Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Ellsworth City council adds $10 garnishment-processing fee to 2025 schedule after debate

Ellsworth City Council · January 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council approved Resolution 2025-09 to add a $10 garnishment-processing fee to the 2025 fee schedule, after staff explained it covers administrative time and council members raised fairness concerns; council also discussed a separate bulk-water rate of $300 per 1,000 gallons and asked staff to provide follow-up details.

The Ellsworth City Council on Jan. 13 approved Resolution 2025-09, amending the 2025 fee schedule to add a $10 garnishment-processing fee intended to cover administrative time for processing wage garnishments.

Staff explained that some garnishment orders permit additional processing fees while others do not; the proposed $10 would generally be divided across two paychecks when staff must manually enter garnishment information. Councilors debated whether charging residents for garnishment processing was punitive or a reasonable cost recovery measure. One council member described the administrative burden garnishments impose on staff and supported the fee; others urged staff to provide additional data and context about existing costs.

Council also questioned a proposed bulk-water charge (discussed in the same packet) of $300 per 1,000 gallons. Staff said the bulk-water rate was calculated to cover the highest staff and equipment costs when customers request on-site hydrant hookups and that processes are inconsistent; council asked staff to provide clearer documentation and consider alternatives before finalizing how the rate will be implemented operationally.

The council approved the resolution by voice vote and asked staff to return with additional detail on bulk-water usage, the rationale for the $300 figure and the administrative calculations underlying the garnishment fee.