Laserfiche WebLink
Nov g 1993 <br />55 rx[ 24 t <br />Attorney Roen asked that Mr. Fancher describe the <br />reason for the amount of rate increase requested. <br />Mr. Fancher stated that there are two elements <br />involved. The rates requested in the 1978 rate case were <br />not designed to recover the total cost of providing service <br />at that point in time so they are involved with catch-up <br />with what was left from 1978, and the other element relates <br />to increases in operating costs due to inflation, additional <br />customers, higher electrical power costs, etc. He <br />emphasized that the total revenues requested would not <br />produce anywhere near what they feel is a fair rate of <br />return. <br />Chairman Bird asked if any of the Commissioners wished <br />to ask questions at this time. <br />Commissioner Scurlock discussed figures on page 73 and <br />also the document which shows 1978 vs. 1982, and was puzzled <br />by the fact that while the projected revenues for water have <br />doubled and the projected revenues for wastewater have <br />tripled, it seems the figures projecting operating costs for - <br />water and sewer reflect a reversal with the operating costs <br />for water being about triple. He asked if possibly there <br />was a transferral of costs from one to the other. <br />Mr. Fancher stated that the sheets referred to include <br />operation and maintenance expenses, and in addition, other <br />operating expenses would be depreciation and property taxes <br />which could account for part of the flip-flop situation Mr. <br />Scurlock is discussing. <br />Commissioner Lyons wished -to have a -comparison between <br />Page 4 and Page 9, noting that they talk, about a rate base <br />of around $1 million but a long term debt of 18 million is <br />shown. <br />Mr. Fancher explained that Page 9 is General Develop- <br />ment Utilities in toto. They do not allocate debt specifi- <br />cally to the Vero Shores and Vero Highlands operations; <br />12 <br />I <br />