upr000276 196

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Kovenber 1, 1909* reading in Far* a* fellowa* l**f* X® ^ Franchise) “All service piisos from vsaina to tea a* laaat on# feat insSdo property, with prepe? w t off at and, a# put la and asi»tal»«& at eapenae «C, water ©aapany* . , KThere may tea a charge of not to cgeecd | o * w allowed for each tapping of eater man*. ' will la year petitioner believe# that the charge of for tapping aa provided la Rule 10 1» not eaeessive, a© long a* ttee existing franchise provided for a charge of fS.OO for t»PP* lag your petitioner request* that the feraer charge under exist* lag franchise tee reinstated, and that with Stela change* Rule 10 of the Ernie* and Regulations tea allowed aa one of the raise of the Company* 4th* fteo reduction in certain df the proposed rate# filed by your petitioner Oban applied to tho volume of water used and the number of oonsaaara served, will not earn a smffi-eiant amount to pay the usual and eusternary interest on the val-u © of the actual physical investment in property owned by your petitioner and noooaeary to tee maintained at all times in order to render an efficient and satisfactory service to its patrons. 8MKBKP08K, your petitioner prays that your Honorable e m i s s i o n reconsider its Order in the particulars above out­lined, and allow four per cent for replacement or depreciation Instead of two per eonti that your petitioner tee allowed a *.?•