12201957 Special Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 We do have city water, and have ungrucigingly paia a fifty percent penalty for living outside the City. He ~ .f,l.!!E. has ~ fai_r. If there are those among us who moved outside the city to escape ,t city taxes yet get city services, they Only one service furnished by the city cost we can nOe and should not escape. cost based upon the FACTS on operation have been disillusioned. is available and from that BUT, it should be a FAI~ costs. We are not trying to escape paying ror what we get. But, we do not want to pay ror what we do not get. IS THIS FAIR? In summary: Gentlemen, FIRST, we have approached this problem in the interest of fairnes~ based upon facts. We ~ant to be good citizens oi this community. SECOND, we want to know why - if it is true - that the cost of water is so much greater outside the city limits than inside. THIRD, we want to know why - if it is true - that rural users should bear ~ll of the added cost of the water oystem, FOURTH, we want to know why San 11arcos water system is so much harder on its rural users than are Kyle, Lockhart, Luling) and other towns. Surely we can all live and let live. . FIFTH, we would like to know why water system operation in San Marcos is over fifty percent higher then in these neighboring towns as evidenced by the water rates. SIXTH, we want to know why a fifty percent penalty above all city users is not sufficient. ($2.25 vs $1.50 minimum) We have pointed out: A. That we have paid our fifty percent penalty without too much grumbling. B. That we are, through that penalty, paying the equivalent of a $.30 tax rate on a $3000 assessment each year which could, and should, be applied to any endebtedness against the system. C. That we have purch~sed our own water pipes and the city has no investment outside the city. That is the expense of rural users. I ..