Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5 <br /> <br />D. That the rural users are getting none of the other services <br />furnishod by the city which may be paid for from funds taken <br />from the water system's income, <br /> <br />it <br /> <br />E. That other towns can and do operate tneir systems to the <br />mutual benefit of city and rural users. <br /> <br />THEREFORE, <br /> <br />1. We beg of you to reconsider your new assessment of rates <br />im~osed upon users outside the city. <br /> <br />2. Then, let us pay a r2asonable penalty on the minimum set up <br />whether it be 2000 or 3000 gallons. <br /> <br />3. And, for all additional water used, let us pay at the same <br />rate as city users. <br /> <br />We humbly suggest that a committee composed of members of the city <br />council and of the rural users group be formed to study this entire <br />problem. This would, of necessity, delay the new rate aSBessment for <br />a month or such time as nece~sary for the committee to make its study <br />and report. <br /> <br />I <br />I, <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Gentlemen, we leave the matter in your hands. As you ponder this <br />question, will you please ask yourselves: <br /> <br />1. Is it based on facts? <br /> <br />2. Is it fair to all concerned? <br /> <br />3. Hill it build good will and better friendships? <br /> <br />4. Will it be beneficial to all concerned? <br /> <br />We rural users will ask ourselves these questions. Will you? <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br />RURAL USERS GROUP <br /> <br />By <br /> <br />Paul Hopson, Chairman <br /> <br />I <br />a <br />