Findings Of Fact In light of the aforementioned stipulations entered into by the parties, the parties agreed that the only remaining disputed issue was the quality of service being provided by Petitioner. In this connection, the record establishes that Petitioner operates nine water systems in Duval County, one of which is known as the "Milmar Plant." Water furnished through this plant has, in the past, violated applicable regulatory standards with regard to high iron levels and corrosivity, to such an extent that the system was the subject of a Corrective Order entered by the Duval County Public Health Division of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in 1980. However, as a result of Petitioner's agreement to connect to the City of Jacksonville water system, these problems should be alleviated when the switch-over and connection are accomplished. Accordingly, as a condition to approval of the requested rate increase, Petitioner should be required to complete the switch-over and connection to the City of Jacksonville water system prior to the entry of a Final Order granting the requested rate increase.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully denied general permits to construct an extension to a public water supply distribution system and to construct a waste water treatment system at a camp being constructed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On December 11, 1991, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), Ft. Myers office, received applications from the Orange Blossom Baptist Association, Petitioner, submitted by its project engineer, for general permits to install an extension to provide water to, and construct a waste water treatment facility for, a camp being built by Petitioner. These applications were reviewed by the Respondent, and on January 2, 1992, James Oni telephoned Petitioner's engineer to tell him the applications were incomplete and additional information was required. Some of this additional information was submitted by Petitioner on January 7, 1992, but the word "vertical" was left out of the application to indicate what the 18 inch separation of the water and sewer lines represented; no pump out was provided for the lift station; the flotation formula as submitted contained a typographical error where an "s" was substituted for a "5", leaving the calculation of storage capacity of the system indeterminable; the lift station was only 4.5 feet deep and should normally be 10 feet; the configuration of the sump to insure solids would settle to the bottom was not provided, nor was the amount of concrete to be used to obtain this configuration shown; and the type of equipment to be used was not clearly shown. In summary, when submitted the application was not technically correct, and it remained technically incorrect after the additional information was submitted by the applicant. General permits are required to be processed by DER within 30 days of their receipt, and if not denied within that 30 day period they must be approved regardless of their compliance with the statutes and regulations.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying Orange Blossom Baptist Association general permits to install a waste water treatment facility and to construct an extension to a public water supply distribution system in Highlands County, Florida. ORDERED this 6th day of May, 1992, 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 6th day of May, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: William N. Clark, P.E. 233 E. Park Avenue Lake Wales, FL 33853 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
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.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent Leon County School Board should be issued a dredge and fill permit to excavate and backfill in connection with the installation of sewage collection system pipes beneath the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette in Leon County.
Findings Of Fact On April 13, 1989, the Board submitted a permit application to DER for the dredge and fill permit which forms the basis for this proceeding. The project represented in the dredge and fill application consisted of installation of two sewage collection system pipes beneath the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette. Installation would be accomplished by excavating and backfilling two trenches, each approximately 50 feet long by four feet wide by two feet deep. The pipes to be installed in the trenches adjacent to Buck Lake Road are one 15-inch gravity main and one 14-inch force main. A total of 15 cubic yards of soil was proposed for excavation and replacement. The project area consisted of less than 100 square feet. The Alford Arm in the project's vicinity is a canal dredged in the 1920's and 1930's. Neither the Alford Arm nor Lake Lafayette constitute Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), instead these water bodies are Class III Waters. On April 14, 1989, DER staff conducted an inspection of the project site, completed a permit application appraisal of the project, and issued permit no. 371633191 for the project. On the same day, the permit was withdrawn when it was discovered that the document had been signed by an unauthorized official. On April 20, 1989, DER again issued permit no. 371633191 to the Board for the project. The dredging, pipe installation, and backfilling were subsequently completed. Water Quality Since the dredging and filling could potentially produce short-term turbidity in the Alford Arm as a result of sediment entering the water, a specific condition of the permit required the placement of a row of staked hay bales downstream from the project site prior to construction and thereafter until re- vegetation of the site had occurred. By compliance with this turbidity control measure, reasonable assurance was provided by the Board that violations of state water quality standards would not result from the project construction. The project did not cause any violations of DER water quality criteria for turbidity or any other water quality criteria. Numerous technological advances and safeguards built into the sewer lines and lift stations make probability of any leakage very remote. Petitioner's concern with regard to potential for leakage from the collection system lines and the lift stations to cause water quality problems in the Alford Arm is not supported by any competent substantial evidence of record regarding statistical frequency and probability of such occurrences. Further, there is no such evidence of infirmities regarding design soundness or the functional history of the pipe used in the project. Public Interest DER evaluated the project in accordance with the criteria of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, prior to issuance of the permit. Another review has now been completed approximately two years after completion of the project. The project has not and will not cause any adverse impacts on public health, safety, welfare, or property of others. Likewise, the project has not caused adverse impacts on significant