SCOTT CITY -- A group of rural water users in Scott County, which has been attending Scott City Council meetings for two months in an attempt to get answers on a rate increase, were given answers this week.

Scott City Attorney Francis J. Siebert, under direction of the city council, sent a letter to members of the Urban Water Users Committee and a lawyer that may be representing them in future litigations.

About 100 members of the Urban Water Users have been represented primarily by Betty and Orley Jackson in their quest for answers to a rural water rate increase of 175 percent. The Jacksons have attended every meeting since July and have met with a confusing array of replies before Siebert was instructed to investigate.

Siebert wrote in his letter to the Jacksons and Sikeston lawyer Jim Green that the city has records of 30 people signing contracts for water use outside the city limits in 1988. Twenty-six also signed another contract at the same time that would run from 1989 to 1992. Three people signed contracts for 1990 to 1992 only. The later contracts stipulated the rate increase, but Siebert wrote that all rural water users have been charged the same amount since October 1990.

According to the letter, that rate has been significantly less than what the original contracts called for.

Prior to Oct. 1, 1990, an outside water user was charged $12.55 for using 3,000 gallons of water. After Oct. 1, outside water users using a minimum of 3,000 gallons have been charged $6.83.

The reduction is due to the city eliminating the user's fee and minimum charge. The rural water users simply pay 1.75 times the city water user's rate.

Siebert wrote: "According to my calculations, prior to Oct. 1, 1990, the city was charging outside users who consumed 6,000 gallons of water $17.50 ($7.50 user fee, plus $5.05 minimum charge for 3,000 gallons, plus $.450 charge at 15 cents per 100 gallons used over 3,000 gallons). However, after Oct. 1, the same person using the same volume of water is only charged $12 (1.75 times the city user's rate for the same amount of water)."

In reply to the committee's concerns about the city's new $2,500 hookup fee for water use to rural users, Siebert said the city has the right to set any amount because it is acting as an independent participant in a contract -- not as a municipal organization.

"The right to receive water is based upon whether or not you can enter into a contract with the city, not upon any legal right conferred by statute," Siebert wrote.

Siebert said the only difference in the new contract is the city requires rural water users to sign an agreement to place a master meter where the city's water line ends at the city limits and the user's line picks up. This is required so the city can keep a more accurate count of water going outside the city.

The letter ends by saying rural waters users who do not sign and comply with the new contract by Sept. 30, will be disconnected. It adds that the issue is now a legal matter, the letter states the city's position and Mayor Jerry Cummins "will not entertain any further discussion of the matter at future council meetings."

Green said he has not been formally retained by the Jacksons to represent them. He has received a copy of Siebert's letter but had not had a chance to examine it.

Betty Jackson said the issue has never been about the money.

"We have never been opposed to the rates," Jackson said. "What we're upset about is the way they go about doing things. That's what we can't get through their thick skulls. Our original contracts said the city can't raise our rates without raising the city water user's rates."

She said the city broke its contract and the Urban Water Users next step is to turn the matter over to a lawyer.