Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Queens Cove Properties, Inc. Mr. Alex B. Cardenas is president of the parent development company as well as the utility. The water system was constructed for the sole purpose of providing water to purchasers of lots in the Queens Cove subdivision. However, the Petitioner obtained certification as a public utility to serve the general area in the belief that it was required to do so. See Section 367.031, Florida Statutes. Lots in this subdivision have sold for $15,000 to $24,000, which includes undifferentiated amounts for availability of water service. The water service is part of a "bundle of rights" which the purchaser obtains with his lot. (e.g. bridge, roads, underground utilities). In addition, existing lot owners have purchased the "bundle of rights" separately from their land (where Queens Cove was not the original property seller) at prices ranging from $4,000 to $8,000. Again, the charge for water service availability was not differentiated from other rights. At the time of the second hearing, the utility had 45 connections--42 single family residences, one developer's office, one model home, and an irrigation outlet. Ten customers testified (five by adoption) at these hearings as to service problems. The water treatment plant is of the reverse osmosis type. This system is complex and costly to maintain, but is useful where as here the raw water contains a high level of natural impurities. The utility has not properly maintained this system and water taste, smell and clarity are generally poor. The customers also experience frequent periods of very low water pressure. Furthermore, they are unable to contact the utility when outages occur after business hours since there is no emergency phone number provided. The testimony of a Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) representative also established that chlorine residuals are not properly maintained and a high coliform reading in June, 1980, will require monitoring by DER. Thus, overall service is unsatisfactory and must be improved before the Petitioner is allowed to receive a return on its investment. See Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes, which requires the Commission to consider service in setting rates. Profits earned by a utility with service deficiencies such as these would normally be placed in escrow until the problems were corrected. Here, however, the utility does not seek to earn a return on its investment, but only to break even. In addition, there was no competent, substantial evidence adduced by either Petitioner or Respondent to demonstrate what the utility's investment is. Therefore, rate base cannot be determined in this proceeding, and consequently no return can be established. Appendix one hereto details Petitioner's test year expenses as set out in its rate application, with adjustments to correct erroneous entries and to delete or reduce expenses which were not shown to be reasonable and prudent. No controversy exists with the exception of allowances for plant manager compensation, office rent and rate case expense. The Petitioner's request for an annual manager's salary of $20,000 was not supported by the evidence. No salary is currently paid for this function, nor is a plant manager as such required or utilized. Rather, the limited functions of a plant manager can be handled by one of the full time maintenance or administrative employees. This procedure is consistent with management practices in other small, developer-owned water utilities. Such delegation does not, however, relieve the owner from his duty to hire qualified personnel and provide adequate resources. A separate allowance for office rent is not justified. The Petitioner has no office in the immediate area but uses the owner-developer's office in Stuart. There is no need for a separate office under the present organizational structure, and therefore no expense for this item should be authorized. Evidence on rate case expense (attorney and accountant fees) was submitted by post-hearing pleadings pursuant to agreement of the parties. The Petitioner seeks $9,702 rate case expense, amortized over three years, or $3,234 annually. The Respondent proposes to allow $6,000 amortized over five years, or $1,200 annually. As with other expenses, the amount authorized will be paid by customers and any portion disallowed will be borne by the owner of the utility. The rate case expense sought here is $215 per customer, which far exceeds the average water/sewer utility rate case expense of $6.92 per customer. A substantial portion of these expenses were incurred as a result of Petitioner's failure to keep adequate records and its initial decision to proceed without counsel. Therefore, the reduction of authorized expenses to $6,000 proposed by Respondent is appropriate. However, Petitioner's proposed three-year amortization period better represents industry experience and is consistent with current Commission policy. Therefore, the rate case expense authorized is $6,000 amortized over three years, or $2,000 annually. The Petitioner currently bills its customers on a monthly basis using a minimum gallonage charge. This rate design neither encourages conservation of water nor accurately reflects the cost of providing service. Therefore, the utility should be required to adopt the base facility charge rate structure. This charge includes a fixed amount for the customer's share of the utility's fixed costs, as well as a gallonage charge to represent the variable expenses associated with water consumption. Petitioner requested authority to increase its tap-in or meter installation fee from $100 to $200. This increase was authorized on an interim (escrow) basis by Order 9140. The utility has now withdrawn its request for the increase and should return the escrowed amounts to all customers who have paid the $200. In addition, Petitioner should be required to pay interest on customer deposits at the rate of 6 percent prior to July 1, 1980, and 8 percent after that date. See Section 25-10.72, Florida Administrative Code. Since no interest on deposits has ever been paid, the credit must be retroactive to the date of each customer's deposit. Proposed findings of fact were submitted by the Petitioner and the Public Service Commission. To the extent these proposed findings have not been adopted herein or are inconsistent with the above findings, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on tide foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Island Services, Inc. be granted in part, and that Petitioner be authorized to file new rates structured on the base facility charge concept, designed to generate gross water revenue of $12,823 annually, based on the average number of customers served during the test year. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be required to refund $100 to all customers who have paid the interim $200 water connection charge and that its tariff be amended to show that $100 is the authorized charge for this service. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner pay interest on deposits at the annual rate of 6 percent through June 30, 1980, and at 8 percent thereafter, with such payments retroactive to the dates of deposit. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: R. M. C. Rose, Esquire 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marta M. Crowley, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission Fletcher Building, 101 E. Gaines St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas E. Gonano, Esquire Citizens Federal Building Suite 200 1600 South Federal Highway Fort Pierce, Florida 33450
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be required to obtain a current operating permit for his aerobic treatment unit and have a $500.00 fine imposed for violating an agency rule for the reason cited in the Citation for Violation issued by Petitioner on December 1, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this dispute, Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), has alleged that Respondent, Dr. Anthony Massaro, a retired public health physician, failed to obtain an annual operating permit for an aerobic treatment unit (ATU) located at his residence at 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. The Flagler County Health Department (Health Department) is charged with the responsibility of issuing such permits. That department is under the direction and control of Petitioner. While Respondent readily admits that he failed to obtain a permit, he contends that he was misled by the Health Department when he first installed an ATU at his residence; the Health Department is not enforcing the law regarding ATUs and thus another system would be more appropriate; and the law, as he interprets it, allows him to install another type of on-site sewage disposal unit on his property. Respondent purchased his property in Flagler County in 1997. The property is located in Ocean View Estates Subdivision (subdivision), which has an Urban Single-Family Residential District (R-1b) zoning classification under the Flagler County Land Development Code (Code). Section 3.03.05A of the Code requires that owners within the R-1b classification use "public or community water and sewer facilities," but makes an exception for "[s]mall R-1b subdivisions, fifty (50) lots or less, utilizing a public community water system," in which case residents "may utilize Class I aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems." Further, "[t]he use of individual onsite sewage disposal systems must be consistent with adopted county policies and standards." Because the subdivision has 50 lots or less, and public or private sewer facilities were not available in the area, the subdivision's Plat Agreement recorded in 1995 provided that "[i]ndividual aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems are to be permitted and constructed as each lot is developed." Another type of onsite sewage disposal system is the anerobic system, which has a septic tank and larger drainfield, is far less expensive, but does not conform with "county policies and standards" in this locale. Thus, this type of system requires a variance from the zoning regulations before one can be installed in the subdivision. Even so, Respondent says "all" of his neighbors have installed such a system. Because of the Plat Agreement, the zoning