historical or archaeological resources. Similarly, no adverse impacts on the conservation of fish or wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats has or will result from the project. Interestingly, woodstorks have been observed feeding in the very vicinity of the project as recently as May 28, 1991, more than two years after completion of the project. No adverse impacts have or will be visited upon navigation or flow of the water. No harmful erosion or shoaling has or will result from the project. The project has not and will not cause any adverse impacts on fishing, recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The impacts of this dredge and fill project were temporary. The dredged and filled area has re-vegetated with the same species, pickerelweed and smartweed. Wetland functions of the site that existed prior to the project were minimal and have been re-established. Cumulative And Secondary Impacts Cumulative impacts from similar projects were not evidenced at the final hearing. There are no projects proposed which are closely linked or causally related to the dredge and fill project. The only non-speculative secondary impact from the project was possible leakage of wastewater from the collection system lines and lift station. The probability of such leakage is very low. Particularly in view of the geographical area, engineering design and manufacture of the pipes and waste collection system, such probability is speculative and minimal or non-existent in the absence of competent substantial evidence regarding statistical frequency of such an event. The construction of the sewage collection system with which the project is associated is a result of growth in the geographic area. While the project has not been established to induce growth in the area, such development would not affect Lake Lafayette since the collection system currently installed has a 400 gallon per minute capability, or the ability to serve 400 residential connections. Prior to issuance of the dredge and fill permit, 800 existing residential lots were platted along Buck Lake Road within two miles east and two miles west of the project site. Since the system could be upgraded to accommodate 1600 residential units, the potential increase that could result from the project in any event is an additional 800 residential units. If these additional residences are built at the very high density of one per quarter acre, these lots would cover only approximately two-thirds of a square mile or less than one percent of the Lake Lafayette drainage basin of approximately 80 square miles. Such development would have no measurable impact on Lake Lafayette.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a Final Order be entered approving the issuance of permit number 371633191 to the Board. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS 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 9th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2752 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. None Submitted. Respondent Board's Proposed Findings: 1.-17. Adopted in substance. Respondent Department's Proposed Findings: 1.-24. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Terri Saltiel 7769 Deep Wood Trail Tallahassee, FL 32311 Richard A. Lotspeich, Esq. John T. LaVia, III, Esq. P.O. Box 271 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Michael Donaldson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
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
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent's facility is a public water system subject to regulation by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) pursuant to Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, or whether it is exempt from those regulations by virtue of Rule 17-22.102 if the facility is subject to regulation by DER, whether Respondent should take the corrective actions set forth in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action and should pay DER's expenses incurred in the pursuit of this case. DER presented the testimony of Cliff McKeown, a potable water engineer, and Linda Frohock, planning manager for the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). DER had Exhibits 1-4 admitted into evidence. Respondent, Lex Thompson, presented his own testimony and that of Hugh Kelly. The parties have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. They have been considered and a ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact DER is the Florida administrative agency which has the authority to administer and enforce the provisions of the Florida Safe Water Drinking Act, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent is a natural person and citizen of the State of Florida. Respondent owns and is responsible for the construction of a potable water distribution main extension ("the facility") which serves a subdivision known as High Bluff Acres-near the community of Midway in Gadsden County, Florida. (See Prehearing Stipulation). On February 1, 1980, Respondent was issued construction permit number DS20-27385 for the facility. The construction permit described the facility as a potable water distribution main extension to the Talquin Electric Company's Midway water- system. The project was to be constructed with approximately 940 linear feet of four inch PVC valves and appurtenances. Specific condition number 15 of the permit restricted operation of the extension until department approval was issued. This approval would be granted upon receipt of certification by the engineer of record as to construction in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and receipt of two satisfactory bacteriological analyses. DER has not received this information and had not issued an approval for use of the facility. The construction permit expired on September 1, 1981. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent modified the facility by constructing it with 550 feet of one inch to one and one-half inch PVC water mains. (See Prehearing Stipulation). DER conducted an inspection of the facility on February 23, 1982. The facility was found to be in use without final DER approval. By letter dated February 26, 1982, DER notified Respondent of his non-compliance with Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, and requested Respondent to submit specified compliance items. (See Prehearing Stipulation). In October of 1982, DER personnel contacted Respondent . by telephone. Respondent agreed to obtain a permit renewal and modify the unauthorized water line as soon as funds in the form of rent were released by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). On November 1, 1982, DCA notified DER that payments were being made. (See Prehearing Stipulation). On June 8, 1983, DER notified Respondent of his non- compliance with Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, and requested a reply on actions to be taken to correct the deficiency. By letters dated October 18, 1984, and December 17, 1984, DER notified Respondent that the facility was not approved for use. Respondent was further requested to inform DER as to the status of the facility. DER received no response to these requests. (See Prehearing Stipulation). The facility was not constructed in accordance with DER-approved plans, and DER has issued no written approval or consent for alterations to the system. