Alright. Let's go on the record. Good morning, everyone. This is the time set for the hearing in the matter of the consolidated applications of Little Park Water Company, Inc. And Big Water Company, requesting the establishment of the fair value of plant and approval of permanent rates and charges to produce a fair rate or excuse me, fair return thereon, and the approval to consolidate including the consolidation of rates. The docket numbers are W02192A250040, and W01624A250041.
I'm administrative law judge Elizabeth Beatty, and I've been assigned to preside over this matter. To begin, we'll just, start with official appearances on the record. I apologize for the confusion earlier. Good morning, your honor. Thank you. Jay Shapiro from the Shapiro Law Firm on behalf of the applicants, Big Park Water Company and Little Park Water Company. And with me at the table today is mister Nick Gudovic, g u d o v I c, and he is the company's both company's operations manager. Okay. Great. Thank you. And then we'll go to, miss Morris next, if you don't mind just introducing yourself for the record.
Yes. It's Mary Morris, and I'm a customer of Big Park Water, and I'm an intervener. Alright. Thank you, miss Morris. And on behalf of the utilities division? Eli Golup, staff attorney. Alright. Thank you. Alright. Before we move on to public comment, I wanna ask if there's any completed discussing, what was addressed earlier. Yes, your honor. Per the settlement agreement, we the parties have agreed to admit all of each other's exhibits, and I would just like, if if that stipulation could be reflected on the record today. Okay. Great. Would you like to do that when we get to testimony or have them admitted
at this point? I was gonna move ours when mister Jones takes a stand, and I assume mister Golub will do it when mister Baxter takes a stand. But if we wanna just do it fell swoop now, that's fine too. I thought it would be useful just to get it out of the way, your honor. Okay. I guess the best way of going about it would be to list the exhibits and ask if there's any objections, and then we'll and, also, I just wanna remind everyone that miss Morris is also on the line, so just to make sure that, she has no objections. So I have, exhibits a one, exhibit a two,
exhibit a three, a four, a five, a six, a seven, and a eight, and that would be all of the applicants' exhibits. And then for staff, I have exhibit s one, s two, s three, s four, s five, s six, s seven, and s eight. And that would be all of the ones that I received for staff. First, I wanna ask if the if those are correct. Yes. Yes. Okay. And for staff? Yes, your honor. Okay. And miss Morris, oh, did you receive all of those exhibits as well? Yes. I did. Okay. Great. And I'll just ask, we'll ask each party,
if there's any objections to any of those exhibits. There are no objections, and I would note, just for the record that miss Morris is also a party to the settlement agreement, so has also agreed to, the admission of the exhibits. Okay. Understood. And then, miss Morris, do you have any objections? No. I do not. Okay. And, for staff? No objections, your honor. Okay. Alright. With that being said, exhibits a one, a two, a three, a four, a five, a six, a seven, and a eight, And then, exhibits s one, s two, s three, s four, s five,
s six, s seven, and s eight are all hereby admitted. Okay. That took care of a good portion of the hearing. So we can I well, I'll ask if there's any other procedural issues that we should address before we move on to public comment? None from the company, your honor. Okay. None from staff, your honor. Okay. And miss Morris? None from me. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. At this time, we'll take public comment. Is there anybody online or in the room that wishes to speak in this matter? Okay. Seeing none and hearing none. Let the record reflect, that nobody has offered to, submit public comment in today's hearing.
So we'll go ahead and move on to opening statements, and we'll begin with the applicants. Mister Schapiro, would you like to make an opening statement? No. Not at this time, your honor. The company waives its opening statement in light of the settlement agreement. Okay. Thank you. And, miss Morris, would you like to make a opening statement? No. I'm, all is fine here. We've settled everything agreeably. Alright. Thank you, miss Morris. And for staff? The staff waves, your honor. Alright. Great. Thank you. So we'll go ahead and move on to, our first witness. Would the applicant like to call their first witness? Yes. We will call mister Ray Jones. Okay. Good morning,
mister Jones. And if you'll take a seat, and we'll have you sworn in. Sir, do you sure affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. I do. Thank you. Good morning, mister Jones. Good morning, mister Spiro. Would you please just go ahead and state your full name and your business address for the record? My name is Ray Jones. Business address address is 1630 Cougar Trail in Prescott, Arizona. ZIP code's 86303. And what is your, occupation or position with relation to this rate case and the companies?