restriction, the difficulty in obtaining a variance, and the lack of a sewer line, Respondent had no choice except to use an ATU system for his residence. This meant that he had to apply for a permit from the Health Department. Once a permit is obtained and an ATU installed, the owner must renew his operating permit annually at a cost of $150.00, and he must enter into a maintenance agreement with a licensed contractor. The $150.00 fee is used to defray the costs incurred by the Health Department in making quarterly inspections and performing annual sampling and laboratory analysis of effluent. The record does not reflect precisely when a sewer line became operational across the street from Respondent's property, but the sewer project was accepted "for service" in April 1998, or before Respondent's ATU was installed in August 1998. Had Respondent known this, he would have obviously chosen that option rather than an ATU. The evidence reflects that in November 1997 Respondent made application for an ATU with the Health Department, a permit was issued in December 1997, and the system was installed and approved in August and September 1998, respectively. In early April 1998, the Health Department was advised by the private utility company that it would accept new sewer connections in a service area that included Respondent's home. However, Health Department representatives made no mention of this to Respondent since they were under the impression that he desired to use the ATU option, they do not normally "counsel" applicants on onsite sewage disposal system options, and Respondent had made no inquiry. Disclosure of this fact would have saved Respondent considerable money (and grief) in the long run; unfortunately, however, while good public relations would dictate otherwise, the Health Department had no legal obligation to do anything other than process the pending application. Likewise, it has no obligation in law to now pay the costs for Respondent to hook up to the line because of its non-disclosure. Respondent has now invested more than $5,000.00 in his ATU. This type of system is operated by a compressor in Respondent's garage, which must be run 24 hours per day, and is very noisy. Because of this, Respondent understandably wishes to change to an anerobic system, which has a traditional septic tank, larger drainfield, no unsightly "mound" in the yard, no annual permits, and is far cheaper than an ATU. Also, it does not require a noisy motor to sustain operations. However, this type of system is prohibited by the Code except where a variance from Flagler County (County) has been obtained. It appears to be unlikely that Respondent can obtain a variance from the County. Because Respondent's property is so low in relation to the sewer line, to achieve the proper gravity, he must install a lift station and pay a connection fee, both totaling $3,540.00, before hooking up to the sewer system. Given these costs, and the considerable investment he already has in an ATU, Respondent does not consider this to be a viable alternative. Respondent pointed out that, despite the requirement that they do so, many ATU owners in the County are not running their systems 24-hours per day because of the noise from the compressor. He also pointed out that the Health Department has consistently found numerous violations of such systems during its inspections. He further asserted that while the $150.00 annual fee is to defray certain sampling and laboratory analysis costs associated with inspecting ATUs, the Health Department has done neither on his ATU. Finally, Respondent pointed out that prior to 1999 the regulations were enforced by sampling the compliance of a very small percentage of total ATU systems (ten percent), rather than all systems, in the County. Given these considerations, Respondent concludes that ATUs are the least effective way to treat sewage, and that existing laws and regulations have not been enforced. Assuming these allegations to be true, and they were not seriously disputed, they are legitimate concerns. However, until the law is changed, they do not constitute a lawful basis for allowing Respondent to switch to an anerobic system. Respondent further contended that under his interpretation of the general law, which was not fully understood by the undersigned, he is not required to use an ATU. But local zoning regulations clearly require that he do so, and until the state or local regulations are changed or waived, he cannot use an anerobic system. Finally, Respondent has cooperated with the Department throughout this process. With his lengthy public health background, Respondent initiated this action with good intentions, seeking to point out the flaws in the ATU systems, and to remedy a problem which none of his neighbors apparently have. Given these considerations, a civil penalty should not be imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order sustaining the charge in the Citation for Violation and requiring that Respondent obtain an annual permit for his ATU. A civil penalty is not warranted. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Dr. Anthony Massaro 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard Flagler Beach, Florida 32136 Amy M. Jones, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Respondent illegally and without permit removed a drain field and now has an unapproved septic system on a structure intended for human occupancy, and if so, what is the appropriate correction and fine.
Findings Of Fact On June 17, 2009, Department of Health employee Stephanie Daughtery was driving down Lake Erie Road in Groveland, Florida, past Respondent’s residence located at 6345 Lake Erie Road, when she noticed the sand mound that had held the septic system drain field for Respondent’s home was no longer there. Ms. Daughtery was familiar with the mound that had been located on Respondent’s land because, in her capacity as Petitioner’s employee, she had previously conducted a stabilization check on the mound. A sand mound for Respondent’s drain field was required under applicable law and regulations because, during the rainy season, the water table in the area of Respondent’s home was ten inches “below grade,” which means that the water level was just ten inches below ground level during the rainy season. Therefore, a sand mound was necessary for proper filtration of the raw sewage (effluent) entering the septic system. A septic system without a proper drain field will allow effluent to escape and constitute a public health risk. Upon returning to her office at the Lake County Health Department that same afternoon, Ms. Daughtery told her supervisor, Elias Christ, of her observation. One of Respondent’s neighbors had already reported the situation involving the removal of Respondent’s drain field to Mr. Christ. The next day, one of Petitioner’s inspectors, Daniel McColley, went out to Respondent’s property and met with Respondent. Respondent told the inspector that the mound which had been removed was just a pile of dirt. Contrary to Respondent’s assertion, the mound that was removed had been part of the drain field for Respondent’s septic system. Respondent was responsible for the removal of the mound and drain field. On June 22, 2009, Petitioner sent, by certified mail to Respondent, an Official Notice to Abate a Sanitary Nuisance, which advised: On 06/18/2009 an onsite investigation disclosed that an approved drain field had been removed and either not replaced or replaced without a permit, which violates Chapter 386.041(1)(a)(b)(e)(f) of Florida Statutes. You are hereby directed to contact this Department within 24 hours of this notice to discuss corrective action. A repair permit must be applied for and a system installed with Department approval. Approximately a week to ten business days later, after Respondent had failed to apply for a permit, Petitioner again sent an inspector to inspect Respondent’s septic system and found it to be still in nuisance condition, with no drain field. In addition to being in an area with water just ten inches below grade during rainy season, Respondent’s property is adjacent to a lake. Since the sand mound was removed, there is no proper drain field and Respondent’s septic system is a sanitary nuisance. As explained by Mr. Christ at the administrative hearing, Respondent’s septic system without a drain field is a threat to public health: Because we have untreated sewage that we have no idea where its going to. He has - - he also has a lake behind his property, so we don’t know if he’s somehow plumbed it into dumping into the lake or if it’s just dumping out on the ground. Respondent told one or more of Petitioner’s employees that he had connected his septic system to an old septic tank in an adjacent house on the property. He did not, however, obtain a permit to do so, and the old system was inadequate, without renovation, to handle the additional effluent. In addition, although Respondent further claimed that a septic contractor had pumped out his old system, Respondent would not give the name of the alleged contractor. On July 6, 2009, Petitioner sent, by certified and regular mail, a “Notice of Intended Action” to Respondent which advised: You have not yet come to apply for a permit to replace this system you removed. Failure to do so will result in legal action and possible revocation of your CO and further Lake County Code Enforcement Action. Please contact this office within 24 hours of receipt of this notice to discuss a corrective action plan at (352) 253-6130 or FAX (352) 253-6133. If this sanitary nuisance is not abated and a proper septic tank repair permit applied for and work is completed in a satisfactory manor, inspected by this department, you may be subject to fines up to $500.00 per day authorized therein accordance with the authority outlined in Section 381.0065(5) Florida Statutes(F.S.). If you have further questions please call Elias Christ or Russ Melling at 352-253-6130. Respondent came into the Lake County Health Department on July 22, 2009, and was given an application and a checklist for permitting the repair of his septic system. During that visit, Respondent told Mr. Christ that the cows had destroyed the mound. He also told Mr. Christ that he had been trying to sell his house and that the mound had been an eye-sore that was interfering with the sale. Later, in a telephone conversation with Mr. Christ, Respondent advised