The Issue The issues to be determined are whether the water service provided by Lands, Inc. of Rhinelander meets all pertinent quality standards of the Public Service Commission and the Department of Environmental Regulation, the establishment of an appropriate rate structure for the utility, and a determination of the amount of revenue which will be lost, reasonable and compensatory, but not unfairly discriminatory, pursuant to Section 367.081 of the Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Quality of Service Two customers of the utility, a representative of the utility, as well as a Public Service Commission engineer, testified regarding the quality of water service provided. Water quality meets all pertinent regulatory standards; however, the public witnesses have experienced problems with low pressure during peak usage periods of the day. This intermittent problem with insufficient water pressure will soon be alleviated by the installation and operation of an additional supply well. Thus, the company's water production, treatment and delivery efficiency complies with all regulatory standards and is found to be satisfactory. Rate Base The utility alleged a valuation of $15,552.00 for its plant in service "used and useful" in serving the customers. Adjustments to that figure to allow for accumulated depreciation, contributions-in-aid-of-construction, accumulated depreciation on contributions-in-aid-of-construction, a working capital allowance, as well as an allowance for income tax lag established the correct rate base for the water system, upon which a rate of return may be earned, to be $13,143.00. The adjustments supportive of that figure appear in more detail in Schedule I attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The utility ultimately agreed with that figure for rate base. It is appropriate and should be accepted. Cost of Capital Representatives from the Public Service Commission presented evidence on the issue of cost of capital. The utility presented no independent evidence on this issue but agreed with the position espoused by the Public Service Commission. Lands, Inc. of Rhinelander is the parent company of which the utility is a division, and consequently the capital structure of the parent company was appropriately employed. The capitalization consists of 56.58 percent debt and 43.42 percent equity, with a debt cost rate of 7 percent. The cost rate or appropriate return ascribed to the equity portion of the capital structure is 14.75 percent. Employment of this capital structure then results in a calculated weighted cost of capital or return on rate base of 10.36 percent. No evidence was offered in opposition to this demonstrated capital structure nor the ultimate rate of return on rate base derived therefrom. Thus, the use of this capital structure in this proceeding and the resultant return on the utility's rate base is appropriate and should be allowed. Revenue Requirement Schedule II, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, details the various operation and maintenance expenses, such as chlorine, electric power purchased, salaries and administrative expenses and others, as well as depreciation on invested plant, taxes other than income, and income taxes, for a total actual operating expense of $5,014.00. In order to achieve the appropriate 10.36 percent rate of return on rate base, a net operating income of $1,362.00 is required. Accordingly, the sum of the two figures demonstrates that a total annual operating revenue for the utility of $6,376.00 is necessary. This revenue figure represents an increase of $3,571.00 over the test year revenue actually received by the utility ($27,805.00), and which resulted in an operating loss posture for that test year. The above figures and calculations were essentially uncontroverted by the utility. Rate Structure At the time of the initial petition in this cause, the customers of the utility were unmetered and were charged a flat rate for water service. The Public Service Commission thereafter entered Order No. 8455 on August 29, 1979, ordering installation of water meters and implementation of a base facility charge rate design. In order to allow the Commission to obtain data on metered rates over a twelve-month time span, the utility also agreed to waive the eight- month time period during which a decision should be entered in the cause pursuant to Chapter 367.081(5), Florida Statutes. The meters were installed on March 1, 1979, thus the utility has in excess of a year's experience operating under the interim and metered rates. The rates thus put into effect for the test period produced annual revenues at the rate of $2,805.85. During this test period, the utility supplied water to an average of 46 single family residential customers and all customers are metered. Approximately 28 percent of all customers billed are seasonal, so that a substantial portion of their bills are for zero consumption. The interim rates were structured using the base facility charge (BFC) rate design. The rationale for this type of rate design is to establish a monthly charge whose foundation is based on the actual fixed cost of providing service to the residential customer. Such a charge provides coverage for expenses such as depreciation, an allocated portion of billing and collecting expense, property taxes, debt interest, maintenance of mains and services, etc. The amount of the charge is determined by an "equivalent residential connection" (ERC) formula, using a standard five-eights inch by three-quarter inch meter as the basis. There is no charge for gallonage consumed included in the framework of this base charge. The second portion of this type of rate structure is designed to establish a charge for the pumping, treating and delivery of the water to the customer. Thus, this additional charge would cover associated costs such as pumping expenses, treatment expenses, the unallocated portion of billing and collecting expenses, meter reading expenses, and other varying costs. The basic reason for such a charge is that each customer will thus pay his prorata share of the related facility cost necessary to provide service and then would pay for only the gallons actually consumed under the gallonage portion of the charge. This design helps alleviate the discriminatory charge problem associated with part-time residents, since such residents are required to pay their prorated share of the cost of providing service. Such an approach is an important factor in this utility's rate design since a substantial number of the customers are seasonal or part-time residents. The base facility charge rate design should thus be continued in the permanent rates. The utility is presently collecting a $30.00 per year "standing fee" for vacant lots. The Commission has in the past allowed the utility to collect this type of fee up to the amount of the actual meter installation charge. Thus, when a customer taps into the system, the meter installation charge is the difference between the charge and the fees previously collected for the vacant lot. The utility has requested increased meter installation charges. The present meter installation fees include the cost of the meter, the meter box, the labor and the cost of tapping into the water main. Such service availability charges should be divided into a meter installation fee and a tap fee. The meter installation fee would be in a fixed dollar amount representing the average cost incurred by the utility to install the meter, meter box, and the associated labor. (Rule 25-10(17), Florida Administrative Code.) The tap fee would then be the actual cost to the utility of tapping into the water main and extending the service pipeline from the main to the customer's installation. (Rule 25-10(22), Florida Administrative Code.) The Public Service Commission has agreed to the utility's request for the increased service availability charges and they should be allowed, separated into separate charges for meter installation and tapping fees.
