Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5/18/82 <br /> <br />Page -8- <br /> <br />up their mind as to whether or not the rates <br />proposed by the City Council are in fact <br />equitable. He noticed particularly a chart <br />had been given as to what the increase in <br />supplies, materials, shares, salaries, etc. <br />where the City has had an increase. What <br />he felt was significantly missing was a <br />balance sheet for the years 1970, 1975 <br />and 1980. In other words, what did the <br />City take in in revnue during those years? <br />What did the City payout? Where was <br />money transferred, if it was transferred <br />out of the water fund? If money was taken <br />from the General Fund and transferred into <br />the Water Fund - how much? "We don't have <br />those figures - we can't make an intelligent <br />decision." He did note very signifcantly <br />however, and this again falls into the <br />concerns that Mr. Caranci expressed, he <br />didn't have any particular problem with <br />the rate increasing from $5.50 to $8.00 <br />on a flat rate - it is probably an equit- <br />able increase. What he found very signi- <br />ficant the $8.00 fee is for 10,000 gallons <br />of water; the next two categories were in <br />increments of 5,000 gallons each, from <br />that point on they are in 10,000 gallon <br />categories. His question was why? <br />(Referring to the flier) The first 5,000 <br />gallons above the 10,000 gallons is 65C <br />a gallon per 1,000 gallons; a jump of 20C. <br />However the next 5,000 gallons takes a <br />jump of 25~ per 1,000 gallons, which is <br />the greatest jump of the entire proposal. <br />That is also precisely where most of the <br />homeowners will be hit, because this is <br />the category they will fall into if they <br />are watering their lawns, trees, and gardens. <br />He further commented Louisville had been <br />designated a Tree City, if this kind of <br />inequitable increase is put into effect, <br />he felt there would be a lot of dead trees <br />and a lot of brown lawns. Therefore, he <br />felt the structure was incorrect, and didn't <br />see why the homeowners should bear the bur- <br />den of the increase. He felt that 75% of <br />increase would come in this area and from <br />the homeowner not the large industrial user. <br />It was his opinion the City would not realize <br />the additional income anticipated without <br />sacrificing one of the things that has made <br />