5/2/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

evolved a policy of holding rate hearings at a time when as many members of the public as possible can be present to give their input. Attorney Henderson emphasized that he is not here to cut off the public input and he had no objection to the Commission taking testimony from the people present today. He did not feel, however, that the present rate request is relevant and believed it would be more fitting to allow them to amend their request and then take all the testimony. Discussion continued as to what would be a good time to hold another hearing if it were to be continued, and members of the audience indicated there shouldn't be another hearing until next January. Eric Pollard, representing Breezy Village Property Owners Association, pointed out that not only do they not agree with Attorney Henderson's proposal, they do not agree entirely with staff's proposals. They contend that the rate schedule is ballooned way out of proportion; they have the numbers and information to back up their contention; and this should be presented to the Board and taken into consideration before a proposed rate schedule is amended and brought back to the Board. Mr. Pollard noted that if Attorney Henderson wishes to put this off until next December, that would be fine, but he did not see why the Attorney could not go ahead with the hearing the same as they are willing to since they also received the Utility Department report only five days ago. Attorney Henderson noted that he could simply cut off public input by withdrawing the rate increase request, but he did not want to do that. He stated that if the people wish to make a presentation, they can be sworn in and he will cross examine; however, he felt that putting off a final hearing until December would be a denial of due process to the applicant. 94 MAY 2 1984 BOOK M PAGE 893