Recommendation Accordingly, in consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Lands, Inc. of Rhinelander, Route 1, Box 425-B1, Floral City, Florida 32636, be GRANTED and that that utility be authorized to receive gross annual revenues for its water service of $6,376.00, to be achieved by rates filed with and approved by the Public Service Commission. It is further RECOMMENDED: That the utility be required to adopt a base facility charge concept of rate design for its water rates and to make concomitant changes in its tariff. It is further RECOMMENDED: That service availability charges be increased and separated into two portions, a meter installation fee and a tap fee, with the meter installation fee to be a fixed amount representing the average cost incurred by the utility to install meters, meter boxes and attendant labor. The tap fee should he the actual cost to the utility of tapping into the water main in extending the service line from the main to the customer's residential installation. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 3rd day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: C. J. Parker Route 1, Box 425-B1 Floral City, Florida 32636 Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Public Service Commission Legal Department 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether, and to what extent, Magnolia Valley Services, Inc., should be allowed to increase its water and sewer service rates.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: I. The Application By application filed on August 14, 1980, APPLICANT sought authority to increase its water and sewer rates, on an interim and permanent basis, in amounts sufficient to produce $60,847 in annual gross water revenues, and $100,768 in sewer revenues. By Order No. 9571 dated September 30, 1980, the COMMISSION authorized an interim sewer revenue increase, under bond, of $8,205, and denied an interim increase in water revenues. The COMMISSION has approved APPLICANT's use of a test year ending December 31, 1979. At hearing, the APPLICANT amended its application by reducing its requested water revenues to $50,287, and increasing requested sewer revenues to $101,522. (Testimony of Gregg, Prehearing Statement; P-4.) II. Depreciation Rate Depreciation is a method of allocating the cost of fixed assets to their estimated useful life. As an above-the-line operating expense, it affects a utility's net operating income; by its impact on accumulated depreciation of plant-in-service and accumulated amortization of contributions-in-aid-of- construction, it also effects calculation of rate base. (Testimony of Walker, Gregg; P-3, R-1.) The COMMISSION has promulgated no rules as guidelines which establish generally, or in particular, the useful life of utility assets or the method by which their depreciation should be calculated. In practice, however, it has allowed utilities to apply a straight-line 2.5 percent depreciation rate and a 40-year useful life to all depreciable assets. Any deviation from this 2.5 percent across-the-board rate must be justified by the utility. (Testimony of Heiker.) Here, the APPLICANT proposes depreciation rates which vary according to the estimated useful life of the plant or equipment involved. In contends that its shorter estimates of useful life of specific assets reflect reality and actual experience more accurately than an across-the-board 40-year life standard. For example, rate meters are routinely replaced on a 20-year basis and lack of reserve capacity and changing voltages have substantially reduced the expected life of electrical motors and equipment. The APPLICANT's estimates of useful life were established by the opinion of a utility consultant and engineer whose qualifications went unchallenged by the COMMISSION; no competent evidence was offered to discredit or rebut his conclusions. The COMMISSION's engineer candidly admitted that depreciation "is really a nebulous thing," (Tr. 64) and declined to assert that the APPLICANT's depreciation schedules were erroneous. (Tr. 69.) The COMMISSION disputed the APPLICANT's depreciation schedules by referring to an unpublished 1973 staff memorandum retained at the agency's offices and not produced at hearing. That memorandum purportedly adopted 1973 depreciation rates developed by the American Water Works Association. Upon motion of APPLICANT, testimony concerning the contents of that memorandum was subsequently stricken. The COMMISSION engineer also testified that he was unfamiliar, even generally, with how the American Water Works Association's depreciation rates were derived. In light of the quality of the evidence presented of record, the APPLICANT's depreciation rates (including estimated useful life) are accepted as persuasive. (Testimony of Heiker, Gregg; P-1, P-3.) III. Attrition Allowance The APPLICANT seeks to include in operating expenses an attrition allowance of $1,992 for water and $8,161 for sewer operations based on alleged attrition it experienced between 1975 and 1979. It defines attrition as increased annual expenses which cannot be recovered at the time they are incurred. The COMMISSION opposes the requested attrition allowance on the grounds that: (1) the attrition study performed by the APPLICANT is unreliable, and (2) that the recent enactment of Section 367.081(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), which allows the passing through of certain increased expenses to customers, eliminates the need for a special attrition allowance. (Testimony of Gregg, Walker; P-2.) The COMMISSION's position is well taken. First, a major portion of the cost increases experienced by the APPLICANT in the past will be able to be passed through to its customers pursuant to Section 367.081, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980). 2/ Those costs include increased power costs and ad valorem taxes. The APPLICANT responds that Section 367.081(4), supra, will not enable it to fully recover increasing expenses when they occur because rates may be adjusted, based on increased operating costs, not more than twice a year. Section 367.081(4)(e), supra. However, this new law should be implemented before it is pronounced inadequate to fulfill its purpose. Experience may show that major costs increase sporadically, or at predictable cycles, which facilitate carefully timed rate increases under Section 367.081(4), and that two such increases a year may prove fully adequate. (Testimony of Gregg, Walker; P- 2, R-1.) Secondly, the attrition study (P-2) submitted by the APPLICANT does not reasonably justify, or provide a reliable basis for projecting an attrition rate into the future. The 1975-1979 historical cost increases have not occurred at a constant rate. The 1979 increase in water operation costs was less than one- half of the average increase experienced between 1975 and 1979; in sewer operations, the 1979 cost increases were less than one-third of the four-year average. Moreover, a major factor in increased sewer costs was the 1978 conversion to a spray irrigation, total retention, sewage treatment system. Since this system meets the 1983 federal Clean Water Act standard of no- discharge, it is unlikely that increased operational costs relating to treatment changes will continue to occur. In short, the 1975-1979 historical cost increases of APPLICANT have