that he really did not have the money to replace the drain field, but he would be happy to have it replaced if the county would pay for it. By September 25, 2009, Respondent still had not applied for a permit or repaired his septic system. On September 25, 2009, Petitioner issued a Citation for Violation Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance to Respondent (Citation). Part 1 of the Citation alleges that Respondent is in violation of Section 386.041(a), (e), and (f), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E- 6.001(2) and 64E-6003(1), on the grounds that Respondent “[h]as illegally and without any permits removed his drain field and now [has] an unapproved system on a structure intended for human occupancy.” The Citation further provides: The person named in this citation is hereby ordered to correct the violation(s) listed in Part 1 within 10 days [from] the service of this citation. The person identified in this citation is hereby directed to pay a fine in the amount of $500 plus $100 per [day] additionally from receipt of this citation until the drain field is repaired legally for the violations listed in Part 1. Payment must be made to the LAKE County Health Department within 21 days of the receipt of this citation, or you may choose the option listed on Part 9. Part 9 of the Citation provides for a request for an administrative hearing and warned Respondent that if he requested a hearing and then failed to appear to contest the citation, he would waive the right to contest the citation. By his signature dated October 1, 2009, in Part 9 of the Citation, Respondent requested an administrative hearing. This administrative hearing followed. Respondent failed to attend or present any evidence at the final hearing. Prior to the hearing, Respondent indicated to Petitioner’s counsel that he was not financially able to put the drain field back the way it was and that he did not see the point in appearing at the administrative hearing. On the other hand, the evidence presented by Petitioner at the administrative hearing, as outlined in the findings above, clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Respondent removed a mound and drain field required by applicable law and regulations for his septic system, and that Respondent’s septic system has not been repaired as required to comply with the law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order finding that Respondent illegally and without permit removed a drain field and now has an unapproved septic system on a structure intended for human occupancy, and ordering Respondent to pay a fine in the amount of $500.00 for deposit into the county health department trust fund, obtain a septic system repair permit, and effect repairs on his septic system to correct the violations of Section 386.041(a)(e)(f), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E-6.001(2) and 64E-6.003(1), within forty-five (45) days from the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application to increaseits water and sewer rates to its customers in Seminole County should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, including consideration of the demeanor and credibility of witnesses, the following facts are determined: I. Application and Retroactive Implementation of Interim Rate Increase By its application, the UTILITY, seeks to increase its water revenue to $158,890, and its sewer revenue to $83,830, by increasing service rates to its customers in Winter Springs, Seminole County, Florida. During the test year ending September 30, 1979, the UTILITY suffered combined losses from its water and sewer operation of $420,692. This is the first rate increase requested by the UTILITY since its inception in 1973. On April 24, 1980, the COMMISSION issued Order No. 9344 which suspended the UTILITY's proposed rate increases but granted it an interim increase under bond. The UTILITY was directed to file revised tariff pages containing residential and general service rates which would allow it to earn total annual gross revenue for water service of $139,277 and total annual gross revenues for sewer service of $83,830. The Order also stated: ". . .that the rate increase contained herein shall become effective for all bills on or after thirty (30) days after the date of this order. . . (Testimony of Blair, Fabelo; P.E. 1, 2, R.E. 3.) The UTILITY implemented the interim rate increase, within its normal billing cycle, on the June 2, 1980, water and sewer service bills. However, these bills were based on meter readings taken on May 10, 1980, for service provided from April 10 to May 10, 1980. Thus, the UTILITY increased its rates to its customers fourteen (14) days prior to April 24, 1980, the effective date of the COMMISSION's order authorizing such increase. The UTILITY's action was, however, taken in good faith, and based on a COMMISSION staff member's representation that the interim rates could properly be included in the June billing. The amount of revenues received from the interim rate increase and collected prior to the effective date of Order No. 9344 is approximately $8,700. (Testimony of Fabelo, Blair; P.E. 1, R.E. 3.) However innocently imposed, the UTILITY's action constitutes improper retroactive ratemaking. The UTILITY should refund to customers of record during the period in question their pro-rata share of revenues collected by the retroactive rate increase. The amount of each refund will depend on the amount of water consumed and paid for during the period of retroactive rates-- approximately April 10 through April 24, 1980. The UTILITY may minimize costs by distributing the refunds as separately itemized credits on its regular service bills. (Testimony of Fabelo; R.E. 3.) II. Factors Relevant to Ratemaking In determining whether a rate increase is justified, the COMMISSION must consider several factors, including (1) quality of service, (2) rate base, (3) a fair rate of return on the utility's investment, and (4) operation and maintenance expenses; each is separately addressed below. (Testimony of Asmus, Lowe.) III. Quality of Service During 1979, several customers of the UTILITY experienced occasional low water pressure in their homes. It is likely that these water pressure problems were caused by fluctuating amounts of electricity supplied the UTILITY by Florida Power Corporation. The UTILITY has recently installed an electronic control panel and Florida Power has installed a direct transmission line to the UTILITY in order to prevent this from reoccurring in the future. Several times during 1980, the UTILITY had its water service interrupted due to a cable-TV company cutting its water lines while laying cable; repairs, however, were quickly made. Few customer complaints have been made to regulatory agencies concerning the quality of the water and sewer service provided by the UTILITY: one complaint on water service was made to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation in 1979, and subsequently determined to he unfounded; no complaints were made to the Department concerning sewer service. Although several customers testified that the water sometimes caused irritation, tests show that the water meets Florida and federal safe drinking water standards. The sewage treatment provided by the UTILITY also complies with state and federal requirements. The water and sewer service is, therefore, determined to he of satisfactory quality. (Testimony of Blair, Bostwick, Customers.) IV. Rate Base A regulated utility is entitled to an opportunity to earn a fair rate of return on its investment in plants and facilities which are used and useful in providing water and sewer service to the public. The utility investment is referred to as "rate base". Here, the average water and sewer rate base for the UTILITY's test year ending September 30, 1979, is calculated as follows: AVERAGE RATE BASE WATER SEWER Utility Plant in Service $847,287 2/ $1,218,363 Utility Plant held for Future Use (271,153) (608,476) Accumulated Depreciation (82,099) (97,306) Contributions in Aid of Construction (183,749) 3/ (178,456) 3/ (CIAC)--Net Allowance for Working Capital 11,983 4/ 11,851 TOTAL RATE BASE $322,627 $ 354,433 (Testimony of Blair, Asmus, Heiker, Lowe; Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Pg. 3; P.E. 4, R.E. 2.) V. Rate of Return A fair rate of return is the percentage factor that, when multiplied by the rate base, produces revenue that will pay the costs of capital--interest on debt to lenders, and return on equity to stockholders. In this case, after considering the UTILITY's capital structure and that of its parent company, Gulfstream Land and Development Corporation, the parties stipulated that a fair rate of return is determined to be 12.40 percent, and is calculated: COST OF CAPITAL Test Year Ending September 30, 1979 COMPONENT RATIO COST RATE WEIGHTED COST Common Equity 33.3 percent 15.50 percent 5.16 percent Long-Term Debt 53.0 13.67 7.24 Cost-Free Capital 13.7 -0- -0- TOTAL 100.0 percent Midpoint 12.40 percent (Testimony of Lowe, Asmus; Joint Stipulation of Parties, Joint Exhibit 2; P.E. 10.) VI. Operations and Maintenance Expenses The adjusted operation and maintenance expenses, including depreciation and taxes, of the UTILITY for the test year are set out below: CONSTRUCTED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS Test Year Ending September 30, 1979 WATER SEWER Operating Revenues: $160,531 5/ $83,830 5/ Operating Expenses: Operation 84,275 6/ 90,480 7/ Maintenance 11,586 4,324 Depreciation 12,219 16,014 Taxes Other than Income Tax 7,330 8/ 4,581 8/ Provision for Income Taxes 9,786 9/ -0- TOTAL EXPENSES $125,196 $115,399 Operating Income (Loss): $35,334 ($31,569) (Testimony of Asmus, Lowe; COMMISSION's Proposed Findings of Fact; P.E. 10, R.E. 1.) The depreciation expense indicated above includes an adjustment of $2,015 (water) and $6,788 (sewer) proposed by the UTILITY as a result of a rate base adjustment which properly reclassified plant balances to their proper month. The UTILITY had inadvertently posted plant additions to a year-end entry, rather than to the months the additions were completed. At hearing, the COMMISSION agreed to the rate base adjustment and agreed, "in principle", to the UTILITY's proposed correlative adjustment to depreciation expense. However, in its posthearing Proposed Findings of Fact, the COMMISSION's counsel disputed the UTILITY's adjustment, and offered a substitute adjustment: ". . .However, in actual calculation, the. . . [COMMISSION] disagrees. The utility's adjustment does not consider used and useful as applied to the expense. In addition, the. . . [UTILITY's] adjustment includes expense on pro-forma plant. The. . .