Laserfiche WebLink
rtr ±rqVrtry rs, <br /> ww ww n ur wu <br /> ,,.,,......,.,� ._... 1180' 16 �4 - <br /> 10 12 ( <br /> 1118091 ^" <br /> 121 •\ <br /> Water Operating System Taxes Cost of <br /> Supply Costs Costs Improvements &Fees Capital <br /> Please accept my apologies if I have misunderstood the issues, am wrong about numbers, or missed essential <br /> facts. <br /> Could we offer anything further to reduce confusion and help in any way? <br /> I appreciate your time and consideration. <br /> Best, <br /> Sanjay Kamat <br /> PS. I am not one of the 3.200 high-tier users, and I strongly support water conservation. <br /> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:40 PM Purnam Sheth __ wrote: <br /> Moving the City of Council back onto the this thread, since I haven't gotten an appropriate response. <br /> I asked on Oct 14th a very simple question below--after multiple attempts I got a NON-Answer that didn't answer the <br /> question and was deflected with a different response ( I am hoping this was just an error/oversight). <br /> I know this is a tough issue for all. I also truly believe that accuracy and transparency is required here--otherwise the <br /> city loses credibility (and I am very proud of our city!). <br /> Could staff please validate the statement I read from the petition below--is it accurate and true (or if not, what are the <br /> true numbers) --and I repeat, telling everyone that the first year bill will go up by$33/13ill does mislead the public on <br /> the total impact when the proposal was a 3 year increase (and only represents 55%of the households?) <br /> thanks, Purnam <br /> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 5:24 PM Purnam Sheth . rote: <br /> Tamara, <br /> Thank you. However you didn't answer the original simple question. Could you please answer this? <br /> There is a petition out there-- is the petition statement correct? <br /> ""The proposed water bill increases by FY26 will be 70-100% over <br /> 5 <br />