Laserfiche WebLink
actual time of payments, and so thought the rental figure <br />was more than the $5,000 noted by Mr. Silverman. They are <br />anticipating using it for the new plant for relocation of <br />all the force mains related to the new plant and for the <br />renovation of the lines. The older lines prior to 1978 need <br />extensive repairs. Mr. Aiello felt the rental figure was a <br />competitive figure used in the industry and stated that <br />there are no special benefits to the construction company <br />and they can substantiate that. He also stated that he did <br />not set the rental rate. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if this piece of equipment <br />would be available for rental to some other entity and Mr. <br />Aiello stated, "absolutely". <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if there was anyone else with a <br />comment, and Commissioner Bird suggested that Hutchinson <br />Utilities provide a copy of the rental log for staff's <br />comparison of rental figures to the rental fees charged in <br />the open market. Utilities Director Terry Pinto advised <br />that staff has reviewed those figures and found that the <br />rental figure is equivalent to what the construction company <br />would have paid for rental of a back hoe from a third party. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Aiello if there was any <br />further comments in reference to the final order. <br />Frank J. Micale, attorney representing Hutchinson <br />Utilities, Inc., stated that Hutchinson Utilities accepts <br />completely the report of Mr. Silverman, in spite of the fact <br />that depreciation on contributive plant is not included in <br />this report. That will be taken up at some future time; <br />hopefully, the Supreme Court of the State of Florida will <br />decide that issue. <br />Commissioner Bird asked Attorney Brandenburg how the <br />adoption of this final order would affect the foregoing <br />litigation proceedings and other rate hearings. <br />AKI <br />MAY 2 1984 <br />BOOK 56 PAGE S59 <br />