[COMMISSION's] calculation considers these adjustments. (Pg. 4, Paragraph D.) Because factual issues are difficult to resolve by posthearing submittal, evidence should be presented at hearing, where it is subject to cross- examination and rebuttal. At hearing, the COMMISSION did not object to the depreciation expense adjustment presented by the UTILITY; neither did it cross- examine to elicit the method used for its calculation nor move for a continuance based on surprise or inability to adequately verify the UTILITY's figures. Rather, it chose to defer examination of and rebuttal to the UTILITY's evidence until after the conclusion of hearing. Under such circumstances, the COMMISSION's posthearing submittal is insufficient to overcome the competent evidence adduced by the UTILITY. (Testimony of Asmus, Lowe; Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact, Pg. 3, 4; P.E. 10.) VII. Tariff Modifications By its application, the UTILITY also requested COMMISSION approval of proposed water and sewer tariff modifications. By stipulation of the parties, the following modifications to the UTILITY's tariffs are warranted: The initial connection charge and reconnect charge on delinquent accounts is TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) during working hours and FIFTEEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($15.00) after working hours. Customer deposit shall be FIFTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($50.00) for both water and sewer service and TWENTY-FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($25.00) for either water service alone or sewer service alone. Customer deposits may be increased to the foregoing sums on delinquent accounts after giving thirty (30) days' written notice, which notice shall be separate and apart from any bill for service. (Testimony of Fabelo; Prehearing Stipulation; P.E. 1, R.E. 3.) VIII. Rates The UTILITY seeks, and the COMMISSION recommends approval of these specific rates and charges: WATER RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES Base facility charge per month based on meter sizes for zero consumption. METER SIZE 5/8" x 3/4" $ 5.00 1" 12.50 1-1/2" 25.00 2" 40.00 Gallonage Charge-Per 1,000 gallons .75 General Service Base Facility charge per month based on meter sizes for zero consumption. METER SIZE 5/8" x 3/4" $ 5.00 1" 12.50 1-1/2" 25.00 2" 40.00 3" 80.00 4" 125.00 Gallonage Charge-Per 1,000 gallons .75 SEWER RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES Base facility charge per month $ 5.00 First 10,000 gallons-Per 1,000 gallons .75 Over 10,000 gallons-Monthly flat rate 12.50 General Service Base facility charge per month based on motor size for zero consumption. METER SIZE 5/8" x 3/4" 5.00 1" 12.50 1-1/2" 25.00 2" 40.00 3" 80.00 4" 125.00 Gallonage Charge-Per 1,000 gallons .75 These requested rates are structured using a base facility charge (BFC) rate design. This rate design requires customers to pay: (1) their pro-rata share of the UTILITY's fixed facility costs, and (2) a charge for pumping, treating, and delivering the actual water gallonage consumed, by 1,000 gallon increments; it equally distributes the costs of providing utility service and the COMMISSION encourages its use. (Testimony of Fabelo; Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact; P.E. 1, P.E. 3.) These rates proposed by the UTILITY will generate water revenues of $158,890 and sewer revenues of $58,865, which provide a rate of return on water rate base of 10.52 percent, and a zero return on sewer rate base. Combined water and sewer operations will earn a rate of return of .35 percent, whereas a fair rate of return in this case has been stipulated to be 12.40 percent. Although the proposed rates will not provide the UTILITY with a fair return, the quality of its present water and sewer service will not suffer, or be decreased in any manner. (Testimony of Blair, Asmus; P.E. 10.)
Conclusions The water and sewer rate increases and tariff modifications requested by Petitioner are just, reasonable, not unjustly discriminatory, and should be granted. Although the rates will provide less than a fair return, it has not been shown that Petitioner's service will suffer. Petitioner's collection of interim rate increases from its customers prior to the effective date of Order No. 9344 violates Section 367.081(1), Florida Statutes (1979); all revenue so collected should be refunded to its customers. Revised tariff pages should be filed, a letter explaining the rate increases should be sent to Petitioner's customers, and the Petitioner's letter of credit, returned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the UTILITY's application for approval of the rates specified in Paragraph 11, infra, be granted; That the UTILITY be required to submit, for COMMISSION approval, revised tariff pages containing the new rates and rate structure; That the UTILITY be required to send to its customers a letter, approved in form by the COMMISSION, explaining the rate increases and reasons therefore; That the irrevocable letter of intent drawn on the Pan American Bank, dated May 3, 1980, be returned to the UTILITY and the bank releaned thereafter; That the tariff modifications contained in Paragraph 10, infra, be approved; and That the UTILITY be required to expeditiously refund to its customers the interim rate increases collected prior to the effective date of PSC Order No. 9344. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for a variance from agency rules governing daily domestic sewage flow so as to authorize an increase in the number of seats for his restaurant located in Howey in the Hills, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Fletcher C. Bishop, Jr., is the owner of a parcel of property located at Lot 22, Block C-2, Lakeshore Heights Subdivision, 102 South Palm Avenue, Howey in the Hills, Florida. The property consists of .0946 acre, or approximately one-tenth of an acre, and is one of several parcels located in Block C-2. Since January 1997, the property has been leased to Robert P. Jencic, who now operates a pizza restaurant on the premises known as Hungry Howies Pizza Shop. According to Jencic, he has a contract to purchase the property from Bishop at the end of his lease, or on March 1, 1998. Whether the property was actually purchased by Jencic on that date is not of record. Lakeshore Heights Subdivision is not served by a central wastewater treatment system; rather, each lot is served by a septic tank and drainfield system. Lot 22 adjoins several other commercial or business establishments situated on Lots 20, 21, 23, and 23A in the western half of Block C-2, and all share a common drainfield easement located to the rear of the lots. Except for Lot 20, all lots have tied into the drainfield and now use the easement for waste disposal purposes. Because they share a common easement, each lot has been allocated a portion of the easement for its respective septic tank and drainfield. In Petitioner's case, he has been allocated approximately 990 square feet. After Jencic signed a commitment in January 1997 to lease and purchase the property, he made extensive renovations in order to convert the property to a restaurant. On or about February 20, 1997, Jencic met with a representative of the Lake County Health Department, an agency under the direction and control of Respondent, Department of Health (Department). At that time, Jencic filed an application for a site evaluation concerning the replacement of the existing onsite sewage disposal system. The application noted that he intended to operate a pizza restaurant with 56 proposed seats. On February 21, 1997, a site evaluation was conducted by Robin Gutting, a Lake County Department of Health environmental supervisor. According to her report [t]he property size of 4120 square feet with available central water will allow a maximum 236 gallons of sewage flow per day . . . This will allow a 12 seat restaurant using single service articles and operating less than 16 hours per day. . . The size of the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System would be a minimum 900 gallon tank with 197 square feet of drainfield trench configuration. (emphasis added) Jancic received a copy of the report on or about March 12, 1997, and it clearly conveyed to him the fact that he could operate no more than 12 seats in his restaurant due to sewage flow limitations on his property. Despite being on notice that the restaurant would be limited to only 12 seats due to the lot flow restrictions, on March 19, 1997, Jencic filed an application with the Lake County Health Department for a construction permit to replace the existing septic tank with a 900 gallon septic tank, install a 900 gallon grease trap, and utilize a 197 square-foot primary drainfield and a 200 square-foot bed system. The application indicated that Jencic intended to operate a restaurant "for 12 seats, single service, open less than 16 hours per day." On May 28, 1997, Jencic's application was approved for "12 seats, single service, open less than 16 hours per day." After installing the new tank and grease trap, Jencic began restaurant operations subject to the above restrictions. After operating his pizza restaurant for a short period of time, Jencic determined that he could generate a profit only if the restaurant could be expanded to allow more seats, and he could use china and silverware (full service articles) rather than single service articles (throwaway utensils). To do this, however, he would need a larger sewage treatment system. By letter dated November 9, 1997, Jencic requested a variance from various Department standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems so as to "increase the seating from 12 seats to a maximum of 36 seats and [authorize] the use of china, silverware, and dishes." Although the letter does not refer to any rules, the Department has treated the letter as seeking a variance from three of its rules found in Part I, Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. First, Rule 64E-6.001(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides that an establishment cannot exceed the lot flow allowances