To Chris..John is wrong
In 1996 we were notified that we would receive water increase of 7% a year; for the next five years in order to meet debt for water purchased in the eighties and to meet needs for replacement of pipes, etc. This has not changed; we faithfully receive this 7% increase every year. The water and sewer tap fees were also to increase yearly for new businesses; however, these were not reflected in a set percentage of increase.
The irony of this program is that, as you stated; the feasibility study did indicate that 1 million dollars could be borrowed from the water fund to use in the financing of county projects. This source of financing has not been publicly discussed in BF. One of my neighbors did challenge the city on this last year around election time; and was never given an answer. The question was, why are we going through water increases if there is an excess of monies in the water fund? No one wants to answer the question.
By Br Anonymous
In 1996 we were notified that we would receive water increase of 7% a year; for the next five years in order to meet debt for water purchased in the eighties and to meet needs for replacement of pipes, etc. This has not changed; we faithfully receive this 7% increase every year. The water and sewer tap fees were also to increase yearly for new businesses; however, these were not reflected in a set percentage of increase.
The irony of this program is that, as you stated; the feasibility study did indicate that 1 million dollars could be borrowed from the water fund to use in the financing of county projects. This source of financing has not been publicly discussed in BF. One of my neighbors did challenge the city on this last year around election time; and was never given an answer. The question was, why are we going through water increases if there is an excess of monies in the water fund? No one wants to answer the question.
By Br Anonymous