4/10/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i M M Attorney Henderson's client is not going to be liable for more than this. If we are going to reduce it to the minimum, he felt it has to be open ended to whatever the study determines. Attorney Henderson stated they do not mind it being open ended as long as the ultimate number is based upon a consumption analysis. His client is comfortable that even if all 16 units were occupied, it still would not result in consumption that would justify paying for more than 4, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that it is possible our rate consultant will come back with something that adjusts that. Discussion continued at length, and Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that another thing to consider is the potential peak demand on your system. We must consider peak use, and that is why we have the ranges. You design for peak demand and plan on a 20% reserve. Attorney Henderson contended that if you.later determine your peak consumption is less than anticipated, you adjust for that and reiterated they do not mind being subjected to the rate analysis as long as the county looks at this building as a single warehouse. Commissioner Scurlock stressed that we are being asked to look at a "what if." He would recommend that we charge the minimum of 4 and 4 for a total of 8 and then let the future use of that building and how it is charged be determined by what our consultant comes back with. Commissioner Bird discussed the possibility that we could come up with a different figure today without waiting for the study. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we are paying a large amount to a reknowned firm to do this study and come up with the numbers, and he personally can't compute any number today. Debate continued at length as to inequities in the categor- ies, what approach is fair, etc., and Attorney Henderson pointed 17 BOOK F. GE Ou