My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/18/1984
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1984
>
1/18/1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:23 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 3:54:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/18/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
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
FF- <br />r7 <br />JAN 18-1994 BwK 5 Piiz <br />by management that computed the cost for the four major <br />components of the new plant. <br />Intervener white wished to know what "Miscellaneous <br />Plant" is, and Mr. Olstein stated that he would defer to the <br />engineer. It is simply a variety of things they could not <br />fit into any other category. <br />Mr. Olstein then reviewed Schedule 1, the Revenue <br />Requirement calculation, explaining that it is simply the <br />sum of operating costs, the depreciation of the new plant, <br />and the estimated depreciation on the old plant that will be <br />in service when the new plant is built. It also includes <br />depreciation on CIAC only for those portions that will still <br />be in use. <br />Chairman Scurlock commented that in Schedule 3 - <br />General and Administrative Services salaries have been <br />significantly reduced, the president's salary being $10,000 <br />as opposed to $64,000 previously. <br />Mr. Olstein pointed out that the previous number <br />included other than just the president's salary. He stated <br />that he did not take a detailed look at the previous costs, <br />but he did not feel it is a secret that a lot of costs were <br />mislabeled. <br />Mr. Olstein then went into their rationale for the <br />inclusion of depreciation on CIRC, citing Sarasota County <br />vs. Tamaron Utilities. He explained that basically it is a <br />fairly common practice in Florida for developers to turn <br />over a utility to someone else to operate - as was the case <br />here - and also you will find developers putting some money <br />up front to assist in the building of the necessary _ <br />infrastructure that is required to be able to build houses, <br />and that also falls under the category CIRC. In addition <br />the State of Florida is very specific that what they term an <br />impact fee, which is a payment that is made solely for the <br />right to join a system, is also considered to be a CIAC, and <br />45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.