been sporadic and do not support an assumption that they will continue to occur at the same rate. To include an attrition allowance based on such an assumption would be unwarranted. (Testimony of Gregg, Walker; P-2, R-1.) IV. Allowance of an Undocumented Operating Charge The APPLICANT proposed a $600 sewer expense item which was opposed by the COMMISSION because of lack of documentation. In response, the APPLICANT submitted--immediately prior to hearing--a cancelled check in the amount of $1,000. The discrepancy between the two amounts remains unexplained. Such action falls short of providing adequate documentation, and the proposed $600 sewer expense item must therefore be rejected. See, 25-10.77, FAC. V. Elements of Ratemaking and Applicant's Gross Revenue Requirements The parties agree: (1) that 14.5 percent is a fair and reasonable rate of return on rate base and reflects the actual cost of capital to APPLICANT; that the new rates should be designed in accordance with the base facility design concept, and that the quality of APPLICANT's water and sewer service is satisfactory. The remaining elements of ratemaking--rate base and net operating income--are not in dispute, and are depicted below: 3/ RATE BASE Test Year Ended 12/31/79 Water Sewer Plant in Service Accumulated $269,887 $511,200 Depreciation $(37,384) 4/ $(54,685) Net Plant $232,503 $456,515 Contributions in Aid of Construction (179,251) (360,055) Accumulated Amortization 22,421 Net Contributions in Aid of 4/ 41,231 4/ Construction (156,830) (318,824) Working Capital 3,515 7,082 TOTAL $ 79,188 $144,773 OPERATING STATEMENT Test Year Ended 12/31/79 Water Sewer Operating Revenues $53,300 $72,608 Operating Expenses: Operations 25,552 45,353 Depreciation 3,848 5/ 4,876 5/ Maintenance 2,572 6/ 11,306 6/ Amortization 1,439 Taxes Other Than Income 4,654 7/ 8,338 7/ TOTAL Operating Expenses $36,626 $71,312 Net Operating Income$16,674 $ 1,296 By applying a 14.5 percent rate of return against a rate base Of $79,188 for water and $144,773 for sewer, it is concluded that the APPLICANT should be allowed an opportunity to earn a return, or net operating income of $11,482 for water and $20,992 for sewer. Annual gross revenues of $48,108 (water) and $92,304 (sewer) are required to produce such a return--resulting in a net annual reduction of water revenues of $5,192 and a net increase of $19,696 in sewer revenues. VI. Interruption of Service Treatment Without Advance Notice Although the overall quality of its service has been adequate, infra, the APPLICANT has unnecessarily inconvenienced customers by interrupting water service without advance notice. These interruptions were planned in advance and not made on an emergency basis. The APPLICANT failed to adequately explain or excuse its failure to give timely notice. (Testimony of Pepper.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Magnolia Valley Services, Inc., be authorized to file new rates structured on the base facility charge concept and designed to generate gross annual revenues of $48,108 for water operations and $92,304 for sewer operations, based on the average number of customers served during the test year. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be directed to strictly comply in the future with Section 25-10.56, Florida Administrative Code, by giving advance notice of service interruptions which are not emergency in nature. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of April, 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 1st day of April, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts relevant to the four issues presented for determination are found: WORKING CAPITAL In calculating debt and equity costs for the petitioner, it is appropriate to use the parent company's capital structure. Here, forty percent (40 percent) of the parent's capital structure is equity and sixty percent (60 percent) is debt. In order to support its operating and/or construction activities, the petitioner receives advances from its parent company, Utilities, Inc., a Delaware corporation, or from its subsidiary, Water Service Corporation. The petitioner has treated these advances as part of its equity structure since there is a cost to these funds to petitioner, in substance if not in form. If these funds do have a specific, identifiable cost in the test year ending December 31, 1979, such as interest, they are properly includable as part of petitioner's equity structure. Pursuant to an Agreement between petitioner and its parent, the monetary advances by petitioner's parent company or its subsidiary to support petitioner's operating and/or construction activities will bear interest at the end of each calendar quarter at the rate of prime plus one quarter of one percent per annum on the average advances outstanding during the quarter. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10). This is a known and identifiable cost, and therefore the position taken by the petitioner regarding working capital allowance is correct. The proper amount attributable as "working capital allowance" is $54,699 for the water rate base and $28,179 for the sewer rate base for the test year ending December 31, 1979. UNCOLLECTIBLE REVENUES For the years 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980, the petitioner's bad debt expense averaged 1.2 percent of its total revenues. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9). The petitioner proposes a pro forma bad debt expense contending that the number of people who do not pay their bills remains essentially constant and that as rates increase, the dollars increase in relationship to the rates. In other words, petitioner proposes that the annual expense for uncollectible accounts should be increased by the same percentage that the test year dollars uncollected from customers who did not pay their bills relates to the amount of dollars which would be collected under the increased rate. The respondent's witness felt there had been no proof of the direct relationship between the increase in uncollectible accounts. In designing rates for the future, the amount of the customer's consumption of utility services during the test year are employed on the assumption that past consumption will represent future consumption. ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION The petitioner has requested an adjustment in its depreciation rate from 2.0 to 2.86 percent, based on all facilities other than general plant. The respondent has concurred with this requested increase to 2.86 percent, but would apply that depreciation rate to the beginning of the 1979 test year, thereby treating the difference as a deduction in rate base. If the adjusted rate is applied to the expense side, it must also be applied to the investment side, according to respondent's accounting analyst. The petitioner feels that the depreciation expense should be treated as a reduction in rate base only to the extent that it has been allowed in previous rates and collected from the customers. The increased expense will not be collected until the year 1981. The effect of charging the increased depreciation back to the 1979 test year would mean a $9,732 reduction in the water rate base and an $8,540 reduction in the sewer rate base. RATE OF RETURN The petitioner and the respondent agree that petitioner's capital structure is composed of forty percent equity and sixty percent debt capital, and that the cost of debt is 9.63 percent, for a weighted cost of 5.78 percent. The petitioner feels that the appropriate return to be placed on equity capital is 19.63 percent, for a weighted cost of 7.89 percent and an overall 13.63 percent return on rate base. The