upr000279 65

Mr. E, 1* Bennett -2- Water Hate Hearing (continued) classifications for the system as a whole, as of January 1, 19$1, plus half the increase estimated for 1951* when priced out at present and proposed rates, will yield the increase in gross revenue proposed* This necessarily will differ from the 1950 estimate with a lesser number of customers served. The proposed Motel Rate that Mr* Johnson worked out with that group appears to be reasonably in line with the resi­dential flat rates* It is higher than the Hotel Rate - the latter being low, in my opinion. The over-all annual reduction doming from this revised Motel Rate, using 999 units, is $6868* The number of units will probably be greater, with the inclusion of the 1950 analysis of the actual additions and changes* Since it has been decided not to file a revised rate schedule classification { and I agree, under the circumstances, that such a decision is warranted), it will be necessary to retain the old classification for bungalow courts - under which classifi­cation Motels were and are now being billed* If Bungalow Courts were groined with Apartments, it would result in an increase* Even assuming it is decided to reduce the Apartment House rate, there would still be an increase if the Bungalow Courts were transferred to the Apartment House rate* This being so, and as no such transfer can be made because of the resulting increase without a filing, the old classification for Bungalow Courts must be continued. This will cause some administrative difficulties in justifying a distinction between Bungalow Courts and Apartments. The present and proposed Apartment House late appears to be high, when compared to the other classifications* It may become desirable to admit, or voluntarily to point out that the Apartment House Rate is on the high side, as compared to the other dwelling rate classifications. Because of the historical background, Apartment owners should share in the over-all rate increase, even though this means paying somewhat more than other classes. Both Mr. Johnson and I decided that a 25# increase per month was sufficient* This would result in an annual reduction of $5?lii, in reference to the present proposed rates, as set up in Table R - Exhibit A. We can wait and see what over-all impact will result from the 1950 customer analysis, as well as the revised earning statement for 1951* It is my view that it would be most unwise to file the reduced schedule for the Motels now, so that that group may have immediate advantage of the savings involved*