I own my own consulting firm, Aircor Water Solutions, does regulatory work for utilities here in Arizona. I've been retained by both Big Park and Little Park as a rate consultant for this case. And you prepared and file pre filed direct testimony, both with the filing and then again in support of the settlement? Yes. As well as rebuttal testimony. Thank you. Forgot that one. And all of the schedules that have been presented by the company, those are prepared by you? Yes. I prepared, all the schedules attached, to both my rounds of testimony as well as the settlement schedules.
And you personally participated, on behalf of the company along with their counsel and their representatives in the settlement negotiations? Yes. I was directly involved in supporting the company in those, negotiations. And just briefly, mister Jones, why do you believe the commission should approve the settlement agreement in its current form? The I think the settlement agreement, puts forth an equitable resolution to all the disputed issues in this case. It is, fair to both the company, its shareholders, and the company's customers. As believe,
for those reasons, it'd be in a public interest to to approve the settlement agreement. And, tangentially, why do you believe it is in the public interest for the two companies, Big Park and Little Park, to be consolidated? There's several reasons for that. The the two companies are under, common ownership, common management. They are interconnected. It'd be a much more efficient, or at least the potential to be a more efficient operation in a consolidated basis. As also as reflected in the schedules, the consolidation, brings an immediate rate base and, revenue requirement benefit to the companies,
primarily because, Little Little Park has currently has a negative rate base and on a stand alone basis utilizes, operation margin rate making. When we consolidate those companies, then Little Park's share of the operation becomes a rate base, based calculation. It it lowers the consolidated revenue requirement. And we also, eliminate the formula based working capital for Little Park in the consolidation. So it brings both immediate benefits to the customers of the companies and,
will provide long term efficiencies as well. And you would say Littlepark is, a very small company. Correct? Yes. It is a small class e company. And smaller companies bear a greater risk, to customers facing, higher impacts from improvements, etcetera, than larger companies typically. Yes. That that's true, for this basically, in my experience, the smaller the company, the more impact even a single project can have. More successful rate shock as, a pump fails, a well pump fails, something like this. A larger company with more customers is better able to deal with those with,
less rate impact to customers. And that's because you have a larger customer base to spread those costs over. Correct? Yes. And you can typically obtain financing, more easily and often at better rates as well. Okay. So a company as small as Little Park would have a difficult time obtaining financing on its own without, for instance, the guarantee of the owners. I I think that's typical. Yes. Okay. Do you have anything else you'd like to add at this time in favor of the settlement, mister Jones? I I have nothing to add. Okay. Thank you. We'll tender mister Jones for cross examination.
Alright. Thank you. And we'll start with, miss Morris, actually, if you have any questions for the witness. No. I do not. Thank you very much. Alright. Thank you. And for staff? No questions, your honor. Okay. Thank you. Mister Jones, I do have a few questions, and I apologize. I know you maybe went over the topics, but I'll ask maybe some follow-up questions. First, I know you talked about the perceived benefits of the settlement agreement, and I understand that the, ROE is lower than the original request. And I I also understand that the agreement, to remain intact requires that all of the the components be adopted.
So I guess if you don't mind just, elaborating a bit more on how you see the benefit of the settlement agreement, to the companies. Well, from the the company's perspective, the the settlement agreement, I think, resolves the issues. As you pointed out, your honor, it it presents a lower than we requested, cost of equity, but a reasonable cost of equity for the company. It, fully captures the post test your plant for the company through, I believe it's through the June 30 period.