respondent would place the cost rate for equity at 16 percent, for a weighted cost of 6.40 percent and an overall 12.18 percent return on rate base. The petitioner utilized three methods of calculation to arrive at its proposed rate of return on equity capital, and then averaged the three results. One such method was to create a hypothetical Ba rating and then add a risk factor of 4 percent, resulting in a cost of equity of 20.7 percent. A second method, utilizing a combination of dividend yield on listed water companies and a growth factor, resulted in a cost of equity capital of 18.72 percent. The third approach involved the addition of the 4 percent risk factor of equity over debt to the average yield outstanding for various water companies, resulting in a return of 18.4 percent, Considering an attrition allowance on equity capital of 1.2 percent, a 14.7 percent overall rate of return would be within the bounds of a reasonable rate of return. Utilizing a comparable earnings analysis of nonregulated and regulated utilities, including electric, gas and telephone as well as water and sewer utilities, and taking dividend yield rates and adding growth rates, respondent's financial analyst computed the reasonable range of the cost of equity for the Florida water and sewer industry to be between 14.25 and 16.25 percent. With the equity ratio being 40 percent, respondent's witness recommended a 16 percent return on equity, with permission to fluctuate plus or minus one percent. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Members of the public who testified at the hearing were concerned with increased charges for water and sewer service since many of them were on fixed and limited incomes. While one witness complained of mosquito larvae in a dish of water left over a weekend for a dog, other witnesses opined that they had received good service from the petitioner.
Conclusions In consideration of the above and the entire record, we make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Utilities, Inc. of Florida is a public utility subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission. The value of the Utility's rate base devoted to public service on which it is entitled to earn a fair return is $589,663 for its water division and $427,422 for its sewer division. The Company's adjusted net operating income for the test year was $18,847 and $24,405 for its water and sewer divisions, respectively. A range of 15 percent to 17 percent constitutes a fair and reasonable return on equity for Utilities, Inc. of Florida with rates to be set at the mid- point of 16 percent which gives an overall rate of return of 12.18 percent. The rates collected on an interim basis pursuant to Order Nos. 9446 and 9559 were lawful, just and reasonable and the revenues received thereunder should be retained by the Company. That the revised rates, as authorized herein constitute just, reasonable compensatory and not unfairly discriminatory rates within the meaning of Chapter 367, Florida Statutes. The use of a base facility charge rate structure eliminates discrimination against seasonal customers and encourages conservation and is appropriate for use in this docket. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF, it is ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that each and every finding of fact and conclusion of law as expressed herein is approved. It is further ORDERED that Utilities, Inc. of Florida is hereby authorized to file rate schedules consistent herewith designed to generate gross annual revenues of $350,316 for the water system and $206,865 for the sewer system, which represent increases over the test year revenues of $85,007 and $41,335, respectively. It is further ORDERED that Utilities, Inc. of Florida will make refunds to its water customers consistent with the discussion in the body of this order. It is further ORDERED that the rates approved as a result of this Order shall be effective for consumption after the date of this order, but no bills will be rendered thereunder until after the filing and approval of revised tariff pages appropriate with this Order. It is further ORDERED that the Company include in each bill during the first billing cycle during which this increase is effective a bill stuffer explaining the nature of the increase, average level of increase, a summary of the tariff changes, and the reasons therefor. Said bill stuffer shall be submitted to the Commission's Water and Sewer Department for approval prior to implementation. By Order of the Florida Public Service Commission this 9th day of June , 1981. (SEAL) HDB Steve Tribble COMMISSION CLERK
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioner's application for a rate increase be granted as requested except for adjustments made for uncollectible debts or accounts. Respectfully submitted and entered this 5th day of March, 1981. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 5th day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: R.M.C. Rose Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kevin and Richards Suite 103 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry D. Boswell Staff Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Application of UTILITIES, DOAH CASE NO. 80-1893 INC. OF FLORIDA for an increase DOCKET NO. 800395-WS(CR) in water and sewer rates in ORDER NO. 10049 Seminole and Orange Counties, ISSUED: 6-9-81 Florida. / The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter: JOSEPH P. CRESSE, Chairman GERALD L. GUNTER JOHN R. MARKS, III KATIE NICHOLS Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before Diane D. Tremor, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on January 20, 1981, in Maitland, Florida. The Hearing Officer's Recommended Order was entered on March 5, 1981, and oral argument was held on May 11, 1981, on exceptions filed by the Commission staff. We now enter our order.
Findings Of Fact Quality of Service Of more than 250 customers presently served by the utility, only four customers testified at the hearing. Two were concerned that water and sewer rates were already too high and no further increase in rates should be allowed, a third complained of the utility's water having a bad taste and odor, while the fourth objected to an odor emanating from the utility's sewerage treatment plant approximately one year ago. Additionally, a number of deficiencies in the quality of service were identified by the Commission in Order No. 9216, supra. However, all deficiencies have now been resolved to the Commission staff engineer's satisfaction. Based on the entire record, the evidence supports a finding that the utility's water and sewer service is satisfactory. Rate Base Petitioner has proposed a rate base of $10,897 and $36,832 respectively for its water and sewer operations for the twelve months ending June 30, 1979, which is the test period in this proceeding. The Commission staff proposed five further adjustments to water and sewer rate base, none of which were contradicted by the utility. These adjustments affect plant in service, accumulated depreciation, contributions in aid of construction (CIAC), accumulated depreciation on CIAC and the working capital allowance. The adjustments are supported by the record, and should be accepted. The following schedule portrays the adjusted rate base for the utility's water and sewer operations, and the basis for each of the adjustments made in arriving at those amounts. Ponderosa Parks, Inc. Average Rate Base Year Ending June 30, 1979 WATER ADJUST TEST UTILITY ADJUST. YEAR Utility Plant $52,293 9,142 (1) $61,435 Accum. Deprec. (9,335) (1,055) (2) 10,390 CIAC (33,926) (5,938) (3) (39,864) Accum. Deprec.