11/8/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that point and that the Utility should not be be allowed to come ,back before this Board until it is brought up to standard. He believed that we are all here to see that the Utility is brought up to standard and that the owners should be allowed to make a fair return on their investment. Summation by Attorney Henderson: Attorney Henderson stressed again that the report submitted by Mr. Robbins should be considered for what it is -- a report done by someone who is not an accountant. He pointed out that that there have been cases where other utilities did not have sufficient revenues to meet expenses and abandoned them to the County. They want to avoid that type of situation. Attorney Henderson felt that the penalties recommended by Utility Services in scenarios #4 and #5 are somewhat harsh: 1) Amortization of certain expenses over longer periods of time. 2) Lower rate of return than requested. 3) No rate of return for the first year. 4) Payment of half of the rate case expense. 5) Not being allowed to recover through depreciation real out of pocket money spent for the system in the first place. Attorney Henderson finished by saying that they certainly intend to improve the condition of the plant, and pointed out that if the customers have complaints there are numerous remedies that they can resort to other than appearing at rate hearings. He noted that the amended franchise gives them the ability to complain about service at any time. Chairman Scurlock thanked the audience for their understanding and cooperation in this matter and advised that an Order will be written within 60 days. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) made part of the record all the letters and graphics received by staff and the Board. 33 0V 8 1994 WK 58 836 L