We included all post test year plant, for the I think it's the July and August period. We captured two additional major projects that were some arsenic treatment media replacements. And then it also provides, and this is very important to the company, that there will be a surcharge to capture, the rate impacts of their ongoing well number two project. And we explained in the testimony that Big Park is in a major plant improvement. Now at the very end of a major plant improvement program that was primarily debt
funded with with still a substantial equity funding component as well. And being a smaller class c company, it's very important that the plant associated with that debt, be captured in the rate so that they have sufficient cash flow and sufficient financial resources, not only to pay the debt service, but also then to meet their ongoing obligations as other improvements are necessary as cost of doing service go up. We believe this, settlement accomplishes, all of that,
for the company while still, putting forth a reasonable, rate for the customers as well. Alright. Thank you. That actually brought up a follow-up. I believe your testimony was that, Big Park is towards the end of a a big project as far as improvements. Is was that the case, for small or excuse me, Little Park? Well, I'll ask. Let me ask a little bit better. Did Little Park also go through a similar improvement project, since their last rate case? Little Park has has not had a the sort of major substantial
projects that Big Park has. I think it's three different well sites and booster stations are being substantially upgraded at Big Park. Little Park did participate in the meter replacement program and we did include one significant post test year project for Little Park in the rates. But I would point out though that even though Little Park did not separately have, a major plan improvement program, the the systems are interconnected so that Little Park benefits from all of the Big Park improvements as well.
Okay. Thank you. My next set of questions are going to be around, the consolidation and, cross subsidization issue. So I understand that for some people or for some commissioners, it it can be difficult to accept the differences in bill impact. So in this case, I believe, if I understand correctly, that little part customers would receive a decrease and big part customers would receive an increase. Is that correct? I think it it may vary somewhat depending on what size meter and where your
usage is. But I think that, generally, that that's an accurate statement. Okay. Sorry. And to clarify the question, I was specifically asking about, the five eights by three quarter inch, residential meters. So just to just to clarify my question, I apologize for that. So I guess for those that might have issues with, the subsidization or cross subsidization of rates, What would you respond to that? Or or what are the benefits of offsetting rates for one, plant versus the other? Well, I mean, I I guess I have a couple of responses to that and that it's my
belief that all companies in the long term benefit from consolidation. While at any given snapshot in time, one company may have a higher level investment while the other one perhaps has a lower level As plant and facilities modify and change over time, that tends to benefit the other parties of any consolidation at some other point in time as well. And in the case of Little Park and Big Park, they're essentially run as a single enterprise today with a significant amount of cost allocation occurring from Big Park to Little Park as
we exist today. And while that consolidation is, you know, intended to fairly allocate, you know, costs between the two organizations, You know, it's not possible to do that a 100% accurately. And and so to the extent I I guess I don't really believe there is any subsidization of one company or another. It's just eliminating one way, a more expensive, a more burdensome way of allocating costs to simply making them the same company and letting them stand alone. Being so small,
Little Park has somewhat higher rates than Big Park currently, and so that's the reason that they're seeing a smaller impact as we go to a common rate structure. Okay. Thank you. My next question, and I apologize if it could be just that I misunderstand. So my next question is about the rate structure. So I understand that, the commission typically approves for a three tier commodity rate structure, a one to 1.5 to 1.8 ratio, which I don't believe the settlement agreement achieves. So if that is the case,
is there a reason for the divergence? I'm not I'm not sure I understand that question, your honor. I believe between the three tiers, and somebody may be able to understand or explain a little bit better, but between the three tiers, there should be some sort of a ratio. So, I believe it's typically one, to 1.5 for the second tier and then 1.8 to the third tier. Well, there is a commission has adopted a a rate design policy and that policy establishes the percentage of revenue that should be generated in the third tier which I believe
it's to be at least 10%, not more than 20% in the third tier. And it also establishes, as I recall, that the the base plus the first tier should be at least 50% of the cost. And I I believe the rate design complies with that policy is my recollection. I don't think there are any set standards for what, I guess, the multiple changes between the different rates are. It's simply a matter of establishing those in a way that the percentage of revenue
generated meets the policy. And I think we've done that in this case. Okay. Thank you. My next question is, just regarding, missus Morris's, visual screening. So I I guess I just have some questions about, how it would be funded, as well as, I believe it says that it would be completed within eighteen months, assuming that, or, excuse me, contingent on sufficient cash flow. So my questions are, is the well, first, does the eighteen months run from the consummation of the settlement agreement? I think I I believe the intent would be from eighteen months from a time
a decision is issued in this case, not from the time the settlement agreement was executed? Okay. And, what happens in the event that, the company does not have sufficient cash flow to fund the project? I don't believe the agreement, sets out a remedy for that. I my understanding is it's a relatively inexpensive project that'll be funded out of the out of company equity, which is why there's a cash flow requirement in there. I I just I wouldn't anticipate there'd be a problem with the company, funding and completing the project.
