Laserfiche WebLink
mechanism. Given the fact that the City's rates <br />at present are not covering expenses, staff <br />recommend that Council approve this rate increase. <br />Szymanski stated that while no one can deny that <br />the City can not continue to operate on a deficit <br />budget, he believes that the Council needs to be <br />realistic in what Council does. This proposal <br />does eliminate the deficit in the City's <br />operation/maintenance budget, but it also <br />generates an $86,000 surplus. To achieve this <br />surplus means that a majority of the consumers <br />would be seeing a 40~ increase in their water <br />bills next summer. "I think this is extravagant <br />at this time and I cannot support this ordinance <br />even on f first reading." <br />Sackett stated that he believes under the City's <br />current circumstances, Louisville is growth <br />dependent, specifically the tap fees. Eventually <br />the City should "reach equilibrium and I don't <br />like to see pressure put on this Council or future <br />Council's to continue growth if we don't think its <br />good for the City. What we have here is a program <br />that we've all bought into in the past and we need <br />to recognize that we need to pay for that. I <br />think it is fiscally responsible to fund <br />depreciation. We need to make sure that the <br />things we provide now can be provided in the <br />future when they wear out. We are not talking <br />about an overage at all. In my opinion we are <br />talking about funding depreciation...looking out <br />for the future of Louisville. I support this. I <br />think its the honorable thing to do and the <br />responsible thing to do." <br />Anderson stated that the 1~ late fee for <br />commercial customers is in his opinion may end up <br />potentially being not hardly enough to even pro- <br />cess that and he would like to see a minimum <br />charge assessed covering the cost of administra- <br />ting that fee such as a flat fee of $5.00. <br />Proposed is a flat late fee of $2.00 for <br />residential. <br />Phare responded that currently the computer <br />program used for billing does not have the ability <br />to assess flat fees although Phare is working <br />toward having that at some point in the near <br />future and that is why the percentage is being <br />proposed. <br />Hundley suggested that on second reading, staff <br />could look into this issue and come back with a <br />more reasonable fee and means of assessment. <br />7 <br />