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent placed the facility in service without submitting a certification of completion and a copy of satisfactory bacteriological results to DER for approval and clearance. (See Prehearing Stipulation). The facility is not designed to provide maximum hourly system demand without development of distribution pressure lower than 20 psi. (See Prehearing Stipulation). DER has incurred costs and expenses in the pursuit of this case in the amount of $453.50. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent's facility consists of distribution and storage facilities only and does not have any collection or treatment facilities. It obtains all its water from and is not owned or operated by the Talquin Electric System. Further, Respondent is not a carrier which conveys passengers in interstate commerce. (See Prehearing Stipulation) The public water distribution system constructed by Respondent is connected to twenty dwelling units in twelve structures. The High Bluff Acres subdivision is a government- subsidized, but privately-owned, low-income housing development, wherein DCA, acting on behalf of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), subsidizes the payment of rent for the housing. Respondent entered into several agreements on behalf of Salter, Stephens and Thompson, with the DCA to rehabilitate existing structures at High Bluff Acres and thus qualify for the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Assistance Program (HAP) established by HUD. The purpose for entering into the HAP contracts is to provide low cost housing to low income persons. These agreements were entered into over a period of several months during 1981 and 1982. Upon satisfactory completion of the rehabilitation pursuant to the agreements, Respondent entered into a HAP contract for each structure in High Bluff Acres, for a total of twelve structures (20 dwelling units). The HAP contract establishes the contract rent that can be allowed for each individual dwelling unit in a structure (the contract covers one structure). The contract rent is calculated according to a formula established by HUD for such purposes, and includes monetary allowances for utilities or other services which are provided by the owner. It does allow the lessor to recover his capital expenses in rehabilitating an individual housing unit. DER Exhibits 3 and 4 are two of the twelve HAP contracts entered into by the Department of Community Affairs and Respondent, Lex Thompson. Each of these contracts has an Exhibit B which is entitled "statement of services, maintenance and , utilities to be provided by owner." These exhibits show that Respondent has agreed to provide water to the units under the HAP contract. Contract rents paid to Respondent as authorized agent for the partnership include an allocation of money to reimburse Respondent for providing water to the tenants in the dwelling units. However, subsequent to Thompson's and DCA's entering into the contracts for payment of these rental subsidies, Respondent notified DCA that he had incurred additional capital expenses. Since his rental payments were already at the maximum allowable rate, however, Respondent did not seek to modify the aforementioned contracts because the amendment would not result in any greater payment of monies to him. At no time has Respondent amended the terms of the HAP contracts with respect to provision of water to the tenants at High Bluff Acres. He is still receiving the reimbursement for provision of water to tenants. The general partnership which had been receiving contract rents for the dwelling units was dissolved in May, 1985, and the contracts for each structure were assigned to various individuals. Respondent, individually, owns one structure and his wife owns another. DER has received no potable water quality or quantity complaints regarding the High Bluff Acres subdivision. Moreover, the potable water system existing in the High Bluff Acres subdivision does not constitute a present threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order and therein order the following corrective actions: That within 45 days, Respondent shall hire an engineer registered in Florida to design a new distribution system for High Bluff Acres or modifications to the existing system, and submit a completed application to the Department for a permit to construct or modify the system. That within 60 days of issuance of the permit, Respondent shall have the distribution system installed, tested(including pressure testing, bacterial testing, disinfectant-testing) and shall have the engineer sign and seal the plans indicating to the Department that the system conforms with the approved plans, and both DER and American Water Works Association standards. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be ordered to pay the Department's costs and expenses in the amount of $453.50, and that same be paid to the Department by cashier's check within 30days. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESL1NG 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 4th day of November, 1985 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding of Fact 1 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 13). Proposed Finding of Fact 2 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 15). Proposed Finding of Fact 3 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 15). Proposed Finding of Fact 4 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 17). Proposed Finding of Fact 5 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 18). Proposed Finding of Fact 6 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 19). Proposed Finding of Fact 7 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 22). Proposed Finding of Fact 8 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 21). Rulings on Respondents Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding of Fact 1 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 1). Proposed Finding of Fact 2 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 2). Proposed Finding of Fact 3 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 3). Proposed Finding of Fact 4, first sentence, is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 4). The second sentence is rejected as being unsupported by the evidence and irrelevant. Proposed Finding of Fact 5 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 5). Proposed Finding of Fact 6 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 6). Proposed Finding of Fact 7 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 7). Proposed Finding of Fact 8, first sentence, is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 8). The remainder of Proposed Finding of Fact 8 is rejected as irrelevant. Proposed Finding of Fact 9 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 