Laserfiche WebLink
JAN 19 1984 BOOK <br />fees, which given the numbers and the estimates they have, <br />are as high as they can make them. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked how much of the total cost of <br />distribution and plant capacity is being recovered in impact <br />fees vs. rate structure.. <br />Mr. Olstein replied that he took the cost of the new <br />plant and the number of dwelling units to be served by the <br />new plant and calculated the cost of capacity per new unit, <br />and that basically is the impact fee. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted that, in other words, that is <br />excess capacity above what would be required to serve the <br />existing resident, and Mr. Olstein agreed. <br />Utilities Director Pinto wished the Board to know that <br />distribution is being contributed; so, in essence, you have <br />an impact fee for distribution. <br />Commissioner Lyons asked if the way Mr. Olstein figured <br />the impact fee was to the advantage of the present user, and <br />Mr. Olstein stated that it was as much as possible. <br />Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that he has <br />looked at the cases the Petitioner has presented and has <br />come to a contrary conclusion. He did not believe under <br />that case law they are Constitutionally or any other way <br />entitled to expense accumulated depreciation. This also <br />seems to be the current position of the Public Service <br />Commission according to letter written by them to Assistant <br />Utilities Director Joseph Baird, as follows: <br />47 <br />