11/8/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Nov 81984 BOOK 5 8 F 3 little closer to 36%. He explained again that if he had reduced the depreciation of CIAC, he would have increased amortization of the Utility plant acquisition adjustment and the figures were the same. The $26,532 in Scenarios #4 and #5 really should be increased by $972 to make that figure $27,504. Mr. Baird confirmed this. Director Pinto recommended that the Board write the Order following Scenarios #4 and #5, as amended by Mr. Baird, and to include in the Order a requirement for a revenue audit at the time the Utility submits their annual report to determine if they have excess revenue. Commissioner Wodtke wondered whether the rate of return should be subject to the completion of specific improvements. Director Pinto explained that is why they would go back and test the numbers to be sure that they are not receiving any more revenue than they have been allowed. Summation by Attorney Collins: Attorney Collins stated that the Breezy Village Home Owners' Association stands on the presentation made in Mr. Robbins' report. He felt that if the quality of the water was better, if there had been good accounting methods, and if the meters had been read in an accurate manner, the water consumption in Breezy Village would be substantially higher than what is reflected in the proforma submitted by the Utility. Therefore, that should be considered when the rate of revenue is applied as it would show a gross profit. He asked that the Utility's Proforma not be accepted for that reason. Attorney Collins did not feel that 2h% would be sufficient to upgrade the entire system and that the revenue amount could be increased up to $36,000 in the second year. He recommended that the Order follow the report prepared by Mr. Robbins and that no increases should be granted until the Utility is brought up to shape and is, in fact, providing quality service to its customers. He felt the Order should be absolutely conditional on 32