Junction City budget approved for 2008-09 fiscal year
JUNCTION CITY —The Junction City Council approved the 2008-09 budget during the June 10 meeting, although with some complaints as to the state of city’s street funds.
Councilor Bill DiMarco spoke up before the budget went to a vote, voicing some of his concerns over the city’s street funds.
“Politically, over the years, we’ve put streets at the bottom of the list,” DiMarco said. “That’s why I’ll be voting no, because I don’t think we got the job done.”
The budget passed by a 5-1 vote, with DiMarco being the lone dissenting vote.
Street funds were a large topic during budget meetings throughout the last month, but budget committee members were unable to agree upon how best to resolve the funding woes.
City Administrator David Clyne had presented an option to the committee that would have committed $200,000 each year to the street fund for general repairs and maintenance. That plan would have been a kind of stop-gap for the street funding until the general elections in November, 2010, when citizens would then be allowed to vote for a massive street fund project.
The budget committee voted against that plan, though, as it did not include any cuts from the 2008-09 fiscal year, and the budget was presented to the City Council without major money dedicated to the street fund.
After approving the budget, councilors discussed the possible increase in water and rates.
Current rates for the city are far below the state average, said Ray Bartlett, who facilitated the discussion. While the city may pride itself on its low rates, Bartlett said that the rate structure is actually causing more harm to the city than good.
That’s because Junction City’s water rate per unit actually decreases with the more water that is used. That actually encourages large industrial and commercial businesses to use vast quantities of water, as there are few financial incentives not to.
As a result many of the smaller residential and commercial businesses are subsidizing the larger water users in the area, Bartlett said.
Not only is it poor business for the city, but it is also discourages water conservation, councilors said.
The issue came up as construction of the prison and hospital sites south of town are loom close. The two state facilities would likely consume vast quantities of water. Councilors were quick to point out that as the city continues to grow, it would have been forced to change rates regardless of the prison and hospital.
The council did not make a decision at the time and will defer doing so until another meeting.