Laserfiche WebLink
operate profitably with a very high percentage rate of the <br />market. <br />Mr. Fryer hoped that would be true, but pointed out <br />this is his only business and he would like to have a <br />guarantee. He emphasized that to run a $70,000 truck up a <br />street and only pick up from one or two houses would not be <br />profitable. <br />Chairman Scurlock stated that he could not support the <br />V <br />concept of granting exclusive franchises and carving up the <br />county, and the Board generally agreed. <br />Attorney Jackson informed the Board that since they <br />apparently are not intending to require a franchise fee, <br />Rural Sanitation will withdraw their objection to the $500 <br />fee to do the investigation on a rate increase. <br />Attorney Bergerson felt that Waste Management also <br />would have no valid basis to object to the $500 fee if there <br />is no franchise fee, but if the Board should get back to the <br />franchise fee concept, they would object to the rate <br />increase investigation fee. <br />The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be <br />heard. <br />William Koolage of 26th Avenue spoke against having a <br />franchise fee until the County can account to the taxpayer <br />for a reduction in the ad valorem tax because of instituting <br />such a fee. He felt requiring a performance bond would be <br />appropriate and would serve the purpose of protecting the <br />County. Mr. Koolage was in favor of having the franchisee <br />submit accounting statements done by certified public <br />accountants, but also felt the need for a cost analysis to <br />be done along with these statements. He spoke of the fact <br />that Indian River Sanitation apparently has back yard pickup <br />while Rural Sanitation does not, and believed this would <br />