5/2/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAY inflated figure were subtracted from the true revenue figure of $56,652, the net income would be accordingly higher and the actual return on rate base would be a lower percentage. Mr. Strang then noted that the federal government has now ruled that a 3.7% cost of living increase would be harmful to the economy so it was postponed to January of 1985. If the government thinks 3.7% is too much, he wondered what the Board thought the people should feel about a 402% increase in rates. Mr. Strang strongly requested that the Commissioners make no decision, send this back for correction, and talk about it again in 1985. Attorney Henderson stated that he would like to have the figures Mr. Strang cited submitted in writing to his client's CPA and he would like to meet with staff and review all this. Mr. Strang stated that he would like to be included in such a meeting and he would have these figures with him. Eric Pollard took the floor representing the Homeowners Association and noted that they recognize the rights of utility companies, but they are here to protest a proposed rate increase whiQh is nothing more than a sham. He noted that on September 22, 1983, the Florida Supreme Court made a decision that use of estimated future financial data in a projected test year could be used in deciding a utility rate, but the High Court also stated the utility company must support the accuracy of its estimate. Mr. Pollard continued that they have and will -prove today that the Breezy Village Water & Sewer Company fails to meet this criteria. Historically their bookkeeping has been less than substandard. He then cited Case No. 88-1131 Circuit Court of Indian River County, Breezy Village Management, defen- dant, Breezy Village Homeowners, Plantiffs, and reported that the Breezy Village management was denied an increase in their maintenance fee because their accounting records 106 21984 BOOK 56 PAGE 905