But to my recollection, there is not a specific remedy in the agreement if that was not to happen. Okay. Do you have a some sort of an estimate for the cost of the project? My recollection is it's probably $5,000, perhaps even less than that. Okay. Alright. Thank you. And then I believe the last question that I have is, so I'm I I will admit that I'm fairly new to this. So I struggled to calculate depreciation expense. I don't believe that there were any schedules that would help me determine that.
So first, I guess, I wanna ask, whether it would be helpful to discuss how that was calculated here, but also, ask the parties if, Excel an Excel spreadsheet of the depreciation expense, if that could be submitted. Your honor, the depreciation expense is there is a schedule in the work papers where that calculation is detailed. I don't recall, sounds like it was not provided as one of the settlement schedules if you're not seeing it. But we could certainly provide that schedule as, easily provide that schedule into the docket.
It it is in the work papers. Okay. Thank you. I guess we can discuss that maybe once we get through everybody's testimony to see how everybody feels about that. Because I again, I'll admit that I'm very new to this, so I could just be misunderstanding something. I believe with that, those were all of my questions. So I'll go back to the company to see if you have any redirect. Just a couple quick questions, your honor. Thank you. You said, funded out of company equity. I I did you mean retained earnings or an equity infusion? I I mean, out of the retained earnings portion of the equity. Yes. Just wanna clarify.
Thank you. And, yeah, you spoke of the the so called subsidy being a snapshot. You're referring to it kinda being a one time one point in time at the time of consolidation, you can see what that might be. Correct? Yes. And and I guess beyond that, you know, when we when we think about it, a when any number of companies consolidate, any one of those companies at any point in time could have a major project that is getting spread over, you know, other people in the consolidation. But,
at a different point of time, it's perhaps a different one of the consolidated entities is requiring the investment that's being spread back to the company that was benefiting earlier. That that's what I mean by that. So if five days after an order comes out, a new well has to be drilled for Little Park, the cost of that is gonna be spread over all of the Big Park consolidated cup company customers, not just Little Parks, the old customers. That's correct. Yes. And then just briefly, the company did,
make a particular modification to the tiers, in relation to concerns that were expressed by miss Morris. Can you discuss those? Yes. We had, proposed a change to the one inch meter, break over between the tier two and tier three rates. It it had historically been 30,000 gallons in the current rates. In our schedules, our initial presentation, we had proposed to reduce that to 25,000 gallons. And that was proposed simply because that is the more typical placement of that as
opposed to 30,000 gallons. Miss Morris expressed, concerns about the impact of that on her as as well as any other customer that would have a one inch meter. And in the settlement, we simply agreed to leave it at its current 30,000 gallons instead of making the change to 25. And you determined the impact of that on the remaining customers was de minimis, didn't you? Yes. There's there's not that many one inch customers and it and they're only impacted by that the differential of those two rates for that 5,000
gallon block. And the the impact on the other rates was was very small, de minimis, as you say. And I know we've been speaking of miss Morris as an intervener, but this is actually a business that miss Morris is operating up there. Correct? Yes. That is correct. It's a a horse ranch of sorts? I think it's, boarding stable. Okay. And, to your knowledge, the the horse ranch is actually an important part of the Sedona community with both the company and community supports? Yes. That's my understanding. Okay. K. Thank you. Nothing else. Alright.
Thank you. And I'll, turn to miss Morris just to make sure you don't have any questions for the witness. No. I believe that the witness, portrayed the situation, as it is. So thank you. I have no further questions, your honor. Alright. Thank you. And does staff have any, recourse? No, your honor. Okay. And then I just wanna ensure that nobody else has any questions before we dismiss mister Jones. No? Alright. Thank you, mister Jones. Thank you. Okay. And it's my understanding that you don't have any other witnesses for today? Your honor, unless there was something that mister Jones didn't answer that you needed,
one of the company's operations folks to answer or it's senior management, then we rest. Okay. I don't have any questions, but I just wanna make sure with the rest of the parties that there are no other questions. Miss Morris, would you have any questions? No. Thank you, your honor. Okay. And staff? No questions. No question. Okay. Alright. So we'll go ahead and move on to miss Morris. And since you are representing yourself, it's up to you how you would like to present your testimony. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Sorry. Basically, oh, I'm so sorry. Let me clarify. Well, first, we can have you sworn in,
and I'll allow you to provide, just a statement kind of, you know, what your position is, why you chose to intervene in this matter and and, you know, the issues that are important to you. And then, we'll similarly have the parties ask you any questions, or I can ask you questions as well. So we'll proceed in that manner. Is that does that sound great? Yes. Thank you. Alright. And then we'll have our court reporter swear you in. Ma'am, do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. I do. Thank you. Okay. Good morning, miss Morris.
