Laserfiche WebLink
TO: Joyce Hamilton DATE: <br />Franchise Administrator <br />September 17, 1984 FILE: <br />SUBJECT: RATE REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT <br />FROM: Joseph A. Baird REFERENCES: GDU Request for Amendment <br />Assistant Utility Director of Main Extension and Service <br />Availability Policy <br />The charges by General Development Utilities for plant capacity, <br />main extension charges and meter connections were calculated in a <br />reasonable manner and are fairly stated. However, we have the <br />following problems with the language and content in the Service <br />Availability and Main Extension Policy: <br />1. Throughout the document, it gives the impression and in cases <br />directly states the Public Service Commission is its governing <br />body. Where this occurs, it needs to be changed to Indian River <br />County Board of County Commissioners. <br />2. Section 1.0 General Policy: <br />"Service Availability and Main Extension Policy" states the Utility <br />will make available service and extension of service under said <br />Rules, subject to matters of economic feasibility as defined in <br />Rule No. 25-10.21 of the said Commission Rules and Regulations. We <br />would like to see a more explicit formula. As an example, a formula <br />stating a specified number of commitment per 1,000 feet. <br />3. Section 3.0 Main Extension and Connection (Plant Capacity) Charge: <br />The impact fee pass-through to Indian River County Utilities in the <br />amount of .$388.00 per ERU is incorrect. Indian River County is <br />requiring a pass-through equal to current impact being imposed at <br />that time. Presently, the current impact fee is $380.00, however, <br />this fee changes periodically. <br />4. Prior Policy: <br />Under a previous program, Utility constructs water facilities at its <br />own costs covering approximately 270 lots to which water service <br />would be extended by Utility within sixty days after the building <br />permit has been obtained and notification of commencement of con- <br />struction has been given. The cost of such water facilities is to <br />be done solely by Utility as an investment. <br />We have a problem with the Utility handling this as an invest- <br />ment. <br />5. 150 Extension Outside Territory: <br />Providing service outside Utility's territory involves formal <br />notice and formal proceedings before the Florida Public Service <br />Commission -this should read Indian River County Board of County <br />Commissioners not Public Service Commission. <br />61 <br />SEP 26 1984 BOOK 5 N F475 <br />