Laserfiche WebLink
A <br />Mr. Albert Visca, resident of Vero Shores, asked if GDU <br />has committed themselves as to when they will actually buy <br />water from the County and Administrator Wright felt it would <br />be in approximately six months to a year. Mr. Visca stated <br />that up till now he has been satisfied with the rate <br />increases, but a 170% increase is something else again. He <br />also asked why GDU was asking for financing when they had <br />updated equipment last year. The residents do not want to <br />be paying for a profit which will be made by the County and <br />another profit which will be made by GDU by being charged a <br />high rate on capital which never will be spent -- most of it <br />is already charged off. He urged the Commission to consider <br />this very carefully because GDU did not go broke with the <br />rate increases they have received in the past. <br />Vice Chairman Scurlock felt that the misunderstanding <br />here was that the rate structure is based on 1982 figures, <br />and that they are actually losing money right now with the <br />existing system. <br />Commissioner Lyons felt that the Board should defer <br />action on these matters until everyone in Vero Shores and <br />Vero Highlands thoroughly understands the matter; there <br />seems to be much misunderstanding and there have been many <br />questions raised today that he would like to review further. <br />However, he did not feel that it will change the action one <br />bit, but he is hesitant to take action until everyone <br />understands and until all five commissioners are present. <br />Vice Chairman Scurlock asked Administrator Wright if <br />there is a possibility of setting up an educational program <br />to explain to the residents of Vero Shores and Vero <br />Highlands that in the long.run the residents will save money <br />by GDU buying water from the County. <br />Administrator Wright asked Mr. Fancher if a <br />postponement would pose any problem and Mr. Fancher <br />explained that it was necessary to move ahead on the bond <br />resolution as GDU had it tied in with several other <br />developments in Florida. <br />OCT 5 1983 . <br />51 <br />ox 54 pAvC '8 8 <br />