upr000340 119

Mr. Robert A. Allen August 20, 1965 general business and Is a coupetitor of Mr. Henderson. As a result of those negotiations, we revised and reduced our charges and published a rate under Rate Ho. 56A, approved by your Commission and effective September 1, 1961, of #60.00 for plants of this character having a capacityIn excess of 2600 ou. yds. which was the o&paolty of the plant of Young A Smith and whioh, incidentally, is the capacity of the Henderson plant. The same basic charge is now being made to the Hender­son plant plus an additional charge of #2.40 for his office water facilities, #1.80 for two public water closets, or a total of ¥64.20 to Mr. Henderson. I do not have data re­garding total charges made to Young A Smith but presume, if tie has accessorial facilities euoh as Mr. Henderson has, that he pays not only the basic oh&rge of &50.00 but the additional charges such as have been described above being charges against Mr. Henderson. As you know, the Mister District Is planning to g& H a bond election for some time the latter part of September. I respectfully auge-est for your consideration, that ve let the present rates ride along until the outcome of that election is determined. If the bonds are voted, the Dis­trict will presumably take over shortly thereafter and it may desire a complete readjustment of all rates. Any speoial tariffs filed (incidentally I understand Mr. Henderson is the only one making any objections to thee# increases) would not become effective for thirty days prior to which very possibly the Mater District question may hate been settled. As you know, thee# ready mix concrete plants use a very large volume of water and sine# Mr. Henderson*s competitor, Young A Smith, agreed to the $60.00 basic charge, it would seem that Hr. Henderson would have no serious grounds for objection. Very truly yours E. E. Bennett Ene BCG: Messrs. Bates, Reinhardt & Gory with enclosure EEBSAPK