authorized under Rule 64E-6.005(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code. If the seating capacity in the restaurant were increased, Jencic would exceed the lot flow allowances in violation of this rule. Second, Rule 64E-6.005(7)(b), Florida Administrative Code, prescribes the manner in which a determination of lot densities shall be made. Among other things, daily sewage flow cannot exceed an average of 2,500 gallons per day per acre. The easement which Petitioner shares with other lots is far less than an acre, even counting the space allocated to the adjoining lots. Finally, Rule 64E-6.008(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that minimum design flows for systems serving a structure shall be based on the estimated daily sewage flow as determined by Table I of the rule. That table specifies an estimated daily sewage flow of 20 gallons per seat for restaurants using single service articles only and operating less than 16 hours per day. Therefore, a 12-seat restaurant with those operating characteristics would require a system that could handle at least 240 gallons of sewage flow per day. The table further provides that a restaurant operating 16 hours or less per day with full service will generate an estimated sewage flow of 40 gallons per seat. Thus, a restaurant with up to 36 seats, as Jencic has requested, would require a system handling at least 1,440 gallons of sewage flow per day. In order to qualify for a variance, an applicant must show that (a) the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant; (b) no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage; and (c) the discharge from the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. In its letter denying the variance, the Department asserts that Jancic has failed to show that items (a) and (c) have been satisfied. Jencic, who recently immigrated to this country, will suffer considerable financial hardship if the request for a variance is denied. Indeed, he demonstrated at hearing that his life savings have been invested in the restaurant, and his parents have placed a substantial mortgage on their property to assist him in his endeavor. If he does not purchase the property as required by his contract, he will be forced to restore the property to its original condition at great expense. In short, given his investment in renovations and equipment, unless the restaurant is expanded, he fears he must file for bankruptcy. Both parties agree that Jancic will suffer a hardship if the variance is not approved. However, Jancic was aware of the lot flow limitations before he made application to replace the existing septic tank in March 1997, and well before he began operating the restaurant in May 1997. Unfortunately, then, it must be found that the hardship was intentionally created by Jencic's own actions. If the variance were approved, it would result in a much larger amount of sewage being discharged into the easement, which could not handle that amount of flow. This in turn could cause the system to fail, thus creating a sanitary nuisance and the leaching of sewage into the groundwater. In this respect, Jancic has failed to show that the discharge will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. Jencic offered into evidence a summary of his water usage during a representative period in 1997. That document indicated that metered water usage was approximately 3,000 to 4,000 gallons per month, even when he temporarily (and without authority) expanded his restaurant to 24 seats during a recent two-month period to test water consumption at the higher seating capacity. However, because the sewage strength of a restaurant is far greater than that of a residence, a sewage system must be sized on estimated waste flow, and not metered water flow rates. Therefore, the fact that Jancic's monthly metered water usage is less than 4,000 gallons is not relevant to a determination of the issues. The same finding must be made with respect to Jancic's well-intentioned efforts to decrease water flow by installing high pressure toilets and timed spring systems on his hand sinks. Jencic also requested that he be allowed "spike time" during the hours of 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., which are his peak hours of the day. In other words, the undersigned assumes that he is asking that consideration be given to the fact that he has virtually no business during the other hours of the working day, and that the flow during the peak hours alone would not be excessive on a daily basis. However, the Department's rules are calculated to maximum usage, and thus a "spike" allowance is not allowed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a variance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert P. Jencic 102 South Palm Avenue Howey in the Hills, Florida 34737 Marya Reynolds Latson, Esquire Post Office Box 2408 Ocala, Florida 34478 James Hardin Peterson, III, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Should Petitioner's application for variance from the standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems be granted?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department, through its local health units, is the agency in the State of Florida responsible for permitting or granting variances from permitting standards set forth in Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code, for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (OSTDS). Sometime around 1970, Petitioner purchased a mobile home park (Park) in Winter Haven, Florida. The Park presently contains 68 spaces for mobile homes, all of which are occupied. The Park is situated due south of Lake Shipp. There are two canals running approximately east and west through the interior of the Park. Another canal borders the Park on the north side. Included with the purchase of the Park was a Sewage Treatment System (STS) which is permitted and regulated by the Department of Environmental Protection and is presently operating at its maximum capacity serving the 68 mobile homes located in the Park. Sometime around 1980, Petitioner purchased a parcel of land (Property) immediately north of, and across a canal (this is the canal that borders the north side of the Park) from, the Park. The Property borders a basin to Lake Shipp. The Property is zoned for mobile home usage and such is the purpose for which Petitioner purchased the Property. Petitioner has designed the Property such that it will accommodate three mobile home lots (Lots numbered 69, 70, and 71) which Petitioner intends to operate as part of the Park. Initially, Petitioner requested approval of the Department of Environmental Protection to connect the new lots to the existing STS. However, since the existing STS was already at capacity, the Department of Environmental Protection denied Petitioner's request to connect the additional three lots to that system. However, the Department of Environmental protection advised Petitioner that it would have no objection to the installation of septic tanks approved by the Department of Health to serve the additional lots. Subsequently, Petitioner proceeded to obtain the necessary approvals from the local governing authorities and a permit from the Department for the installation of septic tanks on the Property. Petitioner was successful in obtaining the necessary approvals from the local governing authorities but was not successful in obtaining a permit for the installation of septic tanks on the Property from the Department. By letter dated July 16, 1997, the Polk County Health Department denied Petitioner's Application for Onsite Sewage Treatment Disposal System Permit for the following reason: "Domestic sewage flow exceeds 10,000 gallons per day." The denial letter also advised Petitioner that she could request a variance through the Variance Review Board or request an administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, on the Department's denial of her application for a permit to install septic tanks on the Property. Petitioner elected to file an application for a variance from Section 381.0065(3)(b), Florida Statutes, with the Variance Review Board. By letter dated August 7, 1997, the Department denied Petitioner's application for variance for the following reasons: The Variance Review and Advisory Committee for the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Program has recommended disapproval of your application for variance in the case of the above reference property. The granting of variances from established standards is for relieving hardships where it can be clearly shown that the public's health will not be impaired and where pollution of groundwater or surface water will not result, where no reasonable alternative exists, and where the hardship was not intentionally caused by the action of the applicant. The advisory committee's recommendation was based on the failure of the information provided to satisfy the committee that the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant, no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage, or the discharge from the system will not adversely affect the health of the public. I concur with the advisory committee's recommendation and hereby deny your variance request. Subsequently, Petitioner requested and was granted a formal hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, on the denial of Petitioner's application for a variance. The Petitioner intends to locate the OSTDS on the Property. The tank and drain field for the OSTDS will be located approximately 125 feet from the basin. The City of Winter Haven's Sewage System is not available to the Property. The Park's existing STS does not have adequate capacity to accept the sewage that will be generated by the Property. There is no publicly-owned or investor-owned sewage system capable of being connected to the plumbing of the Property. Petitioner testified that the estimated cost of increasing the capacity of the Park's Sewage System to accommodate service to the three additional lots was $30,000.00 - $40,000.00. However, Petitioner presented no evidence as to how the estimate was determined. The projected daily domestic sewage flow from the Property is less than 1,500 gallons per acre per day. The Property contains 1.78 acres and there will be less than four lots per acre. In a letter dated October 17, 1997, from W. R. Cover, a professional engineer with Cover Engineering, Inc., Mr. Cover expresses the following opinion: The location of these proposed mobile homes is such that a septic system will not cause adverse effects or impacts on the environment or public health. The unit will be located so as not to significantly degrade groundwater or surface waters. There is no reasonable alternative for the treatment of the sewage in view of the fact that it would be an additional financial burden to attempt to connect these units to the existing sewage treatment plant Mr. Cover did not testify at the hearing. However, the letter was received as evidence without objection from the Department. Petitioner has failed to present sufficient evidence to show that: (a) no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage, and (b) the discharge from the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or the public or significantly degrade groundwater or surface waters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for variance from the requirements of Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes and Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Robert J. Antonello, Esquire Antonello, Fegers and Cea Post Office Box 7692 Winter Haven, Florida 33883-7692 Roland Reis, Esquire Department of Health 1290 Golfview Avenue, 4th Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-0293