- CIAC -0- 6,742 (4) 6,742 Working Capital 1,865 60 (5) 1,925 Rate Base $10,897 $19,848 SEWER ADJUST TEST UTILITY ADJUST. YEAR Utility Plant $92,962 ($15,631)(6) $77,331 Accum. Deprec. 18,270 5,718 (7) (12,552) CIAC (39,188) 254 (8) (38,934) Accum. Deprec.- CIAC -0- 6,320 (9) 6,320 Working Capital 1,328 (215)(10) 1,113 Rate Base $36,832 $33,270 Adjusts water plant in service by (a) reallocating a portion of sewer plant to water operations, (b) readjusting the cost of certain water meters, and (c) adjusting the plant accounts from a year-end basis to a 13-month average balance. Adjusts accumulated depreciation to (a) reflect the use of a composite depreciation rate of 2.5 percent of all water plant and lines except meters for which a 2.63 percent rate is used, and (b) restate the balance in the account using a 13-month average balance in lieu of year-end balance. Adjusts contributions in aid of construction by (a) restating an amount previously improperly booked as revenues during the years 1970-1974, and (b) restating the year-end balance to a 13-month average. Adjusts the balance in the accumulated depreciation on CIAC account to reflect the use of a 13-month average rather than a year-end balance. Recomputes the working capital allowance to reflect one-eighth of adjusted operating and maintenance expenses. Adjusts sewer plant in service by (a) reallocating certain water lines from sewer to water operations, (b) removing certain non-utility land from the land account, (c) deleting that portion (50 percent) of the sewage treatment costs not used and useful in providing sewer services, and (d) adjusting the plant accounts from a year-end balance to a 13-month average balance. Adjusts accumulated depreciation by (a) using a 2.5 percent composite depreciation rate on all sewer plant and lines except for a 2.63 percent rate on meters, and (b) reflecting the use of a 13-month average in said account. Adjusts contributions in aid of construction by (a) adding to that account contributions previously recorded as revenues in 1970-1974, and (b) using a 13-month average in lieu of a year-end balance. Restates accumulated depreciation on CIAC by using a 13-month average in lieu of a year-end balance. Recomputes the working capital allowance to reflect one-eighth of operating and maintenance expenses. Net Operating Income Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 shows adjusted test year gross operating revenues of $20,370 for water operations and $14,692 for sewer operations. The utility's net operating income for the same time period on water and sewer services was $1,282 and $48 respectively. Staff Exhibit Nos. 2 and 4 make adjustments to operating revenues, operating and maintenance expenses, depreciation expense, and taxes other than income, none of which were contested by the utility. The record supports a finding that these adjustments are appropriate, and should be accepted. The following schedule shows the net operating income of the utility for the year ending June 30, 1979 and the derivation of those amounts. Ponderosa Parks, Inc. Average Rate Base Year Ending June 30, 1979 WATER ADJUST TEST UTILITY ADJUST. YEAR Operating Revenues $20,370 2,083(1) $18,287 Operating Expenses: Operation 16,137 (736)(2) 15,401 Depreciation 1,663 (1,119)(3) 544 Taxes other than 1,228 (52)(4) 1,236 Income Net Operating Income $ 1,282 $ 1,106 SEWER ADJUST TEST UTILITY ADJUST. YEAR Operating Revenues $14,692 4,293 (5) $10,399 Operating Expenses: Operation 10,121 (1,216)(6) 8,905 Depreciation 2,741 (1,781)(7) 960 Taxes other than 1,783 (107)(8) 1,675 Income Net Operating Income $ 48 $ 1,141 Adjusts test year water revenues by (a) removing that amount requested by the utility to show actual results of operations, and (b) reflecting a new surcharge rate (66/1000 gal.) charged by Pasco Water Authority. Adjusts operating and maintenance expenses by (a) removing costs associated with excessive unaccounted for water, (b) disallowing purchased water costs related to a prior accounting period, and (c) annualizing the new cost of water ($1.03/1000 gal.) purchased from Pasco Water Authority. Adjusts depreciation expense by (a) reflecting a composite depreciation rate of 2.5 percent for plant and lines and 2.63 percent for meters, and (b) removing depreciation expense on CIAC from operating expenses in accordance with Section 367.081(2) Florida Statutes (1980). Adjusts taxes other than income taxes by removing gross receipts taxes associated with the requested revenues previously removed in item (1)(a) above. However, an appropriate amount of taxes ($52) should be added back after the new revenue requirements are determined. Adjusts test year sewer revenues by removing the revenues requested by the utility to show actual results of operations. Adjusts operating and maintenance expenses by amortizing the cost of nonrecurring repair work over a 3-year period instead of charging the total cost to test year operations. Adjusts depreciation expense by (a) recomputing the balances using a 2.5 percent composite depreciation rate for all sewer plant and lines except for a 2.63 percent rate on meters, and (b) removing depreciation expense on CIAC in accordance with Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes (1980). Restates taxes other than income by removing gross receipts taxes associated with the requested revenues previously removed in item (5). However, an appropriate amount of taxes ($107) should be added back after the new revenue requirements are determined. Cost of Capital Ponderosa has not requested a specific rate of return on utility investment. However, the requested revenues on water operations equate to a rate of return of 11.76 percent on water rate base while the requested amount of sewer revenues produces a rate of return on sewer operations of 9.15 percent. The utility and Commission staff agree such returns are reasonable given the circumstances of this proceeding. These rates of the returns are supported by the record, and should be used. Revenue Requirements The application of a 11.76 percent rate of return to the adjusted rate base for water operations reflects the utility is entitled to increase its water revenues by $1,260 in order to achieve that return. Similarly, it is necessary to increase sewer revenues by the amount requested, or $4,293, to produce the requested return of 9.15 percent. The utility should be permitted to revise its tariffs to generate these amounts of additional revenues. Rate Structure The utility's present rate structure imposes a minimum charge for the first 3,000 gallons of water used, and a gallonage charge for each 1000 gallons thereafter. Sewer charges for residential customers are presently assessed on a flat rate basis irrespective of the usage of the individual customer. This type of rate structure has two inherent deficiencies. First, it offers no means by which a customer may control the amount of his bill by consuming more or less amounts of water. Second, it fails to allocate in a fair and impartial manner the minimum costs associated with providing water and sewer service. A base facilities charge will remedy these deficiencies. Under this structure, a minimum charge will be imposed for the purpose of recovering the fixed or base costs of providing water and sewer service, such as depreciation, taxes and a portion of billing and customer accounting expenses. Thereafter, a charge for each thousand gallons used will be made. The latter charge will cover costs relating to purchased water, transmission and treatment expenses, and a portion of billing, collecting and customer accounting expenses. This type of rate structure is supported by the evidence, and should be used.