upr000175 137

has fegas - May IB, 19**9 V 23-1-A Mr. ?few Reinhardt: In accordance with your letter May 1 1 , tile 1-733^, we attach statement of water refund contracts In effect, shoving the information by sub-division outlined in your letter* Under item 6, ^Estimated total number of consumers*, if Is difficult to say what addi­tional construction will tale place In any sub­division and we, therefore, used the potential maximum, based am one house on each lot because that w&e the intention of the sub-divider at the time the water mains were installed. Xou will note that there are now 588 consumers against a potential maximum of 952 or 6l£; however, this number of consumers was not in service during the entire life of the contract, as construction wae progressive. So far H 5 » 170*1^ has been refunded on the total amount advanced or about 1 1 .5* to March 31, 19^ * Under our present rule 9A, ?6& of the amounts deposited will be refunded if houses are constructed on each lot served; whereas 73$ would be refunded under the proposed 50 foot rale. She advantage to the sub-divider lies, of course, in the time elements Under the $6 foot rule he would receive his money back in ninety days after construc­tion is completed and houses occupied, after which he has no interest in whether the houses are occupied or not. My thought Is that if the sub-divider becomes a partner with the Water Qomp&ny under rule 9A it will serve as a brake on over-building the community and leaving a large number of unoccupied houses on water mains from which we receive no revenue, but on which we will have continuing maintenance and taxes. A. M. Folger