Findings Of Fact Cooper City Utilities, Inc. provides water and sewer service to its customers in Broward County, Florida, under the jurisdiction of the Commission pursuant to Chapter 367, Florida Statutes. The company was incorporated in 1973. All of the outstanding stock of the utility was owned by Moses Hornstein until his death on October 28, 1979, when ownership thereof became vested in the estate of Moses Hornstein, deceased. The personal representatives of this estate are Gertrude Hornstein, S. Lawrence Hornstein, and Judith A. Goldman. Gertrude Hornstein serves as president of Cooper City Utilities, Paul B. Anton as vice president, and Lawrence Lukin as secretary. Quality of Service At the hearing, a representative of the Broward County Health Department testified concerning the quality of service. Although some customer complaints had been received, there are no outstanding citations against Cooper City Utilities, Inc., and the quality of the utility's service will be improved when its new lime-softening plant, under construction, is completed in approximately August, 1980. The investigation by the Commission's staff engineer did not reveal any outstanding citations against either the water or sewer treatment facilities. Accordingly, on the basis of the entire record, the evidence supports a finding that the utility is in compliance with all state standards, and that the quality of its water and sewer service is satisfactory. Rate Base and Operating Statement Between the time in July when public hearings commenced, and September 24 when the hearings concluded, the utility abandoned its position on several matters which had been in dispute, leaving only two controverted subjects for resolution. These two remaining areas of disagreement are, (1) the cost of money [because of a pending petition for approval of additional financing (Docket No. 800562-WS)], and (2) the expense for an additional field laborer hired subsequent to the test year, which the utility seeks to have included as a pro forma expense. Based on the stipulation of the parties, the following schedule sets forth the rate base of Cooker City Utilities (Exhibit 15): Water Sewer Utility plant in service $2,331,137 $3,723,347 Plant held for future use (47,989) (166,375) Accumulated depreciation (286,651) (460,297) CIAC (net of amortization) (1,322,487) (2,302,707) Working capital allowance 51,083 37,680 Rate Base $ 725,093 831,648 Based on the stipulation of parties, prior to any consideration of the allowance of any expense for the laborer hired subsequent to the test year, the following schedule sets forth the utility's operating statement (Exhibit 15): Water Sewer Operating Revenues $ 368,562 $ 489,886 Operating Expenses: Operation 346,916 232,406 Maintenance 61,750 69,030 Depreciation 22,447 25,543 Amortization -0- -0- Taxes other than income 55,853 75,043 Other expenses -0- -0- Income taxes -0- -0- Total Operating Expenses $ 486,566 $ 402,022 Operating Income (Loss) $ (118,404) 87,864 5. On the matter of allowance of sufficient revenue to cover the cost of one additional laborer hired after the test year, the estimated annual expense is approximately $7,240. However, to the extent that this employee was hired due to an increase in the number of customers subsequent to the test year, or due to plant capacity not used and useful, it is not a proper pro forma adjustment. Without an affirmative showing that the laborer was necessary during the test year for existing customers, the adjustment should be disallowed, and there is insufficient evidence in this record to support such a finding. On the issue of cost of money, during the test year the utility's capital structure was composed of one hundred percent debt at a stated cost of ten percent. In Docket No. 800562-WS the company seeks Commission authority to borrow an additional sum of $450,000, and it plans to amend this application to include authority to borrow $400,000 more in order to make refunds to customers in compliance with a Commission order which was upheld in Cooper City Utilities, Inc. v. Mann (Fla. Sup. Ct. Case No. 58,047, September 12, 1980). However, the utility's proposed debt has not yet been approved by the Commission, and will not be incurred until some time in the future, if approved. In these circumstances, it is not appropriate to take the cost of new debt into consideration in determining cost of capital in this rate case. The evidence in the record supports a ten percent cost of capital. The earned rate of return for the water system is a negative 16.33 percent. The earned rate of return for the sewer system is 10.57 percent. Therefore, the utility's water rates should be increased, and its sewer rates should be decreased, to achieve an overall ten percent rate of return. Accordingly, the annual revenue requirement for the water system is $564,370, which amounts to an annual revenue increase of $195,808. The annual revenue requirement for the sewer system is $485,067, which amounts to an annual revenue decrease of $4,819. Rate Structure The present rates of Cooper City Utilities are structured in the conventional manner, consisting of a minimum gallonage charge and a one-step excess rate over the minimum. The utility proposes. rates with the same basic structure, but with changes in the minimum charge and the minimum gallonage allowance. However, the Commission has consistently taken the position that any rate that requires customers to pay for a minimum number of gallons, whether used or not, is discriminatory. Invariably, a base facilities type of rate structure has been required to be implemented in these circumstances. Under the base facilities charge, each customer pays a pro-rata share of the related facilities cost necessary to provide service, and in addition, pays only the cost of providing the service actually consumed under the gallonage charge. The evidence in this record supports the implementation of the base facilities charge form of rate structure. Under its tariff, Cooper City Utilities is authorized to charge guaranteed revenues in an amount equal to the minimum rate for water service and the applicable rate for sewer service for each equivalent residential connection to be served for a period of one calendar year in advance. Under the base facilities charge type of rate structure, the utility should be authorized to collect guaranteed revenues solely in the amount of the base facilities charge.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Cooper City Utilities, Inc., 3201 Griffin Road, Suite 106, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33312, be granted for the water system and denied for the sewer system, and that the utility be authorized to file revised tariff pages, containing rates designed to produce annual gross revenues of $564,370 for its water system and $485,067 for its sewer system. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to implement a base facility charge type of rate structure. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to make appropriate refunds to its sewer customers in amounts to be approved by the Commission. It is further RECOMMENDED that the rate-refunding bond filed in this docket be maintained until the utility has accomplished the refunds indicated above. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 18th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew T. Lavin, Esquire Post Office Box 650 Hollywood, Florida 33022 Sam Spector, Esquire Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James L. Ade and William A. Van Nortwick, Esquires Post Office Box 59 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 John W. McWhirter, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 2150 Tampa, Florida 33601 Alan F. Ruf, Esquire 2801 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 William H. Harrold, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Application of Cooper City DOCKET NO. 800415-WS (CR) Utilities, Inc. for a rate increase ORDER NO. 9699 to its water and sewer customers in DOAH CASE NO. 80-1188 Broward County, Florida. ISSUED: 12-16-80 / The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter: WILLIAM T. MAYO GERALD L. GUNTER JOSEPH P. CRESSE JOHN R. MARKS, III Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William B. Thomas, held public hearings in this matter on July 16 and 17, and on September 23 and 24, 1980, in Cooper City, Florida. The Division of Administrative Hearings assigned Case No. 80-1188 to the above-noted docket. APPEARANCES: Andrew T. Lavin, Esquire Post Office Box 650 Hollywood, Florida 33022 and Sam Spector, Esquire Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 for the Petitioner, Cooper City Utilities, Inc. James L. Ade and William A. Van Nortwick, Esquires Post Office Box 59 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 for PCH Corporation Intervenor in opposition. John W. McWhirter, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 2150 Tampa, Florida 33601 and Alan F. Ruf, Esquire 2801 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 for the City of Cooper City, Florida, Intervenor in opposition. William H. Harrold, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 for the Respondent, Florida Public Service Commission and the public generally. The Hearing Officer's Recommended Order was entered on November 18, 1980. The time for filing exceptions thereto has expired and no exceptions have been filed. After considering all the evidence in the record, we now enter our order.