You can go ahead and begin with a short statement. Okay. Thank you. Regarding the, the breakover point on item number two point seven point two on the settlement, the reason why we asked for this modification is I own the, Horse Mesa Ranch, which is the last and only, boarding facility for, the public to, in the entire Big Park, Little Park service area. Furthermore, we, and we have 65 horses. And furthermore, we are classified by the, we're the only ones in the Big Park,
service area who are classified as an agricultural property for tax purposes. So, therefore, our taxes are recognized by the Yavapai assessor's office as, that they should be lower. And then the other additional reason, is we cannot, conserve on the amount of water horses need to consume. So that's just something that we cannot, be, allow any changes to. And, and it could have a negative impact on our borders and the fees that we would need to charge and cause them to have to either sell their horses or
move on to a completely different community to board them. And when we achieved our use permit from Yavapai County, and it's a Big Park is a a small area with about 3,500 customers at Big Park. Our ranch, actually received over 1,200 written letters to the county, supervisors in support of, Horse Mesa Ranch retaining their use permit to operate in perpetuity. And, with that in mind, the witness also verified that that was,
his understanding. So, those are just some of the major reasons why I asked for relief in this case. Alright. Thank you, miss Morris. And I'll jump to, the applicants to see if he has, any questions for you, mister Shapiro. Thank you. Just quickly. Good morning, miss Morris. Good morning. I just wanna make sure that, you felt that you were given, every opportunity to participate in this case and the settlement, agreement negotiations? Yes. I was. Thank you. And do you feel that you were, treated with, the appropriate, level of respect and concern by your water provider in this case?
Yes, mister Shapiro. And I would also add that, we have had a very, agreeable relationship with both you and with mister Gutovic. And, we expect help and respect each other. So I am, very pleased with how this settlement has, has been handled. Well, thank you. And it was a pleasure working with you as well, miss Morris. We have nothing else. Alright. Thank you. And does staff have any questions for miss Morris? No questions, your honor. Okay. Thank you. I I just have one question, miss Morris, and that's just, I believe you touched on it already, but I just wanna make sure I get it in testimony.
Were you here to hear mister Jones' testimony? Yes. I did. Okay. And, the way that mister Jones described the settlement agreement and specifically with regard the provisions with regards to you, were was his testimony, accurate as far as your understanding? Yes. It was, your honor. Alright. Thank you, miss Morris. I don't have any other questions. Is there anything else that you would like to provide? Not for me. Thank you. Okay. And then, any additional questions from staff or the company? No. No, your honor. Alright. Thank you, miss Morris. That will be all of the questions for you today. And we'll assuming that you don't have any other,
testimony to present, we'll go ahead and move on to staff. Thank you. I'm I'm done. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. Okay. And staff? Staff calls, Britton Baxter. Okay. Good morning, mister Baxter. Sir, do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Can you please state your name for the record? My name is Burton Baxter. And can you tell us where you work and what you do? I work in the Arizona Corporation Commission in the utilities division as a co director. Okay. Thank you. And, can you briefly describe your work experience?
Sure. I've been with the commission. It'll be twelve years tomorrow. Prior to that, I was ten years at the Auditor General's office. I have an accounting degree from NAU. So I've got twenty plus years experience in auditing and analyzing different types of applications, financial statements, and so forth. Okay. Thank you. Could you as part, just a moment. As part of your duties at the commission, can you please describe your involvement with this case? Sure. As co one of the co directors, the sections that report to me are the engineering section and the finance and regulatory
analysis section along with compliance. Both of those two sections were heavily involved with the analysis of this case. So I oversaw, through some, direct supervisors, the staff that were assigned to process these cases. Okay. Thank you. And just a moment. Your honor, may I approach the bench with, company's exhibits and Yes. Assume I should say staff exhibits. Yes. Okay. Mister, Baxter, do you have in front of you what's been marked as exhibit s a or settlement testimony? I do. And was that testimony prepared by you or at your direction?
