Laserfiche WebLink
- <br /> 5/18/82 Page -8- <br /> up their mind as to whether or not the rates <br /> proposed by the City Council are in ;act <br /> equitable. He noticed particularly <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 years? <br /> City take in in re nueduringghtho was <br /> What did the City pay o <br /> money transferred. if it was transferred <br /> out of fund? If money <br /> Fund and from the 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 25C 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 />