12). Proposed Finding of Fact 10 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 14). Proposed Finding of Fact 11 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Facts 19 and 20). Proposed Finding of Fact 12 is rejected as unsupported by the evidence, irrelevant and conclusory. Proposed Finding of Fact 13 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 23), except that it is rejected as it relates to a potential threat because that portion is unsupported by the competent, credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Clare E. Gray, Esquire Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William L. Hyde, Esquire 300 East Park Avenue Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted a certificate authorizing it to continue operating a water and sewer utility in Flagler County; and Whether Petitioner's application to increase its water and sewer rates to its customers should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Utility The Utility, a subsidiary of ITT Community Development Corporation, owns and operates a central water and sewer system serving Palm Coast Community--a planned development of approximately 40 square miles located in Flagler County. Although the development has less than 3,000 occupied homesites, more than 40,000 homesites are planned. (Testimony of Potter; P-2, R-4.) The Water System The water system includes wells, a treatment plant, storage facilities, and distribution mains. There are 13 water supply wells with a flow capability of 3.40 MGD (million gallons per day); present peak flow is 2.00 MGD. The raw water is piped to a central water treatment plant which utilizes a lime- softening process. Present plant peak flows equal the maximum rated capacity: 2.00 MGD. There are two ground storage reservoirs (with a total capacity of 1,300,000 gallons) and two elevated storage tanks (with a total capacity of 850,000 gallons). The water distribution system consists of an extensive network of mains, valves, fire hydrants, and meters used to convey potable water from the treatment plant to customers throughout Palm Coast Community. Although during the test year ending June 28, 1980, the Utility supplied water to an average of 2,191 residential and 80 general service customers, water distribution mains have been constructed to 22,988 building sites. The total water system, as of June 28, 1980, has been constructed at a cost of $17,486,433. (Testimony of Potter; P-2, R-4.) The Sewer System The sewer system includes a collection system, 57 lift stations, a wastewater treatment plant, and effluent disposal facilities. The wastewater plant utilizes an extended aeration process and has a rated hydraulic capacity of 600,000 gallons per day. Effluent is disposed of by spray irrigation on a 65-acre disposal field. Although during the test year, the Utility supplied sewer service to an average of 1,502 residential and 39 general service customers, sewage collection mains have been constructed to 22,988 building sites. As of June 28, 1980, the sewer system has been constructed at a cost of $24,850,962. (Testimony of Potter; P-2, R-4). The Rate Increase Application By its application, the Utility seeks authorization to increase water operating revenues by $170,460 and sewer operating revenues by $106,924. If granted, annual gross water revenues would increase (by approximately 40 percent) to $422,211 and gross sewer revenues would increase (by approximately 40 percent) to $267,194. (Testimony of Deterding; 5-3 P-4, R-2.) As grounds, the Utility contends that during the test year ending June 28, 1980, it suffered an operating loss of $225,430 in its water operations, and a loss of $109,909 in its sewer operations; that it is entitled to a 13.08 percent rate of return on its rate base. (Application for Rate Increase, dated November 3, 1980). II. The Elements of Rate Making In issuing a certificate and setting rates, the Commission must determine: the rate base 2/ ; (2) the cost of providing the utility 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. At hearing, the Utility presented evidence on each of these rate-making elements. For the most part, the Commission did not oppose the Utility's evidence; those matters which were disputed are separately addressed below. Rate Base Rate base represents the Utility's property which provides the services for which rates are charged. There are three issues involving the establishment of rate base: (1) average or year-end rate base. (2) inclusion of cost of a 750,000 gallon water storage tank; and (3) deferral of depreciation on non-used- and-useful plant. Average or Year-End Rate Base At hearing, the Utility asserted that it had experienced extraordinary growth, justifying the utilization of year-end rate base. The Commission disputed this claim of extraordinary growth, and urged the use of a 13-month average. On June 22, 1981, the Utility filed a post-hearing "Notice of Change in the Position of the Applicant," by which it receded from its previous position and agreed that, for purposes of this proceeding, an average rate base should be used. The issue is, therefore, moot and utilization of a 13-month average rate base is accepted. However, the Utility continues to assert that a year-end rate base should be established for "purposes of certification." 3/ Such assertion is rejected as inconsistent with its June 22, 1981, acceptance of average rate base: the acceptance applied to this "proceeding," 4/ and was not limited to rate-making purposes. Moreover, the Utility has not shown why a second rate base, based on year-end figures, should be established. Year-end rate base constitutes a deviation from the standard and preferable method of using a 13-month average; it may only be used under circumstances of unusual or extraordinary growth-- circumstances which the Utility no longer claims exist. (Testimony of Deterding; R-2) Deferral of Depreciation and Amortization The Utility requests authority to defer depreciating non-used-and-useful plant and amortizing contributions-in-aid-of-construction ("CIAC") until such time as the plant or contributions become used and useful. The effect would be to preserve the original cost of the property so it may eventually be recovered from future customers benefitting from its use; because original cost would not have been reduced, rate base would be higher for those future customers. The Commission opposes the requested deferral. Both parties cite language in a previous Commission order (Order No. 7455, Docket No. 760034, In Re: Petition of North Orlando Water and Sewer Corporation) as evidence of existing Commission non-rule policy on deferral of depreciation expense on non-used-and-useful property. The Commission language in that order lends support to the opposing arguments of each party. Even if the policy was stated unequivocally it could not--without record support--establish Commission policy for purposes of this rate proceeding. The Utility's request is rejected because record evidence in this proceeding. The Utility executed a Revenue Agreement with ITT Community Development Corporation on June 27, 1980. Under