Laserfiche WebLink
----------------------------------------------------------------------- <br /> 7 <br /> ::::w-' TEP Plu-11 7^ '3 <br /> ---------------------------------- --- ----------- -------------------------- <br /> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br /> T; <br /> -------------------------------------- --------------------------7--- --------- <br /> 32G <br /> 35 E TF :Z I S C1 <br /> 4 C Z' I T S 3 ri <br /> 5 <br /> 5 E- r S 1 54 <br /> 5 L, A S C E S, <br /> 4 ,57 L A T Y E I T -.1 J., <br /> S P i S 7 2 <br /> 7 E S T Y E T F t,R 2 e <br /> 4 S L E S TAY <br /> - S i <br /> 4�j z?5 E T <br /> S S 45 , TG <br /> T T L 187 , 34 173 , 675 234 , 7 <br /> Based on the 1981 consumption of 44 , 094 , 316 cu. ft. , with the following <br /> • rates , our water sales revenue would be : <br /> 1981 rate - 33� per 100 cu. ft. (44� per 1 ,000 gallons) = $145 , 511 <br /> Proposed roposed rate increases : <br /> 38� per 100 cu. ft. (47� per 1 ,000 gallons) = $167 , 584 <br /> 40� per 100 cu. ft. (54G per 1 ,000 gallons) = $176 , 377 <br /> This is based on 4 quarters of billing at these rates . If the rate <br /> increase would occur now (1982) , we would only receive possibly <br /> 6 months , at the new rate . <br /> My recommendation would be to increase the rate to 40G per 100 cubic <br /> feet. If the rate were increased to 35� , at the 1981 consumption <br /> figure , it would generate approximately $1 , 000 less than the 1982 <br /> estimate for water sales . Also, I feel it is not a good policy to <br /> raise rates then find in another year they have to be increased <br /> again. Any rate increase does not sit well with the residents and <br /> when it is done frequently , it creates even more displeasure . <br /> CBJ/Cjk <br /> • <br />