Laserfiche WebLink
JAN 18 1984 e <br />sewer plant is built at The Moorings, the City would not be <br />interested in annexation. <br />Utility Director Pinto noted that the franchise is <br />fairly specific as to the County's ability to take the <br />system if we needed to and it has some reference to what <br />would happen if someone annexed, but it does not have any <br />provision for franchise fees. The Utilities Department, <br />therefore, cannot recover any of their expenses for the work <br />they have put in on this franchise. In view of this, and <br />particularly if it is decided to retain a consultant, <br />Director Pinto recommended that the cost of the consultant <br />be funded through the County's franchise accounts and also <br />that the franchise be amended to allow for 60 of gross <br />receipts to be forwarded to the County as soon as possible <br />to help cover some of these expenses. With all these things <br />in mind, Mr. Pinto felt we should allow the utility company <br />to put their case in front of us and then have The Moorings <br />argue their case. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked Attorney Brandenburg if there <br />is any requirement that the Commission at this time grant a <br />rate based on future expansion or is there a possibility for <br />us not to address this request until we see exactly what <br />improvements are made since there apparently are questions <br />about the site, setback requirements, etc. <br />Attorney Brandenburg replied that different utility <br />authorities have different policies on this issue. The <br />Commission is required to give the utility a rate which <br />allows them to recover their operating expenses plus a fair <br />rate of return, and when the investment is made, we are <br />required to increase the rates in a proportionate amount. <br />Whether or not the Commission wishes to do this ahead of <br />time, however, is discretionary, and the County has not <br />established a definitive policy in this regard. <br />21 <br />