that agreement, Community Development Corporation, the developer of Palm Coast Community, agreed to pay the Utility--through 1990--an amount sufficient to allow recovery of costs, including depreciation, attributable to utility property installed for unimproved lots. Such utility property is the same non-used-and-useful property for which the utility now seeks to defer depreciation and amortization. Since this revenue agreement allows the Utility to recover from the developer depreciation expenses attributable to non-used-and-useful property, deferral of depreciation--to allow recovery from future customers--is unnecessary. (Testimony of Gregg, Deterding; R2) 5/ Inclusion of Cost of Water Storage Tank The Utility proposes to include in rate base the use-and-useful portion of a 0.75 million gallon elevated storage tank. It was not completed and placed in service until after the test year. Neither was its construction explicitly ordered by government order. However, from an engineering standpoint, it was needed during this test period to maintain minimum water pressure during peak- flow periods and provide adequate flows for fire protection purposes. It now functions as an integral component of the Utility's water system. At hearing, the Commission's accountant testified that 100 percent of the cost of the water storage tank should be removed from the plant-in-service component of rate base because it was not in service during the test year. The parties agreed to his submittal of a post-hearing accounting exhibit showing adjustments resulting from his testimony. However, in his late-filed exhibit (R-2), the accountant took a position which contradicted his testimony at hearing: In this case we feel that consideration of this after test year plant must be given. The utility's used and useful portion of the other storage facilities will increase substantially. In addition this item appears to be an integral component of the plant which was operating during the test year and at present. (R-2.) (Emphasis supplied.) He included proposed schedules which: (1) include the tank as if placed in service during the last month of the test year; (2) include the total cost of the tank including interest capitalized net of the non-used-and-useful portion in calculating average rate base; and (3) show the effect of these adjustments in construction work in progress (CWIP) so that they can be easily identified and not confused with plant that was, in fact, in service by the end of the test year. Notwithstanding this significant change in its accountant's testimony, the Commission continues to advocate 6/ the accountant's earlier position at hearing--one which he has now abandoned. Thus, the Commission argues that: [T]he only correct position in calculating an average rate base is to exclude the after test year plant addition and adjust the used and useful percentage. . .as he [its accountant] originally proposed at the hearing. (Commission's Recommended Order, p. 5) This contention his rejected as inconsistent with the Commission's own accounting and engineering evidence. 7/ It also overlooks the undisputed fact that the storage tank is now operating as an essential component of the water system, and that it will continue to be used during the period in which the new rates will be in effect. The Commission's alternative treatment--as proposed by its accountant's post-hearing exhibit (R-2), is accepted as persuasive. The cost of the storage tank is thus included as CWIP, and is calculated as if placed in service during the last month of the test year; the total cost of the tank, including interest capitalized net of the non-used-and-useful portion, is utilized (Testimony of Gregg, Deterding, Chastain; R-1.) The sewer system rate base proposed by the Utility is not disputed by the Commission and is accepted. The resulting average rate bases for the water and sewer systems are $2,736,279 and $1,044,165, respectively. They are depicted below. WATER RATE BASE (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Utility Plant in Service $12,397,249 Plant Held for Future Use (8,848,497) Construction Work in Progress 39,097 Accumulated Depreciation (216,405) Contribution-in-Aid-of-Construction (Net of Amortization) (687,787) Working Capital Allowance 35,837 Materials and Supplies 7,785 Income Tax Lag -0- RATE BASE $ 2,736,279 SEWER RATE BASE (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Utility Plant in Service $18,461,055 Plant Held for Future Use (15,787,481) Construction Work in Progress -0- Accumulated Depreciation (109,729) Contributions-in-Aid-of-Construction (Net of Amortization) (1,551,865) Working Capital Allowance 27,186 Materials and Supplies 4,999 Income Tax tag -0- RATE BASE $ 1,044,145 (Late-filed Exhibit, R-2.) B. Operating Income The parties agree that, during the test year, the Utility had a $130,243 operating loss from its water operations, and a sewer operations. The operating statements are $95,281 operating loss from it depicted below: WATER OPERATING STATEMENT (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Operating Revenues (Present Rates) $251,751 Operating Revenue Deductions Operation 286,694 Depreciation 75,314 Amortization 954 Taxes Other Than Income 19,032 Income Taxes -0- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $381,994 s Operating Income (Loss) $(130,243) SEWER OPERATING STATEMENT (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Operating Revenues (Present Rates) $160,270 Operating Revenue Deductions Operation 217,487 Depreciation 21,872 Amortization 767 Taxes Other Than Income 15,425 Income Taxes -0- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $255,551 Operating Income (Loss) $(95,281) Since during the test year, the Utility operated its water and sewer systems at a loss; it received a negative rate of return on its rate base. (Testimony of Gregg, Deterding; Late-Filed Exhibit R-2, P-3, P-4.) Cost of Capital and Fair Rate of Return The only issue between the parties concerning cost of capital to the Utility is whether deferred taxes should be included in its capital structure. At the end of the test year, the Utility's books showed no deferred taxes; however, during the later half of 1980, it changed its accounting treatment for deferred taxes. Applying its new method, deferred taxes at the end of the test year would be $3,137,000--assuming deferred depreciation on non-used-and-useful property is disallowed. The Utility failed to establish the impropriety of applying an accounting method which it will continue to follow in the foreseeable future; it is therefore concluded that the deferred taxes should be calculated as $3,137,000, at zero cost. 8/ The resulting overall cost of capital is 12.29 percent. A reasonable rate of return falls within a range of 11.87 percent to 12.72 percent. It is depicted below: COST OF CAPITAL Weighted Component Common Stock Equity Amount $22,224,497 Weight 42.23 Cost 15.0 percent Cost 6.33 Long Term Debt 27,163,003 51.62 11.5 5.94 Customer Deposits 99,653 .19 8.0 .02 Deferred Taxes 3,137,000 5.96 -0- -0- $52,624,153 100.00 12.29 (Testimony of Kelly, Potter; R-5.) proposed Revenue The Utility seeks increased water revenues of $170,460 and increased sewer revenues of $106,924. Although the parties agree on a base facility rate design, 9/ the Commission disputes proposed charges for fire hydrants and irrigation meters. 