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Ponderosa Parks, Inc., 301 Embassy Boulevard, Port Richey, Florida 33568, be granted and that the utility be authorized to file new tariffs to be approved by the Florida Public Service Commission that will generate additional annual gross water revenues of $1,260 and additional annual gross sewer revenues of $4,293. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to implement a base facility charge in structuring its water and sewer rates. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 21st day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Quality of Service During the test year Petitioner provided sewer service to an average of 533 multi-family customers, nine residential customers and two general service customers. Foxmoor Condominium Association, Inc., a customer of Petitioner, has indicated its willingness to cooperate with the utility in its attempt to obtain a copy of the water bill for the condominium from Lee County, which provides the water service. This information will enable the utility to utilize a base facility charge type of rate structure. Evidence of record indicates that Petitioner is in compliance with regulations of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, although the utility, through testimony, acknowledged the existence of a consent order between DER and the utility, whereby certain changes should take place regarding the utility operations. The evidence in the record, therefore, supports a finding that the utility's sewer service is presently satisfactory. Rate Base A rate base of $170,087 suggested by PSC staff was acceptable to the utility (see Tr. 84-87). In accepting the rate base figure, the utility did not abandon its request that certain overheads be capitalized and added to rate base. However, necessary information to accomplish this was not timely filed, and, rather than delay this proceeding for presentation and audit, it was agreed that this issue be left open for a future rate case proceeding (see Tr. 20, 21, 41). The complete rate base schedule is attached as Schedule No. 1. Net Operating Income After eliciting the testimony of the various witnesses and considering the various stipulations between the parties, the sole issue remaining in dispute in this proceeding was the appropriate level of compensation for the chief executive officer of the utility. The utility had requested a salary of $13,000 per year. However, based upon the fact that the chief executive officer was actually paid only $3,400 during the test year, that figure is determined to be the appropriate amount of compensation to be allowed in this proceeding. Upon reaching that conclusion the appropriate amount of gross annual revenues is $63,133 (see Schedule No. 2, attached) Cost of Capital The utility had 100 percent debt at a cost of 10.59 percent (see Exhibit R-4), a figure which the utility agreed to as the accepted cost of capital finding for the purposes of this rate case proceeding only (see Tr. 79). Revenue Requirement As indicated in Schedule No. 2, the revenue requirement for the sewer system is $63,133. The revenues produce an overall rate of return of 10.59 percent on sewer rate base. Accordingly, the utility should file revised tariff pages containing rates designed to produce the above-noted amount of gross revenues. Rate Structure The evidence in this proceeding establishes the utility has been improperly billing some customers, and that the utility should be required to make refunds (see Tr. 65). The utility has agreed to make the refunds requested (see Exhibit 3-R). Petitioner's master metered, multi-family customers should be billed on a base facility charge type rate structure. Residential customers should be billed on a flat rate basis because of the relatively small number of these customers during the test period, and because of the difficulty of obtaining information concerning the water consumption due to the fact that water service is provided by the county.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Old Bridge Utilities, Inc. be granted and the utility be authorized to file revised tariff pages, containing rates designed to produce gross annual sewer revenues of $63,133; That the utility be required to utilize the rate structure described in the body of this Recommended Order; That the issue of capitalization of overhead be left open for resolution in a future proceeding; That the rate refunding-bond, filed by the utility, be returned for cancellation, and That the refunds reflected in the attached schedules discussed herein be made. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS 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 7th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Harrold, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William E. Sundstrom, Esquire Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin & Richards 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karl L. Johnson, Esquire Nuckolls, Parsons, Johnson and Fernandez 2701 Cleveland Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33902 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Application of OLD BRIDGE DOAH CASE NO. 80-1577 UTILITIES, INC. for a rate DOCKET NO. 790677-S increase to its sewer customers ORDER NO. 1-10152 in Lee County, Florida. ISSUED: 7-21-81 / The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter: JOSEPH P. CRESSE, CHAIRMAN JOHN R. MARKS, III SUSAN W. LEISNER Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS, held a public hearing on January 15, 1981, in Fort Myers, Florida, on the application of Old Bridge Utilities, Inc. for a rate increase to its sewer customers in Lee County, Florida. The Division of Administrative Hearings assigned Case No. 80-1577 to the above-noted docket. APPEARANCES: WILLIAM E. SUNDSTROM Attorney at Law Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin & Richards 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 On behalf of Petitioner, Old Bridge Utilities, Inc. KARL L. JOHNSON Attorney at Law Nuckolls, Parsons, Johnson and Fernandez 2701 Cleveland Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33902 On behalf of Intervenor, Foxmoor Condominium Association. WILLIAM H. HARROLD Attorney at Law 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 On behalf of the staff of the Florida Public Service Commission and the public generally. The Hearing Officer's Recommended Order was entered on April 7, 1981. The time for filing exceptions thereto has expired and no exceptions have been filed. After considering all of the evidence in the record, we now enter our order.