The Issue Whether, and to what extent, petitioner should be authorized to increase the water and sewer rates it charges its customers.
Findings Of Fact I. The Utility and its Application The Utility, a wholly owned subsidiary of Gulfstream Land and Development Corporation, owns and operates water and sewer systems serving residents of "Jacaranda Community," a development located within the city limits of Plantation, Florida. The Utility's water treatment plant uses a lime- softening process; its sewage treatment plant uses a contact stabilization mode. During the test year ending September 30, 1980, the Utility supplied water service to an average of 3,162 residential, 662 general service, and 14 private fire-line customers; during the same period it supplied sewer service to an average of 3,162 residential and 276 general service customers. By its February 5, 1981, application, the Utility alleged that it was authorized a rate of return of 9.87 percent, yet during the test year it earned only a 7.20 percent rate of return on its water rate base, and a 6.58 percent return on its sewer rate base. It proposed new rates which would generate $1,271,841 in water operating revenues and $1,381,401 in sewer operating revenues--constituting a rate of return of not less than 12.42 percent. (Testimony of Fabelo; Petitioner's application dated January 30, 1981, R-4.) II. The Elements of Rate-Making In setting utility rates, the Commission must determine: (1) rate base; 2/ (2) the cost of providing the service, including debt interest, working capital, maintenance, depreciation, tax, and operating expenses; (3) a fair return on the rate base; and (4) the quality of service provided. If the Utility is providing service of acceptable quality, it is entitled to rates which will produce revenues sufficient to cover its reasonable costs of operation and allow it an opportunity to earn a fair return on its rate base. There are three major issues in this case: two involve the determination of rate base and the other involves whether several Utility expenditures should be expensed or capitalized. These issues are addressed below with the the appropriate rate-making element. Rate Base The two issues involving rate base are: (1) what portion of the Utility's sewer treatment plant is used and useful in the public service; and what method should be used to calculate working capital allowance. Used and Useful Plant A public utility is entitled to a return only on Utility property which is "used and useful in the public service." 3/ At hearing, the Utility contended that 100 percent of its sewage treatment plant was used and useful; the Commission contended that the correct figure was 76 percent. 4/ The Utility's contention is accepted as more credible because it is based on a professional engineering analysis of actual wastewater flows through the sewage treatment plant during the test year and eight months thereafter. In contrast, the Commission's contention is based on application of a formula which relates total rated capacity of a plant to the number of Equivalent Residential Connections 5/ ("ERCs") it is capable of serving. Here, actual must prevail over theoretical fact. The Utility's sewage treatment plant has a rated capacity of 2.5 million gallons per day ("MGD"). During the test year, average daily flows, calculated monthly, fluctuated between 63.6 percent and 75.2 percent of the rated capacity; the average three-day peak flow, calculated monthly, ranged from 73.2 percent to 86.4 percent of capacity; and one-day peak flows ranged from 74.4 percent to 87.2 percent of capacity. During the eight months following the test year, sewage flow steadily increased. The greatest flow was during February, a relatively dry month; average daily flow was 2.20 MGD, 88 percent of rated capacity; the average three-day peak flow was 98.8 percent of capacity; and the peak flow day was 100.4 percent of capacity. If, on that peak flow day, the plant had only 76 percent of its present capacity, sewage would have overflowed the plant. The parties agree 6/ that a margin of reserve or allowance for growth of approximately 24 percent should be used in calculating the Utility's used and useful plant; they also agree that the Utility's future growth in ERCs is expected to range from 700 to 800 ERCs a year. The Commission argues that the 24 percent growth allowance should be added to average ERCs during the test year, and not to actual February, 1981, flows. This argument is unpersuasive. The test year period is a tool for predicting conditions which will exist during the period in which the new rates will be effective; rates are set prospectively, for the future--not the past. Thus, rates must take into account known changes and conditions occurring subsequent to the test year in order to accurately reflect conditions expected for the future. Here, the Utility's actual sewage flows indicate that 100 percent of its existing plant is used and useful and necessary to satisfy the immediate and anticipated future needs of its customers. In an attempt to rebut or overcome the effect of the sewage plant's actual flow conditions, the Commission contends that the sewage system is experiencing ground water infiltration of sufficient magnitude to cast doubt on the use of total flow figures. However, the infiltration does not exceed the amount which is ordinarily planned for in constructing sewage treatment plants. Infiltration which will continue to take place--despite the Utility's best efforts to ameliorate it--cannot be separated from the wastewater stream. Since the plant must be capable of handling the combined flow, including infiltration, total flow figures must be considered. The Commission also contends that the system is not 100 percent used and useful because it can serve more connections. This contention is inconsistent with the acknowledged requirement that a sewage treatment plant must be capable of accepting increased sewage flows reasonably anticipated in the near future. That is the purpose of including an allowance for growth in the used and useful calculation. Lastly, the Commission contends that the Utility's failure to consult with Department of Environmental Regulation officials about future plant expansion is inconsistent with its 100 percent used and useful claim. But the Utility, recognizing its present limits and future needs, has actively pursued an interlocal agreement which will allow it to pump approximately 700,000 GPD to Broward County's regional sewage facility. The agreement is in its final stages and approval is eminent. (Testimony of Ring, Farina, Walden; P-1, p-2, R-1.) Cash Working Capital Allowance Cash working capital is the amount of investors' supplied cash needed to operate a utility during the interval between rendition of service and receipt of payment from the customers. By including it in rate base, a utility is allowed to earn a return on this portion of its investment. A utility's working capital requirements may be calculated by using: a standardized formula; (2) the utility's balance sheet; or (3) a lead-lag study. Until June, 1981, the Commission routinely used the formula approach; working capital was calculated by multiplying 12.5 percent (equivalent to one- eighth of a year) times the utility's annual adjusted operations and maintenance expenses. This method is also facilitated by Commission Rule 25- 10.176(2)(a)2.g., Florida Administrative Code which requires that water and sewer rate adjustment applications include a schedule showing: g. Allowance for working capital (1/8 of annual operations and maintenance expenses for the test year.) Id. In this case--consistent with the Commission's rule and custom--the Utility seeks a working capital allowance derived by using the standard Commission formula. However, the Commission seeks to use, instead, the balance sheet approach--an approach which it contends is more precise than the standard formula and results in a closer correlation between the Utility's rate base and its capital structure. The Commission's contention is accepted as persuasive. Under the balance sheet method, working capital allowance is the difference between a utility's current assets and current liabilities. Thus, the working capital component of rate base is derived, by simple adjustments, from a utility's balance sheet; it originates in the balance sheet's capital structure, just as do the other components of rate base. In comparison, the formula approach originates from a utility's income statement, i.e., one-eighth of its annual operating and maintenance expenses. The one-eighth factor equates to a 45-day lag--a period of time assumed to cover the lapse between the rendering of service and payment by the customer. But this assumption, while generally useful, may not accurately depict the working capital requirement of a given utility. In this case, the balance sheet approach is a more precise method for determining the Utility's working capital requirements. The Utility poses two objections to calculating working capital allowance by the balance sheet method: (1) it deviates from the Commission's prior practice in water and sewer rate cases, and (2) it may result in a negative allowance when a utility has insufficient cash to pay its current bills; thus a utility in greatest need of working capital would receive the least allowance. As to the objection that the balance sheet method represents a departure from past practice, the Commission has flexibility to expand, refine, and alter its policy through individual case decisions provided its action is explained and justified by record evidence. 