it is now,” Stanley said. “It’s important that the ballot clearly explains the transition and change.”
Despite the desire to move forward, the council recognized the need for adjustments. Stanley noted that while they hoped to have settled these issues, they’re still working through the process. He also acknowledged the potential, though slim, for a legal challenge regarding the changes, despite efforts to make the language as clear and educational as possible.
This article originally appeared on Amarillo Globe-News: Amarillo City Council addresses AEDC concerns, revisits ballot language
Local News