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the receiver for Bayside Club, Islamorada, Inc., a dissolved Florida corporation ("Bayside"). Mr. Joseph Popplewell is a general contractor and former president of Bayside. Respondent is the governmental entity authorized by Chapter 76-441, Section 14(1), Laws of Florida, to adopt impact fees for the water system in the Florida Keys, to equitably adjust the financial burden of a new pipeline, and to expand it or improve appurtenant facilities between existing customers and new water users. In 1986, Bayside sought to construct a 30 unit hotel on approximately one acre of land in Monroe County, Florida. The development project was formally classified as an expansion of an existing eight unit hotel. The existing hotel, however, had little, if any, useful life, and, in substance, the project involved the development of a new 30 unit hotel. Bayside obtained a building permit on June 4, 1985. In the same month, the building permit was challenged by an adjacent land owner. The challenge asserted that the existing hotel constituted a grandfathered nonconforming use and that the building permit improperly treated the development site as if it were located in a zoning district which permitted hotel usage and subsequent expansion. During the last half of 1985, the Monroe County Commission considered the challenge to the building permit and found that the building permit was valid. The adjacent landowner filed suit against Bayside. The circuit court upheld the validity of the building permit. The suit was finally decided on May 29, 1990, when the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's decision that the building permit was valid. Dowd v. Monroe County, 557 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). On May 29, 1990, the circuit court entered its order declaring the building permit invalid. In 1986, Bayside was advised by Respondent that unit water system development fees ("impact fees") were scheduled to increase from $1,500 to $2,000. Bayside chose to avoid paying impact fees at the increased unit rate and to achieve a savings in development costs. On or about April 18, 1986, Bayside executed an Agreement For Water Service. On or about April 29, 1986, Bayside issued a check payable to Respondent in the amount of $36,840, which included impact fees in the aggregate amount of $33,000. As provided in Florida Administrative Code Rule 48-3.002 2., the Agreement For Water Service expressly stated in paragraph 1 that "SAID SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE SHALL NOT BE REFUNDABLE." Construction of the proposed hotel stopped sometime in 1986. A receivor was appointed for Bayside by the appropriate circuit court on June 14, 1991. Sometime in early 1992, the receiver for Bayside requested a refund of the impact fees. Respondent denied that request in a letter dated February 27, 1992, but refunded amounts paid by Respondent in excess of the impact fees. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's request for a refund did not constitute an unreasonable classification and did not establish a differential rate that was either unjust or inequitable. Respondent has consistently applied Florida Administrative Code Rule 48-3.002 2. to prohibit the refund of impact fees regardless of the classification or rate charged the person who paid the impact fee. Petitioner had adequate notice in Rule 48-3.002 2. and the Agreement For Water Service that the impact fees were nonrefundable. Respondent reasonably anticipated that the projected costs for expanding the water system would be incurred. The county commission and circuit court both upheld the validity of the building permit. If Bayside reasonably anticipated that projected costs for expanding the water system and appurtenant facilities would not be incurred due to a suit challenging the building permit, Bayside had the option of not paying the impact fees until the final conclusion of litigation. Bayside was on notice that the impact fees were nonrefundable and chose to forego its option not to pay the fees until the conclusion of the suit challenging the building permit. Bayside made a business decision to save money and time by paying the impact fees when it did. Viewed in the light of hindsight, that business decision was imprudent. Bayside did not notify Respondent that the costs of expanding the system were not reasonably anticipated until six years after Bayside chose to pay the impact fees. The nonrefundable impact fees imposed by Respondent in 1986 were just and equitable. Expansion of the water system pipeline and appurtenant facilities was reasonably required as a result of the development proposed by Bayside at the time that the impact fees were imposed. The costs attributable to such expansion were reasonably anticipated by Respondent at the time that the impact fees were imposed. The use of the impact fees was limited to meeting such reasonably anticipated costs of expansion. The impact fees imposed by Respondent in 1986 did not exceed a pro rata share of reasonably anticipated costs. Expansion of Respondent's water system was necessary irrespective of the proposed hotel. The expansion of Respondent's water system and appurtenant facilities was financed through the sale of debentures. The indebtedness incurred is made good through revenues in the form of rates, fees, and other charges. Under such circumstances, rates and fees were set with a view towards raising the money necessary to repay the loan. The impact fees did not cease to be just and equitable merely because they were set high enough to meet the water system's reasonably anticipated capital requirements.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondents, John F. and Chere Kuller, were minority partners in a limited partnership which developed and constructed a seventeen unit condominium project known as Bahia East Condominium (project).2 Thee precise location of the project was not disclosed, but it is in the Fort Walton Beach area. Respondents, as developers, are subject to the regulatory requirements of petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (Division). The project was completed in 1979, and its declaration was filed on September 28, 1979. Units immediately went on sale. Financing for these units we" arranged with a Pensacola lending institution, and based upon that institution's commitment, contracts for the sale of all seventeen units were executed by prospective buyers. When the institution experienced financial problems and could not honor its commitment, none of the buyers purchased units. Because of this, the first sale did not occur until October 4, 1980. A developer is required to adhere to a number of Division requirements, including the payment of monthly assess meets on developer-owned units, funding a repair reserve, and furnishing annual financial statements to all unit owners. This proceeding stems from a complaint filed by certain unit owners after the developers relinquished control of the project to the homeowners' association on May 11, 1984. Prior to that time, respondents controlled the board of directors of said association, and were responsible for the keeping of its books and records. Count I - Monthly Assessments As a general rule, a developer is not liable for the payment of monthly assessments on all unsold units until the first calendar date of the fourth month following the sale of the first unit. This ninety day grace period is commonly referred to as the election period. However, the developer may be excused from future payments if the developer guarantees to each purchaser that the monthly assessment will not increase, for a certain period of time, and obligates himself during this period of time to pay all common expenses incurred above the amount of assessments received from unit owners. In the case at bar, there was no written or oral guarantee by respondents to freeze the monthly assessments. This was confirmed through testimony of a unit owner, and evidenced by a monthly assessment increase that took effect in March, 1984, or prior to the turnover date. Between October, 1980 and March, 1984, the cost of the monthly assessment varied with the size of the unit, and ranged from $27.50 for the smallest unit, to $55.00 for a two bedroom, one bath unit, to $82.50 for the largest unit. Since no guarantee was made, respondents were obligated to begin paying assessments on their unsold units in February, 1981. However, they failed to do so. Instead, they calculated their other expenses in maintaining the project, and credited the amount of monthly assessments owed against these other expenses. Since other expenses always exceeded the amount of assessments