10/ Fire Hydrant Charges The Utility presently collects, under contract, a fire hydrant charge of $70 per year per hydrant from two fire districts which serve the area. This method is favored by customers and the fire districts; because the fire districts raise their funds through tax assessments, the customers payments are tax deductable. The Commission argues that the $70 charges do not cover all of the Utility's fire protection costs and that such costs should be recovered through regular service rates. While the $70 charge was shown to be insufficient to cover fire service costs, no reason was provided why the additional funds could not be recovered by increasing charges to the fire districts. This method of paying for fire protection costs is advantageous to the customers. It is likely that the fire service districts would cooperate with the Utility in negotiating fire service charges which are adequate to cover the costs of the service provided. Consequently, it is concluded that the present method of collecting fire service charges should be retained, although the charges should be increased sufficiently to cover the attendant costs to the Utility. (Testimony of Fabelo, Public Witnesses.) Irrigation Meter Charges The Utility proposes a $2.00 base facility charge for irrigation meters, with a $4.50 charge for regular service. The Commission prefers an irrigation meter base facility charge equal to one-half of the base charge of a corresponding regular service meter, assuming both meters are on the same tap to the water main. Since the demand for water that both meters can cumulatively place on the water system is 1.5 times that placed by a regular service meter, the Commission's position is persuasive. 11/ The parties also disputed the base facility customer accounting charges for irrigation meters--the Utility contending that the additional meters impose little additional costs and the Commission asserting that customer accounting charges should be given full weight. The Utility's position is accepted as persuasive. The two meters are usually close together and easily read. Both services are included on one account and one monthly bill covers both. Thus, while the irrigation meter imposes a slight additional accounting cost, it is minimal when compared to the cost imposed by a separate regular service meter. (Testimony of Gregg, Fabelo.) Rate of Return Allowed by Proposed Revenue Adding the requested water revenue increase of $165,633 to the adjusted test-year water operating revenues of $251,751 results in total recommended operating revenues of $417,384. Subtracting test-year operating expenses of $381,994 leaves a net operating income of $35,390--a 1.29 percent return on a water rate base of $2,736,279. Adding the requested sewer revenue increase of $111,751 to the adjusted test-year sewer operating revenues of $160,270 results in total recommended operating revenues of $272,021. Subtracting test-year operating expenses of $255,551 leaves a net operating income of $16,470--a 1.58 percent return on a sewer rate base of $1,044,165. (Testimony of Deterding; R-2) Quality of Service The quality of the water furnished the Utility's customers depends on their location. Customers residing in the area most heavily populated--north of Highway 100--receive satisfactory water service. Their water is treated by the Utility's central lime-softening plant. In contrast, the customers residing in the Seminole Woods area have not received water of comparable quality. Seminole Woods lies in the south extremity of the service area; it consists of approximately eight single-family residences and one duplex. Due to the remote location and slow rate of growth of Seminole Woods, the Utility has not found it practical to interconnect with the central lime-softening plant or build a separate lime-softening plant to serve the area. Instead, the Utility pumps raw water from a nearby well to a temporary facility where it is chlorinated and then conveyed to the residences where it is treated by separate zeolite or "Culligan" water-softening devices. These devices are furnished customers by the Utility without additional charge. The residents of Seminole Woods have frequently received water with excessive chlorine or hydrogen sulfide. The Utility's efforts to monitor the chlorine levels and regularly flush the system have not solved the problems. Seminole Woods customers have repeatedly complained about the quality of their water--its excessive chlorine taste, offensive odor (similar to the smell of rotten eggs), and high sodium content. The water quality is so poor that at least three of the residents have found it undrinkable; they buy bottled water at an additional cost of approximately $20 per month. The Utility's current solution to the problem is to extend mains from the northern area to Seminole Woods. The lines are now under construction and completion is expected "within a year or so." (Tr. 253.) With the exception of the Seminole Woods area, the quality of sewer and water service provided by the Utility is acceptable and has rarely been the subject of complaints. Occasional problems of power outages have been corrected. Neither the water nor the sewer system has been or is now under any governmental citation for non-sewage or water treatment standards. Upon completion of the connecting water mains, it is likely that the residents of Seminole Woods will receive water equal in quality to that enjoyed by other residents of Palm Coast Community. (Testimony of Thomas, Sannartano, Creolino, Potter, Likins.) III. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity The Utility has filed with the Commission a map of its existing utility systems, a description of the area served, and all information requested by the Commission concerning its rates and charges. Neither the Commission nor the public objected to the granting of a certificate authorizing it to continue providing water and sewer services in the affected area. (Testimony of Chastain, Members of the Public; Prehearing Statement.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Utility be granted a certificate to continue operating its water and sewer systems in the areas described, and That it be authorized to file tariffs, consistent with the provisions of this Recommended Order, designed to generate annual gross water revenues of $417,384 and annual gross sewer revenues of $272,021. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 13th 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 13th day of August, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a waste water treatment facility at Polynesian Village Mobile Home Park, owns the land at this village, leases these lots to mobile home owners, and provides them with waste water treatment. He was last issued an operating permit on January 18, 1983, by Petitioner. Respondent posted an Operational Bond (Exhibit 2) in the amount of $7,500 with Northwestern National Insurance Company as surety to faithfully operate the treatment facility and comply with all Rules and Regulations of the Petitioner. Englewood Water District, petitioner, was established by special act of the Florida Legislature in Chapter 59-931, Florida Statutes, and is given authority in Section 4 thereof to regulate use of sewers, fix rates, enjoin or otherwise prevent violations of the act or any regulation adopted by Petitioner pursuant to the act, and to promulgate regulations to carry out the provisions of the act. Pursuant to this authority, Petitioner promulgated Waste Water Treatment Facilities Design, Construction and Operation Regulations dated June 19, 1980, and revised April 28, 1983. During an inspection of Respondent's waste water treatment facility on October 17, 1983, leaching was observed at both the north and south drain fields with effluent from the system rising to the surface. Samples of this effluent when tested showed a fecal coliform count of 2800/100 ml. The basic level of disinfectant shall result in not more than 200 fecal coliform values per 100 ml of effluent sample (Rule 17-6.060(1)(b)3a, F.A.C.). Following this test, Notice of Violation (Exhibit 4) was served on Respondent. No action was taken by Respondent to correct this condition and on January 6, 1984, a Citation (Exhibit 5) was issued to Respondent scheduling a hearing for January 26, 1984. Following the issuance of that Citation frequent inspections of the facility were conducted by employees of Respondent to ascertain if steps were being taken by Respondent to correct the deficiencies. Additionally, inspections were made by inspectors from Sarasota County Pollution Control. Inspections were conducted January 9, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, and 31; February 1, 8, 13, 14, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29; and March 2, 5, 8, and 9, 1984. These inspections revealed what appears to be a "blow-out" in the south drain field where effluent bubbles to the surface and flows onto the adjacent streets and propert (Exhibits 9 and 11). Effluent tested from this source had fecal coliform counts as high as 9440/100 ml. During one of these inspections effluent from the treatment plant was being discharged directly onto the road to a drainage ditch adjacent to the plant (Exhibit 8). The coliform count of a sample taken from this ditch was 13500/100 ml. Respondent was issued a second Citation on March 2, 1984, and this hearing was held on the violations alleged in that Citation, to wit: creating a public nuisance and leaching from drain field. Respondent contends that he is dealing with the Sarasota County Engineer to correct the problems and, after failing in his attempt to get the county to provide drainage from his property, he is now in the process of installing drain pipes. Respondent contends that the natural drainage of surface waters from his land to adjacent land was stopped by development on the adjacent land and the heavy rains this winter has saturated his land and inhibited percolation in the drain fields. Accordingly, the effluent from his plant could not be absorbed by the drain field. Respondent also contends that the drain field worked fine for several years before the drainage problem arose and believes it will again work well when the drainage situation is corrected.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented, the following facts are determined: The UTILITY is owned by Florida Land Company, a Florida corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Continental Group, Inc., a New York corporation. In 1975, the UTILITY constructed a water and sewage treatment system to serve a residential and commercial development known as Greenwood Lakes. The UTILITY's water and sewer rates and charges have not changed since the COMMISSION's approval of initial tariffs in 1976. (Testimony of Crosby; P.E. 1.) I. Elements of Ratemaking In fixing the water and sewer rates to be charged by a public utility, the COMMISSION must consider: (1) the value and quality of the service, (2) the utility's rate base, (3) the cost of providing the service, and (4) a fair return on the utility's rate base. Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes (1979). Each element is addressed separately below. Quality of Service The UTILITY's water supply is provided by two deep wells with a total capacity, based on present pumps, of 2.376 million gallons per day. Treatment is provided by aeration and chlorination. The water system operates under an operating permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation. Water samples and reports are made monthly, and the water system presently meets all drinking water standards of the Department. (Testimony of Crosby, Heiker; R.E. 1.) The UTILITY's sewage treatment system consists of a .10 million gallon per day package plant; treatment consists of extended aeration followed by gravity flow to evapo-percolation ponds providing on-site disposal. It operates under an operation permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation, and complies with Department's sewage collection and treatment standards. (Testimony of Crosby.) Rate Base Rate base consists of the UTILITY property that is used and useful in providing the service for which rates are charged. In its application, the UTILITY proposed a rate base; after review, the COMMISSION suggested several adjustments, which are not opposed by the UTILITY. Use of a year-end test year is appropriate because of the extraordinary growth experienced by the UTILITY during 1979. For the test year ending December 3l, 1979, the UTILITY's adjusted water rate base is $135,977; the adjusted sewer rate base is $131,764. They are calculated as follows: RATE BASE Test Year Ending December 31, 1979 WATER SEWER Utility Plant in Service $190,969 $225,722 Construction Work in Progress 1,214 4,297 Accumulated Depreciation 18,920 2/ 14,801 2/ Contribution in Aid of Construction (CIAC)-Net of Amortization -48,831 -86,458 Working Capital Allowance 3,030 3,198 Income Tax Lag -0- - 194 RATE BASE $135,977 $131,764 (Testimony of Lowe; P.E. 1, 2, 3, R.E. 3.) Operating Statement The following Operating Statement reflects the UTILITY's revenue earned, costs of operation, and not-operating income during the test year. It shows that the UTILITY suffered a loss of $26,429 in its water operations and a loss of $19,101 in its sewer operations. OPERATING STATEMENT Test Year Ending December WATER 31 , 1979 SEWER Operating Revenues: $10,172 Operating Expenses: Operatic 25,314 $14,365 22,436 Maintenance -0- -0- Depreciation 18,199 10,132 Amortization -0- -0- Taxes Other Than Income 1,088 898 Other Expenses -0- -0- Income Taxes -0- -0- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $44,601 $33,466 Operating Income ($26,429) (Testimony of Lowe; P.E. 1, 2, 3, R.E. 3.) ($19,101) The UTILITY requests an annual water revenue increase of $36,154, and a sewer revenue increase of $31,715, which would produce gross annual revenue of $54,326, and $46,080, respectively. The adjusted