Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />61K 55 P ,aL 810 <br />Attorney Micale stated that is irrelevant, and <br />Intervener White noted that it is not irrelevant to them. <br />Intervener White then questioned Mr. Aiello regarding <br />the rates prior to the franchise, and Mr. Aiello was not <br />certain but felt they may have been somewhere around a $7.75 <br />base figure. <br />Intervener White stated that the rate for a two <br />bathroom, kitchen, laundry unit was $13.50 at that time. <br />Attorney Micale objected to that line of questioning <br />and quoted from the franchise: "The County expressly agrees <br />that the rates are what is necessary for them to earn a fair <br />rate of return." <br />Intervener White believed this record has to show what <br />the rates were at the time the franchise came into <br />existence. <br />Chairman Scurlock explained that why the original <br />franchise rates were established was because The Moorings <br />apparently was subsidizing the system. Since The Moorings <br />were the developers, it was difficult to ascertain just how <br />much they were carrying as applied to the utility. <br />Mr. Aiello commented that at the time they were talking <br />about acquiring the franchise, they had not anticipated any <br />rate increase whatsoever, and it was at Mr. Scurlock's <br />insistence as an advisor to the Board that the rate was <br />increased to make sure the operation was profitable. The <br />Board did, in fact, grant their present rate and said it is <br />a minimum they must charge. <br />Commissioner Wodtke stated that he has sat through many <br />rate cases, but he has never sat here trying to conduct a <br />court hearing. He would like to stick to what was <br />advertised and to allow the utility company to make a <br />presentation and would hope that we don't get involved with <br />a lot of irrelevant facts that do not address a rate <br />hearing. <br />55 <br />I <br />