The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1921-09-09
IN TELE-
PHONE RATES
Commission Grants Increase on
Residence Service.

The Public Service Commits
sion in answer to the petition Of
the Lafayette Telephone Com
pany for an increase of rates,
has given its decision and
grants an increase of fifty cents
per month on residence rate, di-
rect line, and twenty-five cents
per month on the 2-party line.
No increase is permitted in the
business rate, and extension
sets are reduced from $1.OO to
80 cents, and the business and
residence desk set equipment
from SO cents to 25 cents.
A synopsis of the commits
sioner's report follows:
The Public Service Commission Of
Missouri has handed down its decis.
in the Lafayette Telephone rate
case. 1t appears from their report
in the cas- that the valuation of
this plant, including the rural lines.
was made by both the comnany's
and the Commissioners engineers.
Inc company's engineer found a de-
preciated present value, using prices
Of 1914 and 1915 as a basis, of sfO2.-
The Commissions engineer
undertook to find out what the orig
mai cost Of this plant was in making
valuation, and found that the
original cost Of the plant was $780,
5Sl.8O, not including the cost of es-
S%ablshing business, and that the de-
preciated value of the plant at the
present time, based on the original
,ost thereof, was S74,195.OS. The
commission indicates that, under the
and decisions of the courts. the
'alnation for rate making purposes
not be based solely on the orig
nal cost, but that average present
ay prices, going value and any other
lements Of value entering into the
ase must be considered. There seems
o have been a wide difference he
"een the eompany's engineer and the
commissioners engineer as to the
.epreciated value. The COMMANDS
ngineer found that the plant was in
4.'S per cent condition. while tbe
commissions engineer found that
ne plant was in 7S.4 per cent condi-
The Commission found that
aking into consideration all elements
S shown by the evidence, and as
'ar%tieularly shown by the appraisals
nade by the COmpany's and the Com.
n~issloner's engineers, that the val
e o. the plant as of January 1, 1921.
$4,000. This is a value of s17
less than what the company con.
ended for.
1t appears also from the ~ranor,
hat the Commission exercised dos
are and caution 5y sending it's a..
bunting department into the books
records of the company to deter
'ine the cost of operations Of the
ompany for the last year 50 as to
ave accurate data before it in that
egard' On the basis of the account.
nts report it was found that the
perating revenues for 1919 were
2S'Ss4,22, while the operating ex-
enses we're S2O,268.Ol, showing
alance of $s,62e.21 to cover annual
expectation and return on the in.
estment. The accountants report
moved for the nine months ending
eptember 30, 1920, that the o~perat.
g revenues were S2l, 5s5.l5, and
lie expenses, $l7,2s7.2 20, leaving
'lance of $4,2s7.ss for depreciation
I'd return. The company furnished
le figures for the balance Of the
rec months of the year 1920 NOT
'vered by the accountants renort
INCH, when added to the account-
IT'S report, showed that the Operat-
9 revenues for 1920 were s2s.l12.-
. and the operating expenses were
'S'So6.2S, leaving a balance Of az.
7.75 for depreciation and retprr
= the year 1920, which amounted
o.I1 per cent on the valuation Of
1900. The Commission found that I
per cent Of the valuation was .
IT per cent 70 cover d~epreciation 1
though the company elanhed no 1
: cent for depreciation. Dsduetln. I
Is ; per cent allowed FOR depreci. q
Ion from the e.77 per cent would
ave ~ per cent for return for t
2 year 1920 on the Investment {
Inc Commission then proceeded - =
scuss the historical uata N ret. {,
to this compnav u !,
that during the carly history h
this company no dividends or sal. n
were paid Of any moment; that !