Yes. Do you have any changes, that you wish to make, to that document today in light of what you've heard? I do not. Okay. Thank you. This has already been stipulated as admitted and admitted, so I won't ask you, I won't ask to admit now, obviously. Can you please summarize Big Park consolidated, the consolidated company, which I think we've been referring to as Big Park consolidated? Can you summarize their proposed revenue requirement? Or do you need just and I should note for the record that the settlement agreement is exhibit S7 already
admitted. It should be up there. So in the settlement agreement, the parties have agreed to a total revenue requirement of $2,600,000. Alright. Thank you. And, just a moment. Can you give a brief description of the settlement process? Sure. I agree with everything mister Jones stated that the settlement process was open, transparent. Everybody advocated for their positions, and I think the settlement agreement that was reached is a fair compromise between the parties and will set the company up in a good position going forward from an
operational standpoint. Okay. Thank you. Was the settlement process open, transparent, and and inclusive? Yes. Thank you. Were the parties able to resolve all issues? Yes. How would you describe the negotiations? And I apologize if you touched on it before. I think they were fair. Okay. And do you believe that the settlement terms, as agreed, are in the public interest? I do. Can you touch on, significant sec some significant sections of the settlement agreement? So to me, I believe, other than the resolution of all the outstanding issues on the revenue requirement,
probably one of the bigger issues that are is contained within the settlement agreement is the resolution of the well two, post test year plant project. So the settlement agreement allows for a surcharge mechanism. Once that project is completed, the company can file a request to implement that surcharge. And I just point out for the record that to her her her honors questions about consolidation, and I've phrased it more bluntly than mister Jones who who put it more delicately. In the long term, I believe everybody's a winner under consolidation.
In the short term, there can be losers and winners. But I believe this is an example of where everybody's a winner because the surcharge for that well two project, as mister Jones indicated, Little Park will benefit from the project because they're interconnected with Big Park. They will be subject to that surcharge. So they will be paying for a portion of the infrastructure improvement. So I believe that that's probably the biggest next to the revenue requirement resolution issue that's contained within the settlement agreement for the company. And I believe it's appropriate to adopt that type of mechanism because absent it,
the company would be forced to turn around and file another rate case very shortly after this one in order to be able to recover the revenue for that project. Okay. Thank you. What was the revenue increase that the parties recommended? The revenue increase is just under 500,000. Okay. Thank you. And, I believe you touched on it before. Is it am I correct in stating that your recommendation is, supporting consolidation for the reasons you discussed? Yes. The only thing I'd add in terms of consolidation that mister Jones didn't specifically touch
on is the water policy he cited to for the rate design also promotes consolidation of small systems, and I believe that this is a poster child for consolidations, interconnected, shared facilities, shared operators. So to me, it it it's the one that makes the most sense that I've seen so far. I see. Thank you. And can you describe the approval of the requested rate case expense mechanism? Sure. So the rate case expense adjust, mechanism and if I could have just a moment.
