Document text
http://www.omniture.com --> Sections Home Page Local News AP News Blogs Archives Business Classifieds Event Calendar Forums Life Opinion Obituaries Multimedia Photo Gallery Readers Photo Gallery Sports Tempo Weather Road Cams Special Coverage 2006 Britt Festivals --> Shop Our Valley AutoFinder HomeFinder JobFinder Search Our Valley Special Sections Distinctly Northwest Readers' Choice Homelife Magazine Joy Magazine Oregon Golf Info Oregon Wine Info Other Publications Local Links Ashland News eSouthernOregon Newspapers In Education Personals Moving Here Movie Listings TV Listings Volunteer Customer Service Advertise With Us Media Kit Place Classified Ad Contact Us FAQ's Home Delivery Site Map --> Email Story to a Friend February 21, 2007 Phoenix ponders water bill surcharge options The city faces a $700,000 shortfall By BUFFY POLLOCK for the Mail Tribune PHOENIX — Revised plans for a water bill surcharge brought nearly 100 residents and property owners to Tuesday night's City Council meeting. Last week, newly hired City Manager Dale Shaddox said there was a "crisis situation" in the city's general fund, initially recommending a monthly fee of between $37 and $39 per month. That was based on an initial assessment of $530,000 in funding needs — $330,000 for the general fund, $50,000 each for police and fire capital improvements, and $100,000 for a savings account to one day build a new City Hall. Since then, $170,000 for street improvements has been folded into the assessment, bringing the increase in annual funding needs to $700,000. After crunching numbers with city staff members, council members and a small committee of citizens, Shaddox presented a handout Tuesday suggesting five alternatives for the surcharge. One option would divide the $700,000 shortfall equally among 1,997 residential and non-residential units, resulting in a monthly fee of $29.21 per month. Advertisement A more popular option with the audience, dubbed "option 5," would only seek to fund some $330,000 of the city's general fund, costing the 1,997 properties between $13 and $16 per month. A trio of options would assess a surcharge based on acreage, resulting in heftier amounts for nonresidential property owners. Mayor Carlos DeBritto agreed with option 5, stating that the city couldn't expect to quickly fix a problem that had been building for several years. "We're trying to go from zero to 60 in three seconds, not 60," DeBritto said. Council member Mike McKey questioned the city's ability to assess the surcharge for vacant property, referring to one orchard owner as an example. "I don't think those pear trees are calling 9-1-1," he said. McKey sided with citizens who urged the city to sell a parcel of property purchased this year with contingency funds. Business owner Rosalee Linvig urged equality between business and residential units, while developer Bob Robertson warned the council to consider any legal ramifications of imposing any surcharge. In the case of Home Depot, which paid some $600,000 in system development charges and contributed to interchange development, Robertson said "it'd be a real slap in the face if Home Depot all of a sudden received a bill." Resident Matt Glanz voiced frustration that the city was in poor financial condition. "If the City Council wants more money from its citizens, it can start with a clean slate of representatives who want to do a good job." Buffy Pollock is a freelance writer living in Medford. E-mail her at [email protected]. Would you like to respond to this story? If so Click Here to visit our forums. Advertisement Copyright © 1997-2007 Mail Tribune, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Website Feedback online casinos news Home Security Systems Online Casino Reviews Fundraisers UK Homeowner Loans Casinos Canada Cord Blood Banking Entertainment Guide Texas Electric Choice Compare Electric rates in Texas Windermere Van Vleet Trunks, Footlocker Men's Clothing Debt Help