7/ The Commission has not, by rule, limited that flexibility. Rule 25-10.176(2)(a)2.g. only requires applicants for rate adjustments to show their working capital requirements by applying the formula method; it does not preclude the Commission or utilities from using an alternative method more suitable to the facts of a given case. For example, it is generally recognized that, if a lead-lag study is conducted, it will prevail over the formula method. The Utility's second objection (that a cash-poor utility receives a lesser working capital allowance), is based on a hypothetical case and has no application to the facts here; the Utility has sufficient current assets and the balance sheet method results in a positive working capital allowance. This finding in favor of the balance sheet method is based on the evidence presented; its effect is thus necessarily limited to this case. Should the Commission--in future cases--advocate the balance sheet method, as opposed to the formula method, it must again explain and justify its position, insofar as possible, by conventional proof. 8/ Unless its policy is adopted by rule, an agency must repeatedly establish and defend it. 9/ The other components of the Utility's rate base, as adjusted, are not in dispute. Water and sewer rate base are therefore $3,369,160 and $4,099,887, respectively, and are depicted below: RATE BASE Test Year Ending September 30, 1900 Water Sewer Utility Plant in Service $5,919,833 $9,210,212 Utility Plant Held for Future Use (145,384) (644,429) Construction Work in Progress 265,300 -0- Accumulated Depreciation (616,835) (954,300) Contributions in Aid of Construction--Net (2,293,690) (3,579,118) Working Capital Allowance 39,936 59,522 Materials and Supplies -0- -0- TOTAL $3,369,160 $4,099,887 (Testimony of Davis, Asmus; P-6, R-2, R-3.) Net Operating Income The Commission opposes several operation, maintenance, and depreciation expenses which the Utility proposes to include in the test year statement of operations. The Hardy Gross Analysis The Hardy Cross Analysis is a computer analysis of the entire water distribution system. It indicates loss of pressure, balances water flows, and determines residual pressure at the end points of the system. It is a useful and necessary informational tool in designing additions to water distribution systems: it allows the designer to properly size new pipes added to the system. Growth, such as that experienced by the Utility, requires that such an analysis be updated at least once a year. The parties do not dispute the value of such an analysis, its cost, or the necessity for its actual updating. They dispute only who should bear the cost: the existing rate-payers or the developers which require and benefit from the continued expansion of the water system. It is concluded that the recurring cost of updating the Hardy Cross Analysis should be borne by developers, and, indirectly, the future customers who are the primary beneficiaries of the annual updating; without the growth associated with new developments, the annual updating of the Hardy Gross Analysis would be unnecessary. It would be unfair to require existing customers to pay for services--through higher rates--which they do not require and from which they receive no significant benefit. (Testimony of Farina, Walden.) Review of City of Plantation Utility Standards In 1969, the City of Plantation, where the Utility's water and sewer systems are located, enacted an ordinance containing detailed technical standards governing the construction of water and sewer systems. Historical experience has indicated that the standards incorporated in the ordinance require annual review, and periodic revision; the Utility's participation in that process is reasonably necessary to its continued efficient operation. A necessary expense of $1,000 should be allowed and charged as an operation expense to each system--water and sewer. (Testimony of Farina.) Diesel Fuel On June 16, 1980--during the last quarter of the test year--the Utility installed two auxiliary power units which utilize diesel fuel. Since the two power units were not in service during the entire test year, the Utility seeks to annualize the cost of the diesel fuel consumed during the 3 1/2-month period and include it as a recurring operating expense. 10/ The Commission opposes annualizing the fuel costs on the ground that sufficient documentation was not presented by the Utility to justify the actual consumption of fuel by the power units and establish that such consumption represented normal operation of the Utility, i.e., that it is reasonably expected that such annual consumption will repeatedly occur in the future. The Commission's contention is accepted as persuasive. The Utility has the burden of supporting its claimed expenses with adequate documentation. 11/ Here, no evidence was presented to establish the actual periods of operation of the auxiliary generators or the conditions under which they were used; nor were rated consumption of fuel figures supplied. The alternate treatment suggested by the Commission--amortize initial diesel fuel fill-up cost over three years, placing one-third of it in expense and adding the other two-thirds to materials and supplies 12/ --is a reasonable method of treating the fuel expenditures. (Testimony of Davis, Walden, Asmus; R-2, R-3.) Amortization of Legal Expense Relating to Proposed CIAC Rules The Utility contends that the Commission is contemplating further CIAC 13/ rule making thus necessitating the expenditure of recurring legal expenses in the total amount of $778. However, although the Commission is now considering the adoption of CIAC rules, recurring revisions in the future are not reasonably expected. In the last ten years, the Commission has had one rule docket pertaining to CIAC rule making. Amortization of this expense is therefore unjustified. (Testimony of Davis.) Adjustment for Increased Chemical Costs Because of escalating costs of chemicals, the Utility proposes to adjust the water and sewer chemicals account by applying June, 1981, prices to the quantity of chemicals consumed during the test year. The Commission opposes the proposed adjustment, contending that the Utility's new lime-feeding equipment will result in lower lime costs. The Utility's adjustments 14/ are accepted as credible; since a new Zeolite treatment plant will soon be coming on-line, it is reasonably expected that lime requirements, associated with the water-softening process, will--if anything--increase. (Testimony of Farina, Davis, Asmus; R-6.) Maintenance Expenses: Amortization of Post Test-Year Gearbox Repairs The Utility proposes to include in sewer maintenance expense amortization of the cost of a gearbox repair incurred subsequent to the test year. The Commission proposes to amortize--for three to five years--all major repairs incurred during the test year. The Utility has not amortized such extraordinary repairs during each of the last five years; it contends that such historical amortization is necessary to arrive at a representative figure for extraordinary repair on an on-going basis, that the Commission cannot begin--for the first time--to amortize such repairs during the test year. The Utility proposes to simply adjust sewer maintenance expense by $3,386--an admittedly rough estimate. The Utility's accountant admits: It would be a lot more exact to go back five years and apply it [amortization of extraordinary repairs] down the line. . .but that's very time-consuming. (Tr. 192.) It is undisputed that the Utility--to properly account for extraordinary maintenance repairs--should amortize such expenses through the expected life of the repairs. The Utility has not done so to repairs incurred during the last five years. The substitution of an "estimate" of expected future repair costs for a preferable and more exact accounting method is unacceptable and should be rejected. (Testimony of Davis, Asmus.) Depreciation Expense The finding, infra, paragraph A(1) that the Utility's sewer plant is 100 percent used and useful necessarily requires an adjustment to the Commission's proposed depreciation expense. The adjustment increases depreciation, for sewer operations, by $11,897. (Testimony of Asmus; R-6.) The net operating income which a utility should be allowed the opportunity to earn is reached by multiplying rate base by a fair rate of return. 15/ Operating expense and taxes (income and gross receipts tax) are then added to net operating income to calculate gross revenue requirements. In this case, the Utility's net operating income should be $414,743 from water operations and $504,696 from sewer operations. Before gross revenue requirements can be determined, operating expense and taxes should be recalculated consistent with the above findings; such recalculation should be conducted by the Commission, verified by the Utility, and included as part of the Commission's final order entered in this proceeding. Rate Structure, Allocation, and Rate Design The Utility's present rates are structured in accordance with what is commonly referred to as the base facility rate design. The purpose of this design is to require customers to pay their pro rata share of the Utility's cost of providing the service. It is objectively determined and results in an equitable and consistent distribution of the costs involved. Both parties agree that the new rates should also be structured in accordance with the base facility rate design. However, the new rates should eliminate the present 25 percent rate differential between commercial and residential rates--a differential that has not been justified and which the Utility no longer seeks to impose. Motorola, Inc., a large industrial customer of the Utility, requested more favorable rate treatment because of the large volume of water it consumes. However, insufficient cost of service information was submitted to justify a "volume discount." A cost of service study is necessary to accurately allocate costs of service among customer classes. (Testimony of Fabulo, Asmus; R-4.) Quality of Service Several customers complained that the Utility's water had offensive color and taste. Eight complaints were filed with the Broward County Health Department during 1980. However, the preponderance of evidence establishes that the Utility's water and sewer systems are in compliance with local and state standards. Neither system is under any citation or enforcement action instituted by a regulatory agency. The quality of the water and sewer service provided is, therefore, determined to be satisfactory. (Testimony of Farina, Walden; P-11)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Utility be authorized to file rate tariffs consistent with the provisions of this Recommended Order. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1981.
