02/01/1977 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 2-1-77 _g_ we are not benefiting one bit - we are paying for the operation and maintenance and cannot deduct it. In a sense it is a tax. In 1971 when the Plant was expanded the Council of 1971 placed upon the shoulders of the residents a tax by the rate in which they set for the sewer charge. Again, 10,000 cu. ft. of water used under the proposal Mr. Wilamosky is projecting would cost somewhere around $125. - using 10,000 cu. ft. and residing in a $45,004 home; but we also have to consider first many of the lower users, not all, who use 8, 9 or 10,000 cu. ft. and elderly couples who in most cases are not living in a five bedroom home - they are living in a two bedroom home and have lived in the community for many years. In many cases their home is not as high is valuation as many other homes in the City as they do not live in new areas. We all know many of the new areas of the City have felt revaluation a lot Wore than areae that are not transient type areas which gives the County an apportuxtity to revalue them on a yearly basis. Feels many of the low users are living in homes where they are going to benefit at valuation. Want to state emphatically that in 1971 felt that the rate structure chosen •vas unfair to everybody in this City and thinks the rate structure under Ord. No. 77-2 is as unfair as it was in 1971. Roll Ca11 on Adoption of Ord. No. 77-10: Affirmative vote: Fairfield, Saringer, Wilamosky. Negative vote: Beaty, Boehmer, Sharpe, West. 4 Nays - 3 Yeas - Motion defeated. Ord. No. 77-IO defeated. Law Director Gareau suggested to Council that they reconsider O~td. No. 77-3 so we do not go having an election and spend $8,000 or $9,000 an an election for a 3 mill levy. Mr. Wilamos&y said under New Business he will request the Law Director to draft the necessary legislation. Law Director Gareau stated that is not necessary - you can consider it mow. Mayor Christman stated he would like to comment that the idea of a portion pf the cost of the Plant be borne by property tax is not any different whether the rest is on a flat rate or at a rate of ponsumption. Suggest, Council consider going ahead with the election on March 22nd with the Idea in mind 'that if it does• pass the rate will be reduced to what it is in the neighborhood now of $7.45. Mr. West agreed - feels it is not incompatible and this Council voted to put it to the electorate and thinks they ought to have a choice whether they want to put it on the millage. Mr. Fairfield stated he will make a motion because he thinks one proposal was for a 64X charge, and the other proposal was to work in connunction with the levy. Mr. Fairfield moved to reconsider Ord. No. 77-3, seconded by Mr. Wilamosky. Mr. Beaty stated he would like to give following comments: thinks we are jumping too quick into this motion: could consider this at next meeting and still give us time if we did want to cancel the election. Thinks it would behoove Council to really look into this because if we look at this realistically and combine this percentage increase ~~.o~ng with the millage - we ors taxing the people for basidally having the facil~.tp - everyone gets a certain amount of use; if we had a mi~.lage rate everyaae would benefit according to the size of their home and it would leave plenty of .incentive for people to continue to conserve water. Thinks most of us would have rathered the capital expenditure to property owners be assessed originally; but we can't assess but we can put a millage on like this and feels it would be a very equitable system. Roll Call on Motion tv reconsider Ord. No. 77-3: Affirmative vote: Fairfield, Beringer, Sharpe, Wilamosky. Negative vote: Beaty, Boehmer, West. 4 Yeas - 3 Nays - Motion carried.