My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/19/1986 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
3/19/1986 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:01 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 12:12:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/19/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Wodtke felt that public hearings are extremely <br />important and valuable, especially since he has not had any calls <br />at all from anyone in the area in regard to this rate increase, <br />and this hearing, therefore, is the first time he has had an <br />opportunity to hear from those in the area. Since he has heard <br />nothing, he would assume there was not any particular problem <br />with the service. <br />Commissioner Wodtke continued that we had a rate situation <br />that came before the Board where, based on the quality of the <br />water and the quality of service, we denied the increase. The <br />legal ramification of that denial was that the utility went to <br />court, and the judge after hearing much testimony did uphold the <br />position of the Board of County Commission. The Court in their <br />Stipulation, however, ordered the County to tell the company what <br />they had to do to improve that service, and stated that when they <br />did, we then had to give them a rate that would provide them an <br />11.2% return on every dollar invested - not zero percent. That <br />company added into their investment $42,000 for legal, accounting <br />and consultant fees for the court case and the rate case. <br />Chairman Scurlock believed the state approved rate of return <br />now is between 12.4% to 14.4%, and Commissioner Wodtke agreed the <br />increase is tremendous. He assured those present, based on his <br />12 years of experience in dealing with similar cases, that the <br />numbers presented are on the fixed costs, not any expansion, and <br />he believed the problem is the magnitude of the increase that <br />comes all at one time. Commissioner Wodtke asked if the Board <br />felt there was some way we could phase in this increase. <br />Attorney Vitunac stated that the Board would have to have a <br />basis for finding that the full increase is not justified now. <br />He asked if GDU would voluntarily go along with phasing in the <br />increase, and Attorney Shandloff pointed out that the rates they <br />asked for did not even give them a return. <br />31 <br />MAR 19 1986 Boot{ 63 FA:,k-97 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.