Laserfiche WebLink
SEP 2 21976 <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS GAVE -THE BOARD A BRIEF RESUME' OF THE TRANSFER <br />OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE OLD ECOLOGICAL UTILITIES FRANCHISE FROM SOUTHERN <br />GULF UTILITIES, INC., TO TREASURE COAST UTILITIES, INC., WHICH WAS APPROVED <br />AT THE MEETING OF MAY 5,' 1976. HE NOTED THAT AT THAT SAME MEETING A RATE <br />INCREASE WAS GRANTED TO TREASURE COAST UTILITIES BY MOTION, BUT SINCE THAT <br />TIME ITEMS HAVE COME UP THAT DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE <br />MOTION, SUCH AS THE TAP -ON FEES, DEPOSIT CHARGES, ETC. RESOLUTIONS NOS. <br />76-32 AND 76-33 APPROVING THE TRANSFER AND THE RATE INCREASE WERE TO HAVE <br />BEEN MADE PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN THEY WERE PREPARED AND RECEIVED, BUT <br />THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN RECEIVED. ATTORNEY COLLINS CONTINUED THAT ATTORNEY <br />HENDERSON AND LOWELL LOHMAN, PRESIDENT OF TREASURE COAST UTILITIES, INC., <br />ARE HERE TODAY TO DETERMINE WHAT CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE TO BRING THE RATE <br />STRUCTURE INTO CONFORMANCE AND TO DISCUSS ANY PROBLEMS THAT MAY HAVE COME <br />TO LIGHT: <br />ATTORNEY HENDERSON STATED THAT THEIR APPLICATION FOR THE RATE IN- <br />CREASE INCLUDED TAP -ON CHARGES, BUT NOTED THAT THE MOTION SAID NOTHING <br />ABOUT CONNECTION CHARGES OR DEPOSITS, ALTHOUGH IT WAS A TOTAL AMENDMENT OF <br />SECTION XIV OF THE FRANCHISE WHICH DEALT WITH RATES. HE CONTINUED THAT HE <br />HAS FILED FOR AN AMENDMENT OF THAT SECTION, RESTATING IT TO TRY TO CLARIFY <br />THE RATES AND CORRECT THE PROBLEM. ATTORNEY HENDERSON INFORMED THE BOARD <br />THAT MR. LOHMAN HAS BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH VISTA ROYALE TO BRING THEM INTO <br />THE FRANCHISE AREA AND HAD HOPED TO INCLUDE. THESE MATTERS IN ONE PUBLIC <br />HEARING, BUT THE NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BROKEN OFF FOR THE TIME BEING. <br />COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED WHETHEF4 TREASURE COAST UTILITIES -HAD <br />FALLEN BACK ON THE ORIGINAL SOUTHERN GULF FRANCHISE FOR TAP -ON AND DEPOSIT <br />CHARGES. <br />ATTORNEY HENDERSON ANSWERED THAT THEY HAD FALLEN BACK ON THE OLD <br />SOUTHERN GULF RATES FOR DEPOSITS, BUT THEY DID HAVE DIFFERENT HOOK-UP <br />CHARGES BEFORE, AND THEY, THEREFORE, DECIDED IT WOULD BE EASIER TO APPLY <br />FOR AN AMENDMENT IN WHOLE RATHER THAN HAVE ANY CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT CONNEC- <br />TION CHARGES OR DEPOSITS WERE STILL APPLICABLE.. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED HE FELT THE ONLY THING DISCUSSED AT <br />THE PREVIOUS PUBLIC HEARING WAS THE RATES. HE NOTED THAT IT WAS CONFIRMED <br />AT THE HEARING THAT PEOPLE ALREADY ON THE SYSTEM WERE NOT TO BE CHARGED <br />. 5 <br />FOR HOOK-UP, BUT DEPOSITS WERE NOT DISCUSSED, <br />37 <br />Book 26 A 400 <br />