Apologize. We've signed, I don't know, 10 of these now, so they tend to run together. But in general, what we do with the rate case expense surcharge in this particular settlement agreement has a $150,000 or the actual amount, whichever is less. So once the rate case has been fully processed, the commission has issued us a decision. The company will file with staff, documentation that shows what the final rate case expense was to process the case. And if it's less than a 150,000,
the surcharge will be calculated based off that actual amount. If it's greater than a 150,000, the surcharge will be the 91¢ per customer per month that's included in the settlement agreement. I see. Thank you. And the settlement agreement includes a a plan of administration for the capital surcharge for the well number two project. Is that right? That's correct. Did you you want to ask any I'm sorry. Did you wanna add anything else to your testimony? No. I believe the settlement agreement fully captures it. We're in support of the settlement agreement,
and we think it's in the public interest. Alright. Thank you. Your honor, I have no more questions. Alright. Thank you. Does the applicant have any questions for the witness? Other than to congratulate mister Baxter on his upcoming twelve years of survival, we have no questions. Alright. Thank you. Miss Morris, do you have any questions? No. I do not. Alright. Good morning, mister Baxter. Good morning, Yana. I don't believe I have any questions, that you haven't really touched on. My main one was just what does staff see as the benefit of the settlement agreement? I don't know that I specifically have anything to add other than,
like I said, I think this is kind of the poster child situation for settle, consolidating. I think the settlement agreement is in the public interest. It's there was a lot of give and take when we were having discussions. I think we landed on a good middle ground that balances the interest of everybody, and we would recommend adoption of the settlement agreement. Okay. Thank you. And the last one is just kind of my own misunderstanding, I think, about the depreciation expense. Am I miscalculating it? Are the schedules not in there? Or I apologize. Your honor, I'm not sure what your calculation is resulting in,
but I took a look before I took the stand, and I didn't see this, depreciation schedule in the settlement schedules. So like mister Jones said, I think we could file either the work papers to the hearing division, or we could file a late file exhibit that has that specific calculation in it. Okay. Great. And I'll we can discuss that after testimony. Those were all of the questions that I had, and I'll go to staff to see if you have any redirect for mister Baxter. Just a moment, your honor. Okay. I don't believe I do, but I'm just checking something. Do you believe that Little Park would benefit from,
economies of scale by by this consolidation? I do. To some extent, they already are. But on a consolidated basis, they won't have to go through the exercise to allocate cost to Little Park anymore. It'll all be combined, so there'll be some efficiencies there. And I believe probably the bigger benefit for the company will be not having to manage two different sets of rate schedules. I see. Thank you very much. Nothing further. Okay. Thank you. And I'll just check one last time, if the applicant or miss Morris has any questions for mister Baxter.
Nothing from us. No? Alright. I don't Morris does not. Okay. Thank you, miss Morris. I don't have any questions, mister Baxter. Thank you. I believe that closes testimony unless staff has another witness to present. No, your honor. Alright. Thank you. And I I know that we admitted the exhibits prior to testimony, but I just wanna confirm one last time that it's, exhibits s one through s eight and exhibits actually, just a moment here. It's, exhibits a one through a eight as well. Okay. Alright. With that being said, I believe we can go ahead and move on to closing statements,
and we'll begin with the applicants. Mister Schiapiro, would you like to make a closing statement? Just very briefly, your honor. Thank you. I've done a lot of rate cases in my, legal career, and, I always have one goal, and that's to get to the open meeting with, everybody in alignment if possible. And, to quote mister Baxter, this case has been somewhat of a poster child, for getting there. The parties have come to, this case reasonably. We had an intervener, who, expressed her concerns, in a very reasonable and forthright way, and, that gave us a great opportunity to come up with a remedy.
We worked with staff to accomplish a way to eliminate our disputes. And, our only hope now is that you can join the party and support the settlement in Roo, and we can all be joined, in front of the commission as soon as possible. Thank you very much. Alright. Thank you, mister Shapiro. Miss Morris, would you like to make a closing statement? No. I think everything's been handled very, very well and very, nicely. So I do not thank you very much, your honor. Okay. Thank you, miss Morris. To staff, would you like to make a closing statement, mister Golub? Yes. Very briefly, your honor,
we agree with, company's closing statement, and we ask, that the court approve the, settlement agreement for the reasons, specified in testimony, your honor. Alright. Thank you, mister Golub. Before we we close today, I just wanna address the depreciation expense schedules. I guess if there's any preference that it be submitted as a late exhibit or just the work papers be submitted and if there's a date. Okay. Yeah. What we will do is we will file the, depreciation schedule for Big Park and for Little Park with the details, and we'll get those filed the next day or two.
Okay. I will issue a PO just to memorialize everything, and I'll have it, have the deadline for Friday, but I understand that, obviously, submitting it earlier would be better. And with that being said, staff doesn't need to submit anything. Is that correct? I believe so, your honor. Okay. Okay. Alright. Alright. I think that was everything that I needed to address. Is there anything that the applicants or staff or miss Morris would like to address before we close? Nothing on the record, Gunnar. No. Nothing from staff. Sam? Go nothing for Mary Morris. Okay. Thank you.
I wanna thank everyone for taking the time to participate today. I will take this matter under advisement pending the issuance of a recommendation to the commissioners, for consideration at an open meeting. With that being said, we can go ahead and adjourn. And I'll just ask that, everyone stay on the line, miss Morris and staff.