My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1984-030
CBCC
>
Resolutions
>
1980'S
>
1984
>
1984-030
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/18/2023 2:04:49 PM
Creation date
4/18/2023 2:04:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Resolutions
Resolution Number
1984-030
Approved Date
05/02/1984
Subject
Approving the Final Order for Hutchinson Utilities Inc. as recommended by Staff
with modification in Par. 7 as suggerstrd by County Attorney
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
e. Professional fees were reduced for amounts <br />incorrectly included in this category but more <br />correctly belong as rate case expense. <br />(.Adjustment 5 - $ 10,142.) <br />f. Travel expenses were adjusted to remove <br />those credit card charges more properly <br />classified as rate case expense, construction <br />work in progress, personal expenditures and <br />non-utility business (non-regulated actiVitieol . <br />(Adjustment 6 - $ 3.331.) <br />g. Rate case expenses were incurred by the <br />applicant but were incorrectly posted to various <br />accounts. I have accumulated such costs and <br />amortized them over two years. The resultant <br />dollar amount appears in Schedule attached <br />hereto. (Adjustment 7 - $ 17,835.) <br />h. Officer's salary was reduced by an amount in <br />excess of 558 of the amount claimed by the <br />applicant. This adjustment was necessitated by <br />the finding of the claimed salary as excessive <br />under the circumstances. The salary as claimed <br />was not necessarily unreasonable per se but <br />rather a finding of excessive cost under the <br />circumstances was made because I could not find <br />justification for adjustment other than <br />comparable costs. (Adjustment 8 - $ 31,020.) <br />i. Payroll taxes were adjusted as a result of <br />the previous adjustment to Officer's Salary. <br />(Adjustment 9 - $ 3,969.) <br />j. Wastewater revenues were adjusted to reflect <br />the amount needed to meet the revenue <br />requirement calculated by me. (Adjustment 10 - <br />$ 16,722.) <br />The rate of return calculated by me for use in this case <br />was 12.443. I arrived at the overall rate of return by averaging <br />the weighted cost rate of money as follows: <br />Weighted <br />Cost Cost <br />Type Ratio Rate Rate <br />Total Common Stock Equity 15.19 15.7 2.38 <br />Long Term Debt: <br />Florida National dank 4.87 18.0 0.87 <br />AVCO Financial Services 72.24 11.5 2.12 <br />Totals 100.00 12.44 <br />The calculated rate (12.448) was the applied to a rate <br />basecalculatedbymetobe$217,368.exclusiveof depreciation, <br />contributions in aid of construction (CIAc, anA depreciation <br />calculated on CMAC but inclusive of a working capital allowance <br />of $ 21,206. based upon the industry accepted "45 day <br />convention". <br />The information set out above constitutes a summary of <br />my findings based upon my review and concludes my analysis for <br />purposes of reporting to you. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />Warren E. Silverman <br />Certified Public <br />Accountant <br />Consultant to Indian <br />River County <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.