Laserfiche WebLink
r � i <br />Complainants contend that at worst the County Commission was <br />misled as to the direct operating cost asserted as a basis for the <br />increased connection charges and•rates; and at best, the County <br />Commission failed to inquire fully into the basis for such direct <br />operating costs as justification for the requested increases. <br />Upon information and belief, the amount represented as "direct <br />operating cost" in fact also included at least the following: <br />1. Interest expenses at 10% on total investment. <br />2. Annual replacement amortization. <br />3. Return on investment 1 1/2% over interest charge, and <br />4. 10% overhead and profit. <br />The foregoing is based on unaudited "Sewer Service Rate <br />Justification Information" supplied by the Moorings Development <br />Company to several of the Complainants on or about March 1, 1975, <br />-ra dopy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. That "Informal <br />tion" showed that the total direct "sewer operations costs" for <br />the month of February, 1975 was $1,824.37, and based on that <br />monthly cost, the "Estimated Total Annual Sewer Operation Costs." <br />would be $21,892.44. While it is possible that such direct <br />annual operating costs have increased over the last six or seven <br />years, it is not likely that they have increased to "130,000.0011. <br />In fact, since the number of residential'units in the franchise <br />area have increased substantially over::the same six or seven <br />years, the actual cost per residential unix: should have decrensed <br />rather than increased as represented by Hutchinson at tbe AugLi�.t <br />19, 1981 public hearing. <br />In view of the foregoing, that increase in connection charges <br />and user rates was unjustified and should be rescinded ab initio • <br />with a refund or credit to every user. <br />HUTCHINSON HAS BREACHED THE ESCROW PROVISIONS <br />OF RESOLUTION NO. 81-58 <br />Without regard wo whether the franchise granted under County <br />Resolution No. 81-58 is valid, the fact is"that Section 17 of <br />said Resolution has been breached. The Resolution provides in <br />- 5 - <br />2 PAGE 224 <br />�/J� '//� <br />�W�:MPi� <br />�:� � <br />J:...� <br />.j `F +T.^F'T 'i t.e?�,'" '��=j�Y� i?- br. p.:atc'•�i�P;�ft �t; <br />•N <br />'.`. ir.:sh �.. ..... a .. � .._ <br />�. �'t <br />.{ b, { +VLM l°+11� .�`y� <br />