Laserfiche WebLink
In view of the foregoing, the Board was without authority to <br />grant the purported "exclusive" franchise to Hutchinson Utilities <br />Inc., and Resolution No. 81-58 should be rescinded in its en- <br />tirety. Otherwise, users are facing obligations to two mutually <br />exclusive franchise owners, and the County does not know which, <br />if either, are responsible to properly operate and maintain the <br />franchised sewer facility. <br />THE INCREASE IN CONNECTION CHARGES AND RATES <br />GRANTED IN THE SECOND "EXCLUSIVE" FRANCHISE <br />IS ALSO INVALID AND VOID <br />Apart from the fact that the second "exclusive" franchise <br />purportedly granted by County Resolution No. 81-58 is invalid azld <br />void for the aforesaid reasons, the increase in connection charges <br />and user rates is specifically invalid and void for failure to <br />comply with the express provisions of the County "Utility Act" <br />and Code. If that resolution purports to involve a transfer of <br />the original franchise, it also fails to meet the requirements <br />of the original franchise for increasing such charges and rates. <br />Without conceding that the connection charges and rates <br />under the Moorings original franchise were proper, the Complainants <br />contend that there was no showing sufficient to justify the 20% <br />increase in connection charges and 30% increase in user rates <br />granted by the Board in their approval of the otherwise invalid <br />Resolution No. 81-58 on August 19, 3981. <br />First, if this was intended to be a transfer of the origi.n�_:l <br />franchise, the original franchise in Section 14(2)(c) provided <br />that "no change may be made by the company in the basis of its <br />rates without first making application therefor and public hear- <br />ing thereon". Further, in Section 18 of the original franchise, <br />any increase requires approval of the Board after a public hearing. <br />If this was intended to be an independent franchise, -rather than <br />a transfer, the applicant would quite clearly have to justify <br />its charges and rates.. <br />What is to be taken in:.o account to justify original and/or <br />increases in connection charges and rates? Under the original <br />19 8- <br />n'�. ` rk ti4q{ r �y; � w, - G 1 i C ..{.�^ <br />