Laserfiche WebLink
or the utility, and Mr. Davenport stated it is the development <br />company and it reflects the fact that they are going to continue <br />to make a profit for their stockholders. He noted that Port St. <br />Lucie's utility rates are higher so at least Vero Shores has <br />something to be thankful for, but he felt it would appear from <br />the scenario here tonight that this Commission has pretty well <br />made up their minds. He stated that they look to Commission <br />Wodtke as their representative, and these rates are gouging into <br />them to pay for a facility General Development was going to have <br />to provide for their customers anyhow. He noted that in 1991 GDU <br />comes up for renewal of their franchise and wished to know when <br />they first started 35 years ago, if the county had any such thing <br />as a franchise or did they just say go ahead and now are they <br />just saying go ahead? <br />Commissioner Scurlock advised that the answer as to whether <br />we are going to require a franchise is yes because that gives us <br />a mechanism to make sure they require the necessary escrow <br />monies, etc., to have an on-going system. In the past we have <br />seen systems in the county that have failed and the developers <br />have taken a hike, and we are not going to let that happen. <br />Mr. Davenport stated -that General Development is not going <br />to take a hike; they have it good, and if they do sell all their <br />lots, they are going to need all this facility that the people <br />are paying for now. He continued to speak about decreasing <br />inflation and stated that today's market does not permit this <br />kind of exorbitant request. <br />The Board recessed at this point for a short period so that <br />the court stenographer could change her tape. <br />Mr. Davenport again took the floor and stated that he was <br />informed during the break that objections to a rate increase <br />should be predicated against the service a utility is giving, <br />but prior to the requested increase, they increased the sewerage <br />capacity from 250,000 gallons up to 850,000 gpd at the new plant <br />so there probably is no cause for complaint. <br />25 <br />BOOK 63 ucE 979 <br />MAR 19 1986 <br />