Laserfiche WebLink
Nov 9 1983 WA 55 FAC1249 F <br />incurred since that time; so, there is almost a $40,000 <br />increase in chemical costs because of the operating mode of <br />that treatment plant being out of service in 1978. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if any of the costs of the <br />operation for water or sewer were being carried by the <br />development company in 1978 or 1980 as opposed to the <br />utility company, i.e., were they carrying it on one set of <br />books and charging it off against the other? <br />Mr. Fancher stated no, not to his knowledge. The only <br />possible subsidization that might have occurred was a result <br />of the operating loss, and to that extent the shareholders <br />of the utility were subsidizing in the sense that the full <br />cost of the service was not being recovered. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted he wasn't on the Commission <br />in '78 or '80, but apparently there was about a 25� <br />differential between the rate requested and what was <br />granted, and he is trying to relate this shortfall to the <br />magnitude of the increase being requested today. <br />Mr. Fancher emphasized that even if GDU had received <br />everything they requested back then, there still would have <br />been a shortfall, and that shortfall makes up 500 or more of <br />the currently requested increase— <br />Commissioner <br />ncrease— <br />Commissioner Lyons wished to be sure that the rate <br />increase being requested is not designed to get money from <br />the current customers to finance a water system to expand to <br />meet General Development's needs for new houses. <br />Mr. Fancher assured him there is nothing in their <br />request that represents collecting from customers for future <br />expansion at all. There are, however, numerous areas where <br />they have had increasing expenses from reaching different <br />stages in the system; they have had to add employees, etc., <br />and it is difficult to isolate these things. <br />14 <br />