Operating Statement, constructed to reflect this additional requested revenue, is as follows: CONSTRUCTED OPERATING STATEMENT Test Year Ending December 31, 1979 WATER SEWER Operating Revenues: Operating Expenses: $54,326 $46,080 Operation 30,634 25,580 Maintenance -0- -0- Depreciation 3,812 2/ 3,436 2/ Amortization -0- -0- Taxes Other Than Income 2,280 1,941 Other Expenses -0- -0- Income Taxes 1,424 968 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $38,150 $31,925 Operating Income $16,176 $14,155 Rate Base $135,977 $131,704 Rate of Return 11.90 percent 10.74 percent (Testimony of Lowe; P.E. 1, 2, 3, R.E. 3.) Rate of Return The capital structure of the UTILITY is as follows: AMOUNT PERCENT TO TOTAL Debt 4/ $1,450,000 60.90 Customer deposits 6,389 .27 Common Equity 924,550 30.83 TOTAL $2,380,947 100.00 The proposed annual gross water revenues of $54,326, and sewer revenues of $46,080 will allow the UTILITY to earn a rate of return of 11.90 percent on its water rate base, and 10.74 percent on its sewer rate base. With debt service costs now in excess of 12.50 percent, the return on equity will be nominal; however, there is no evidence that this will cause the UTILITY's service to suffer. (Testimony of Smith; P.E. 6.) II. Capitalization of Interest on Non-Used and Useful Equipment The UTILITY's plant is larger than necessary to serve its present customers. In its application, the UTILITY seeks COMMISSION approval to capitalize its interest costs on that portion of the UTILITY's plant which is non-used and useful, and excluded from rate base. Capitalization will allow the UTILITY to recover its interest expenses over the useful life of the property involved. The COMMISSION has previously allowed capitalization of interest under similar circumstances, Docket No. 760054-WS, Application of North Orlando Water and Sewer Corporation, Order No. 7455, dated October 4, 1976. Here, the UTILITY's request is reasonable, concurred in by the COMMISSION, and should be granted. (Testimony of NewIon, Cooke, Lowe; P.E. .) III. Rate Structure The UTILITY currently uses a conventional two-tier rate structure. A base facility charge (BFC) rate structure is a more equitable method of distributing costs associated with providing a utility service. Under a BFC structure, customers pay a base charge which covers their pro-rata share of the UTILITY's fixed costs, and a gallonage charge which covers the costs of pumping, treating, and distributing the actual water gallonage used. Such a structure would require the UTILITY to alter its current customer service policy to insure that the base charge is paid during temporary discontinuances of service. (Testimony of Washington.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the UTILITY's application for increased sewer rates and charges be granted and that it be authorized to file revised tariff pages containing rates designed in accordance with the base facility charge concept to produce gross annual water revenues of $54,326 and annual sewer revenues of $46,080; That the UTILITY be required to notify each customer of any rate increase authorized, explaining the reasons for such increase. A letter of explanation should be submitted to the COMMISSION for prior approval; That the UTILITY be allowed to retain all interim revenues collected pursuant to COMMISSION Order No. 9416 and cancel the rate refunding bond previously submitted; and That the UTILITY be allowed to capitalize interest on non-used and useful equipment which is excluded from rate base. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 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 for consideration in this case is whether Respondents should pay two fines of $500 each for allegedly violating Section 386.041, Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for issuing citations under Chapter 386. Respondents own an apartment complex located at 1202 Shadow Drive, Lakeland, Florida. In the two weeks preceding December 29, 1997, Respondents received complaints from several tenants regarding an overflowing sewer system in their rental units. On December 29, 1997, Respondents responded to the complaints by pumping sewage from the dosage chamber in the septic tank onto a vacant lot adjacent to the apartment complex. On December 30, 1997, Petitioner received a complaint that sewage was being discharged onto the neighboring lot of the apartment complex. Petitioner inspected the site on December 30, 1997, and advised Respondent, Shirley Crawford, and an employee named "Fred" that it was illegal to dump untreated sewage onto the open ground. Petitioner ordered them to immediately turn off the pump so that no more sewage could be discharged onto the adjacent lot. Respondent, Shirley Crawford, failed to respond immediately to the order. Respondents were unwilling to cooperate with Petitioner. Petitioner issued a citation to Respondents for violating Section 386.041. Although Respondents did unplug the pump later that same day, the pump was reset to work through the night. They continued pumping discharge onto the adjacent lot during the following day. Petitioner received another complaint on January 5, 1998, alleging that the septic tank at the same address was discharging from the tank onto the ground surrounding the rental units. Petitioner inspected the site. The drain field was breaking out. A probe placed into the drain field verified that the discharge on the ground was coming from the septic tank. It was determined that there was a hole in the drain field. Furthermore, a PVC pipe used to drain the system on December 30, 1997, had not been removed from the system as required on December 30, 1997. A second citation was issued for violating Chapter 386. As part of the citation, Petitioner instructed Respondents to pull a permit by the following week to repair the system so that they could accommodate the needs of the apartment complex. Respondents pulled a permit within the following week. However, they failed to repair or replace the septic system according to the specifications and requirements of the permit. Respondents failed to supply Petitioner with a schedule for pumping sewage out of the tank until the system was repaired according to the specifications and requirements of the permit. The work Respondents performed on the system was completed on March 15, 1998. Respondents modified the faulty system by covering or plugging pipes leading into the faulty system from another older system. It took approximately 45 minutes to one hour to plug these pipes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order sustaining the two citations issued on December 30, 1997, and January 9, 1998, imposing fines of $1,000, and denying the request to dismiss the citations. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 2nd day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Wayne and Shirley Crawford 4732 Highway 98, North Lakeland, Florida 33810 Roland Reis, Esquire Department of Health 1290 Golfview Avenue, 4th Floor Bartow, Florida 33830 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 136 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
