11/8/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NOV 8 1984 BOOK 58 regulatory authority can prove that the expenditure was not prudent. However, Attorney Brandenburg believed that it was incumbent on the Utility to show the rate making authority that the expenditure was reasonable. Attorney Brandenburg felt that if the Utility had kept its accounts and books correctly, then perhaps the preparation of the rate case would have been easier and therefore less expensive. Mr. Hunsberger pointed out that the County has never required this information before a year or so ago, but Attorney Brandenburg advised that the Utility's franchise written in 1975 contained a clause requiring the Utility to keep adequate books and records. Attorney Brandenburg questioned if the repairs mentioned in Adjustment #14 on Page 5 have been made, and Mr. Hunsberger replied that the rates have not been approved and confirmed that some of these extraordinary repairs were capital items such as the addition of a dual chlorinator scale. Mr. Hunsberger explained that these repairs total $5,639 and he is not asking for this to be recovered through the rates all in one year. He is expensing one third and amortizing it over three years. If he had not done that, it would have increased the rate base. Presentation by Breezy Village Home Owners' Association George Collins, attorney representing the Breezy Village Home Owners' Association, stated he would not be testifying today and did not need to be sworn in. Attorney Collins asked Mr. Hunsberger if in the depreciation he had set up a sinking fund on the items that are going to wear down, and Mr. Hunsberger stated that he had not and pointed out that there is no requirement in the Utility's franchise to set up any sinking fund through depreciation. He believed the Utility's franchise, as amended back in May, requires a renewal and replacement fund that is 2% of gross revenue. That will be done, 14