My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/19/1977 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1977
>
10/19/1977 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:28:41 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 9:05:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/19/1977
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
PDF
View images
View plain text
91977 <br />i <br />PERSONALLY IS NOT SATISFIED THAT A COMPANY SHOULD OBTAIN A CERTAIN <br />AMOUNT OF RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT REGARDLESS OF THE KIND OF PRODUCT <br />THEY PRODUCE. HE STATED THAT HE FELT THE COMPANY SHOULD SHOW THAT <br />THEY ARE TRYING TO IMPROVE THEIR PRODUCT AND DO REASONABLE AND LOGICAL <br />THINGS TO IMPROVE THE PRODUCT BEFORE THEY ASK THE INDIVIDUAL TO PAY <br />MORE FOR THEIR WATER. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT CONCURRED. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THE <br />CONFLICTING TESTIMONY OF MR. WRIGHT AS TO THE COMPANY'S AWARENESS OF <br />THE CONDITION OF THE SYSTEM AND THE COMPLAINTS OF THE CUSTOMERS, NOTING <br />THAT HE HAD POINTED OUT TO MR. WRIGHT THAT THESE SAME COMPLAINTS HAD <br />SEEN BROUGHT UP AT PREVIOUS RATE HEARINGS AT WHICH TIME THE COMPANY <br />SAID THEY WERE GOING TO IMPROVE. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT COMMENTED THAT <br />TO HEAR THEY WERE UNAWARE OF THE COMPLAINTS WAS BEYOND HIS UNDERSTANDING. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FURTHER STATED THAT THE PIPE BROUGHT IN ACTUALLY <br />HAD A BAND TO HOLD IT TOGETHER AND HOLES IN IT, AND HE FELT THAT THE <br />PHYSICAL EVIDENCE CONFLICTED WITH THE EXPERT S TESTIMONY THAT THE <br />PIPE WAS IN GOOD SHAPE. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT CONTINUED THAT THE EVIDENCE <br />INDICATED THAT THE COMPANY REALLY HAD NO INTENTION OF MAKING CORREC- <br />TIONS TO IMPROVE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND THEIR MAIN CONCERN SEEMED <br />TO BE THE RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT REGARDLESS OF THE QUALITY OF <br />WATER OFFERED. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE FEELS, AS COM- <br />MISSIONER SCHMUCKER DOES, THAT A COMPANY`IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED <br />TO A RATE OF RETURN: THAT IT HAS TO BE EARNED. HE DOES NOT FEEL THAT <br />IT HAS BEEN, AND HE STATED HE COULD NOT SUPPORT THEIR REQUEST FOR A <br />RATE INCREASE. <br />COMMISSIONER DEESON STATED THAT HE CONCURS WITH THE STATEMENTS <br />MADE AND THERE IS NOT A GREAT DEAL HE CAN ADD. HE CONTINUED THAT BASED <br />ON THE TESTIMONY SUBMITTED, HE CERTAINLY COULD NOT CONCUR WITH A RATE <br />INCREASE. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY DENIED THE RATE INCREASE REQUESTED BY <br />MID -FLORIDA UTILITIES, INC., BASED ON THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE AND <br />THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SET OUT IN THE MINUTES, <br />EXHIBITS, ETC. <br />50 <br />mix - 1 -A 09 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).