Laserfiche WebLink
Lathrop stated that the city needed to slow down in the its rate of revenue increases. He felt the city <br />should extend this into the city's expenditure side of the ledger in the budget process. <br /> <br />Howard did not want to delay the increase, so there would not be the extra cost in the future of <br />funding the city's unfunded depreciation. <br /> <br />Sisk wanted to see the people who use less water than 7,000 gallons be rewarded. <br /> <br />Levihn suggested the increase be 50% of the proposed rate increase this year and then a full 100% <br />for 1996. <br /> <br />Mayer moved that Council approve the rate proposals, but going with 50% of the value on water <br />rates for this year, as to what was originally proposed, leaving the increases, percentage wise, the <br />same for next several years. Seconded by Levihn. <br /> <br />Susan Griffiths, City Attorney, asked Phare, for clarification, to calculate the exact numbers that the <br />Council was voting on. <br /> <br />Phare: <br /> <br />Instead of the 4% on the base rate and consumption to <br />60,000, it would be 2% of a rate increase. <br />Consumption greater than that would be 3% vs. 6%, <br />is my understanding, with the full 4% and 6% to be <br />implemented starting in '96. <br /> <br />Roll call was taken. Motion passed by a 6 - 1 vote with Davidson voting against. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION/MOTION - ADOPTION OF FEES WITHIN THE CEMETERY RULES AND <br />REGULATIONS, FOR THE LOUISVILLE CEMETERY EFFECTIVE JANUARY 4, 1995 <br /> <br />Steve Baysinger, Parks & Recreation Director, stated that to get the cemetery to pay all of its <br />operational costs, they would need approximately $850,000 in the perpetual care account. To offset <br />all of the operation and maintenance, less the cost of water ($18,600), they would have to have <br />approximately $425,000 in that account. Currently, they sell an average of 50 lots/year. The last <br />time the plot rates were increased was July 1992 by $50.00. The increase before that was 1981. <br /> <br />Levihn felt there should be a definition between a resident and non-resident regarding fees, because <br />the non-resident plot fee was double the resident fee. He wanted some guidelines. <br /> <br />Mayer moved that Council approve the cemetery fees as proposed by the Parks & Recreation <br />Department with the amendment that Parks & Recreation will provide a draft to Council as to who <br />would qualify as a resident vs. non-resident. Council will within six months decide on the formal <br />guidelines. Seconded by Levihn. Roll call was taken. Motion passed by a 7 - 0 vote. <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br /> <br />