Laserfiche WebLink
with an answer that might be satisfactory without getting <br />down to every 10th of a cent. <br />Attorney White noted that he has a definite opinion on <br />this subject, and he would like to see Hutchinson Utilities <br />audited. He wished there was an easy way, but did not <br />believe there is. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked for an expression from the <br />Commission as to whether they would want to move ahead with <br />an audit. <br />Discussion arose as to hearing a presentation from <br />Hutchinson Utilities, and Commissioner Lyons pointed out <br />that the advertisement of this hearing addresses only the <br />second question or phase, and he, therefore, believedwe <br />really are not having a public hearing on the first question <br />re existing rates, but a discussion. <br />Attorney White did not agree with that because the <br />Property Owners Association filed a petition in 1982 to have <br />these rates reviewed and it was his understanding that this <br />matter would come up today. <br />Commissioner Lyons emphasized that we really don't have <br />a public hearing advertised for the subject of existing <br />rates, but felt possibly we can take action without further <br />public input which is really going to come on the part we <br />did advertise. <br />Attorney White believed that the Commission has <br />received the public input on the first phase since he is <br />representing all the property owners present. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if the Commission is receptive <br />to authorizing staff to implement that portion of their <br />recommendation that deals with the existing rate structure, <br />and Commissioner Lyons stated that he is ready, but would <br />like an indication of cost.. <br />Commissioner Wodtke did not believe that staff <br />indicated they necessarily wanted to look at existing rates. <br />28 <br />JAN 18 1984 <br />