Laserfiche WebLink
mechanise. 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 /> Ssyaanski 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 $$6,000 surplus. To achieve this <br /> surplus means that a majority of the consumers <br /> would be seeing a 404 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 first reading.* <br /> Sackett stated that he believes under the City's <br /> current circumstances, Louisville is growth <br /> dependent, specifically the tap fees. Iventually <br /> the City should °reacb 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 recognise that we need to pay for that. I <br /> think it is fiscally responsible to fund <br /> depreciation. Ws need to sake sure that the <br /> things we provide now can be provided in the <br /> future when they veer out. We are not talking <br /> about an overage at all. In ay opinion we are <br /> talking about funding depreciation...looking out <br /> for the future of Louisville. I support this. <br /> think its the honorable thing to do and the <br /> responsible thing to do.• <br /> Anderson stated that the is 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 be 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 sons point in the near <br /> future and that is why the percentage is being <br /> proposed. <br /> Handley suggested that on second reading, staff <br /> could look into this issue and come back with a <br /> sore readbnable fee and means of assessment. <br /> 7 <br />