11/8/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairman Scurlock asked if it was possible that the consumption pattern is low because the customers are not using the water because of the poor quality. Mr. Hunsberger did not believe that to be true and pointed out that the Health Department has no record of any complaints being filed by the residents of Breezy Village. He introduced into evidence a letter to that effect from the Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Attorney Brandenburg asked if the $6400 deep well turbine is in place and Mr. Hunsberger stated that he has advised his client to install the turbine as soon as these rates are put into effect as it is a contingency that should be taken care of immediately. Attorney Brandenburg also asked if Mr. Hunsberger felt it was fair to include in his calculations of rate base an expenditure that has not been made as yet, and Mr. Hunsberger stated he did. Attorney Brandenburg wished to know how the County can be assured of that expenditure considering the history of this utility and its service. Mr. Hunsberger stated that if the expenditure is not made, the County will know it through the annual report, and would be able to come back and rescind the rate order and order a refund. Attorney Brandenburg questioned the rate case expenses, and Mr. Hunsberger explained that the only changes between the presentation made in May and today's presentation are due to Dr. Wilson's retirement and the subsequent impact of the costs involved in having third party contracts. Attorney Brandenburg asked why Mr. Hunsberger felt that the entire burden of the rate case expense should be borne by the customers instead of the investors, and why the expense should not be split 50-50. Mr. Hunsberger believed that it is just a general thing that all costs of doing business of a utility fall through on the rate expense on the income statement of the utility unless the 13 NOV 8 1984 &OK 58 PP& 816