owed, no funds were ever specifically earmarked into the monthly assessment account. Had such assessments been paid from February, 1981 through May 11, 1984, which is the turnover date, respondents' obligation would have been $15,948.64. This amount was derived from records given by respondents to the association at turnover and was not credibly contradicted. Count II - Reserves The complaint charges that respondents "failed to submit reserves annually nor fund reserves as required." According to Division requirements, a developer is required to establish and fund a reserve to cover future repairs from the date of declaration until the end of the election period. These funds are then turned over to the association. Beginning after the election period, a developer is required to establish and fund a reserve account in an amount prescribed by the project's declaration. In this case, the project's recorded declaration provided that the reserve had to equal 10% of the total annual monthly assessments paid by unit owners. Therefore, respondents were required to establish a reserve no later than February, 1981, and to fund it by setting aside 10% of the total monthly assessments. Such an account was timely established by respon- dents at a Pensacola bank in January, 1981 in the amount of $480. This amount was spent within three or four months on repairs to an air-conditioner generator and the purchase of reserved parking signs. No additional funds were placed in the reserve account after January, 1981. Each year a projected annual budget was prepared by the developers which included an amount for the reserve, but no funds were ever actually set aside for that purpose. Although this requirement can be waived by vote of the association, respondents conceded that the funding requirement was never waived. Respondents justified their course of action on the theory the association account into which the assessments were placed was running a deficit, and the developers had already guaranteed to cover all expenses. However, this procedure is not sanctioned by statute or rule. According to uncontradicted testimony, had appropriate reserves been funded as required, respondents would have funded $4,770.56 from February, 1981 until the turnover. Count III - Annual Financial Statements The final count involves an allegation that respondents "failed to furnish unit owners with an annual financial statement for the years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983." According to Division requirements, all non-developer unit owners must be furnished a copy of the project's "annual financial statement" each year. This document must be prepared and distributed by mail or personal delivery. Respondents claimed that this was done. However, petitioner presented the testimony of two unit owners for the purpose of showing that such statements were not distributed as required. One unit owner, William C. Naftel, received the 1982 statement, but could not recall one way or the other whether he received statements in the years 1981, 1983 and 1984. A second unit owner, Max C. Bolton, Jr., testified he "may have" received such a statement in 1982, but did not receive one for the years 1980, 1981 and 1983. Mitigation This project was respondents' first and only development venture in Florida. Respondents' lack of compliance with Division requirements did not appear to the undersigned to be intentional. Rather, it stemmed from a combination of poor outside advice and a failure on their part to make diligent inquiry as to what precise obligations the statutes and Division rules imposed upon them from an accounting and legal standpoint. At hearing, respondents claimed they have lost a considerable amount of money on the project, which amount far outweighs any claims advanced by the agency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found guilty of violating Subsections 718.115(2), 718.112(2)(k); and 718.111(13), Florida Statutes (1985), and that a $2,500 civil penalty be imposed; to be paid within thirty days from date of final order. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1986.
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 What is the appropriate rate to charge for providing waste water treatment services to the customers of Ranch Mobile WWTP, Inc.?
Findings Of Fact Ranch Mobile WWTP, Inc., is a Class "C" wastewater treatment facility located in the City of Largo, Florida. The original certificate currently held by Ranch Mobile was issued on March 22, 1977 to Midway Service Corporation and was transferred on April 17, 1985 to Ranch Mobile. Ranch Mobile serves three mobile home parks, Ranch Mobile, Down Yonder and Twin Palms. The utility is owned by its largest customer, Ranch Mobile, a cooperative mobile home park with 488 members. Down Yonder has 229 members, and Twin Palms has 149 members. After purchasing the utility, Ranch Mobile commenced efforts to bring the utility in compliance with Department of Environmental Regulation's requirements. These efforts included preparing new percolating ponds, which, when completed, did not allow the utility to meet DER requirements. Faced with disciplinary action by DER, Ranch Mobile was offered the option by DER of connecting to the City of Largo's wastewater treatment facility in lieu of much more expensive procedures which were not guaranteed to meet DER requirements. Suffice it to say, Ranch Mobile opted for connecting to the City of Largo system and did so. It is to recover the costs of the services provided by the City of Largo that Ranch Mobile seeks the rate increase here involved. On April 3, 1990, Ranch Mobile filed for a staff-assisted rate case and paid the filing fee. On May 22, 1990, the PSC staff engineer conducted a field investigation resulting in memorandum dated June 4, 1990. (Exhibit 1) The PSC Division of Audit and Finances reviewed the utilities operation expense, files, and rate application to establish reasonableness of the original cost, utility plant retirements, and quality of service, resulting in the memorandum dated August 21, 1990. (Exhibit 3) On September 27, 1990, a customer meeting was held to allow customers to provide testimony regarding the qualify of service being provided by the utility. No adverse testimony to quality of service was offered. Although Petitioners' witness questioned some minor costs allowed by the PSC staff report, this witness was not qualified as an expert in utility rate proceedings, and his opinion is given little, if any, credence. The rates proposed in Exhibit 2 are just, reasonable, compensatory, and not unfairly discriminatory, and conform to the requirements of Section 367.081 and 367.0814, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered approving and establishing rates for Ranch Mobile to charge its customers as set forth in the Final Order granting temporary rates in Event of Protest and Notice of Proposed Agency Action, Order Approving Increased Rates and Charges. ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Reynolds, Esquire Suite 300, 100 2nd Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Vernon R. Wagner, Esquire 4508 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33711 Robert J. Pierson, Esquire E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0863 Steve Tribble Director of Records and Recording East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Susan Clark General Counsel Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Room 212 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 David Swafford Executive Director Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Room 116 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850
