My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/15/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
10/15/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:19 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:49:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/15/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
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).
View images
View plain text
again emphasized that they recognize the problems and are <br />ready to deal with them. <br />The Board then went into a detailed review of the <br />financial information supplied and wished to be informed how <br />Jones Intercable stands in regard to their commitment to <br />expend a total of $379,366 on capital improvements to this <br />system in 1981. Question also arose as to their figures on <br />depreciation which jumped from $96,450 last year to $446,000 <br />this year, or an increase of over 950. -It was noted there <br />are methods of accelerating depreciation schedules, and it <br />was hard to understand such a tremendous increase. <br />Mr. McLaughlin -stated that when figuring their loss, <br />they did take out the other income and amortization and <br />still came up with a loss of many thousands. He asked local <br />manager Bill Sisk to comment, and Mr. Sisk noted that the <br />system was purchased in June of last year and some of the <br />figures are six month figures and some eight month figures. <br />He did not know what kind of depreciation schedule was used. <br />Discussion continued as to how the depreciation figure <br />was arrived at and whether it was a percentage of total <br />revenues. It was noted that the Board had not insisted on <br />an audited statement, but did request that an updated <br />statement be supplied. There was a general feeling that the <br />financial statements supplied were puzzling and not what the <br />Board had requested of the company. <br />Mr. McLaughlin commented that he had already reviewed <br />the company's proposed goals and as far as their financial <br />picture is concerned, it reflects a $97,000 loss. He felt <br />they should have had a financial officer present to explain <br />their situation. <br />Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that the Board had <br />requested much more financial information than was supplied <br />at the first public hearing, and he did not feel the <br />financial statements made available to the Commission only <br />last night presented a sufficient picture to put the <br />COmmission in any better position to reach a decision than <br />BOOR 47 <br />� PAGE <br />X53 <br />001 151981 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.