Laserfiche WebLink
cause a difference in the rate schedule. Mr. Koolage <br />favored the Board setting a rate schedule for commercial as <br />well as residential. He brought up the need to save energy <br />and conserve gasoline and felt that, in the future, the <br />Board possibly should consider area franchises. He further <br />suggested there should be a notification period required to <br />provide the County time to find someone else to take this <br />service over in the event the franchisee intends to go out <br />of business. <br />The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard. <br />There were none. <br />On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by <br />Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the public <br />hearing. <br />Commissioner Bird announced that he had two areas he <br />wished the Commission to reconsider. He noted that right <br />now we are grasping in the dark as to the extent of the <br />costs the County might incur in monitoring franchises. It <br />appears that in the agreement we have the ability to adjust <br />that fee up or down in the future based on actual <br />experience, and Commissioner Bird, therefore, suggested <br />establishing a franchise fee of 1%,`which would generate <br />about $5,000 a year. He did not feel this small an amount <br />would trigger a rate increase, but it would serve the <br />purpose of generating some money back to the COunty to cover <br />expenses, and he felt it would be a starting point everyone <br />could live with. This fee would be set with the idea that <br />in one year it would be reviewed and possibly readjusted. <br />Chairman Scurlock commented that he felt very strongly <br />about thi's', and the Finance Advisory Committee is requesting <br />that next year in our annual audit we have an analysis done <br />in regard to allocating costs properly back to where they <br />are incurred; however, he believed he could compromise to <br />MAY I 9g82 65 <br />w <br />