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 Petitioner provides electric, gas and water utility service at various Florida locations. During the 1979 test year, its Fernandina Beach Water Division served an average of 2,500 residential customers, 523 general service customers and nine private fire line customers. In addition, it maintained 210 fire hydrants for the City of Fernandina Beach. Service The Utility is providing satisfactory water service. There were no service complaints presented at the public hearing, nor were there any citations or corrective orders outstanding. Rate Base The Utility seeks recognition of a $1,332,178 rate base. This amount includes $82,128 for an office building completed in the last month of the test year, a $7,600 chlorinator building completed after the test year (March, 1980) , and a pumphouse still under construction at an estimated completed cost of $106,000. Neither the amounts nor their completion dates are in dispute. However, the Commission seeks to utilize a 13-month average year rate base which would result in the exclusion of all the above facilities except for the office building investment during the final month of the test year. Both parties cite Citizens of Florida v. Hawkins, 356 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1978) in support of their positions. Although the Court discusses the various methods of computing a utility rate base, it concludes that unusual or extraordinary growth is a prerequisite to use of a year end rate base. The Utility did not demonstrate unusual or extraordinary growth. Rather, customer growth during the test year was only about two percent, mandating use of an average rate base. The Utility suggests that construction of the chlorinator was required by the federal government under the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. If so, the Utility would be permitted to include this Investment in its rate base. 1/ However, the Utility was in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act prior to construction of the pumphouse and made no showing that it was required to undertake this project by government authority. Capitalization of interest on the funds used in construction of new facilities should be authorized. However, this amount will not be subject to inclusion in the rate base until the facility itself is included. The Utility plant was shown to be 100 percent used and useful in the public service. In view of this, and the adjustments discussed above, the Utility's average rate base for the test year is $1,103,201. See Schedule 1 for detail. Operating Revenues The Utility seeks a test year revenue authorization of $581,037 based on expenses of $456,184 and a 9.39 percent return on its proposed rate base. It seeks to include an expense item of $2,400 for tank maintenance, basing this amount on the five-year amortization of a projected $12,000 expenditure. Although this procedure is proper, since tank maintenance is periodically required, the $12,000 is the anticipated cost of future maintenance rather than an actual cost. Therefore, this figure must be adjusted to one-fifth of the last actual maintenance cost, or $1,105. Prior to December, 1979, when its office building was completed, the Utility rented the required space. Since the new building was not recognized for rate making purposes until the final month of the test year, it is proper to include the rent expense actually involved during the preceding 11 months. Therefore, an upward adjustment in expenses of $1,524 is required. Authorized expenses should also include $45,281 proposed by the Utility to meet known increases in the cost of purchased electrical power. The limitation on test year expenses is not the same as that on test year investment. Rather, Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, specifically provides for recognition of outside test year increases in electrical power costs. See Section 367.081(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1980). The Utility supported its proposed rate case expense of $5,100 by late filed exhibit. Neither the amount nor the proposed three-year amortization period were opposed by the Commission and are appropriately included herein. In view of the above findings and a 9.10 percent return on investment (discussed below) , the Utility is entitled to revise its rates to produce annual revenue of $536,970. See Schedule 2 for detail. Cost of Capital The parties agreed that 15 percent is an appropriate return on equity investment. This amount, when weighed against the current cost of debt, supports an overall 9.10 percent rate of return. Rate Structure The parties propose adoption of a base facility charge rate structure. This rate design includes a fixed charge to each customer served based on that customer's share of fixed operating costs. The second element of the base facility charge represents -- the variable cost of water actually used. This rate structure provides an equitable method of allocating service costs and is consistent with statutory requirements that rates be just and nondiscriminatory. See Section 307.081(2), Florida Statutes (1980). The Utility proposes to increase its fire hydrant charge from $8 to $12 monthly and to include this amount in its regular service rates to all customers rather than as a separate charge to the City of Fernandina Beach. The amount of the increase is consistent with overall revenue needs and was not opposed by the Commission. The procedure to include fire hydrant charges in customer charges was requested by the City Commission of Fernandina Beach and would not discriminate against any customer or group of customers, since all benefit from the fire protection represented by these charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions A, of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Public Utilities Company be authorized to file revised rates structured on the base facility charge concept, designed to generate annual gross revenue of $536,970 based on the average number of customers served during the test year. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Although numerous customers were present, four of them testified at the hearing. No service quality problems were described with regard to either water or sewer service. Indeed, several of the customers described water quality as being good or excellent. The primary concern of the customers was the magnitude of the proposed rate increase, although a number of then opined that some increase in rates may he necessary. Expert engineering witnesses presented by both the Comission and the Petitioner established that the Utility has not been cited by any local, state or federal agency for health or environmentally related violations. No corrective orders are in force either by the Department of Environmental Regulation, the Lee County Health Department, or the Public Service Commission. The water and sewer treatment exceeds all governmental quality standards extant. In order to enhance service quality, the company has constructed a one million gallon ground storage tank and has installed an additional high-service pump. All parties agree that the cost of these improvements should be added to the Utility's rate base for purposes of this proceeding. Rate Base The Utility propounded evidence alleging its proper water rate base to be $1,872,470.00 and the appropriate sewer rate base to be $1,917,931.00. In arriving at the Utility's net investment in property used in the public service (rate base), it is necessary to calculate the amount of contributions-in-aid-of-construction, which serve to decrease the Utility's investment. Normally, where there has been a previous rate case for a utility in which the utility's net investment would have been determined by the Commission, the calculation of the utility investment in a current rate case is generally competed by adding additions to plant-in-service and subtracting additional contributions-in-aid-of construction in order to arrive at the current net "return yielding" investment. In the instant proceeding, however, Lehigh has elected to take issue with the amount of contributions-in-aid-of-construction (CIAC) previously determined by the Commission in the last rate case. In that last case (Docket No. R-73384-WS), the amount of CIAC was determined by multiplying water connections by $350.00 and sewer connections by $400.00. (See Exhibits 10, 19 and 20) The Utility in the prior proceeding agreed with that method of calculation and, further, two land sales contracts in evidence show that a charge of $750.00 for "sales price of water and sewer" to purchasers of houses in the service area has been imposed by the Utility or its predecessor, Lehigh Corporation (development company), when the Utility was merely a division of the development company. Notwithstanding that prior position, the Utility in this proceeding has elected to attempt to prove its level of CIAC ab initio and has conducted a "Special CIAC Study" in an attempt to show that the amount of contributions is now substantially less than the amount it and the Commission agreed to be applicable in the last rate proceeding and that which the Commission maintains is germane to this proceeding. The Utility thus is alleging that the appropriate charge per connection for CIAC is $650.00 for a water and sewer connection as opposed to the Commission's contention that the figure should be $750.00 per connection. Although a developer's agreement with an affiliated company shows a water and sewer connection charge of $650.00, the testimony of a senior officer of the Utility establishes that there were a total of 1,308 such contracts indicating a sales price for water and sewer service of $750.00. The Utility contends that only $650.00 of the $750.00 charge in question was actually transferred to the utility company and that, therefore, the $650.00 is the appropriate amount to attribute to CIAC. There is no question, however, that with regard to these 1,308 land sales contracts, that $750.00 was actually collected from the lot purchasers involved as the sales price of water and sewer service. Thus, the actual amount of CIAC paid by those 1,308 customers was $750.00 each, for a total of $981,000.00 for water and sever service and that figure represents in its entirety contributions-in-aid-of-construction. The contracts for which the customers involved paid $750.00 for water and sewer service, were entered into in the latter 1960's and early 1970's. Prior to that time, the same type of contracts carried an amount of $650.00 for water and sewer and following the period of time when the fee was $750.00, the line item in the contract was changed so that there was no longer any separate item providing for "sales price of water and sewer." The water and sewer charge was thereafter included in the amount charged for "sales price of improvements." Thus, contrary to the position of Lehigh, because of the segregation of the items in the purchase price shown in these land sales contracts into separate figures for price and for the sales price of water and sewer service, there have been shown to be definite, proven amounts of contributions-in-aid-of-construction supported by company records. The remaining portion of the contributions attributable to the Utility and not represented by these contracts were contributed in the sum of $650.00 per connection, with which figure both parties agree. An additional issue regarding contributions and the "Special CIAC Study" concerns contributions recorded as income from the inception of the Utility operation until November 30, 1964. As demonstrated by Exhibit 12, the amount of contributions recorded as income equals $756,656.00. The Utility's own "Special CIAC Study" refers to contributions recorded as income and Lehigh received sums of money for the availability of water and sewer service in the early 1960's which it treated as income. During the early 1960's when the Utility was regulated by Lee County, the Lee County regulatory board allowed it and other water and sewer utilities to receive and record service availability fees as revenue. This was done in order to enhance the apparent financial posture of the utilities and therefore improve their credit status as an aid to financing improvements. There is no question that those fees during this time period were paid into the Utility or its predecessor for water and sewer service availability and hence should properly be accounted for as CIAC. It might be argued, as the Utility does, that if Lehigh declared the contributions it received to be revenues with the Internal Revenue Service, then the benefit of those contributions or the amount of revenue they represent to the Utility would be reduced by the amount of the resulting income tax, and that if they are now determined to be contributions instead of revenue that an additional detriment to the Utility would occur by the reduction by that amount of its rate base and, therefore, its dollar return. It should be pointed out, however, that because of the tax advantages of the Utility's demonstrated operating loss carry-overs and investment tax credits, as well as accelerated depreciation, all of which tax advantages this Utility has been able to employ, no actual income tax has been paid on such "revenue." Further, Lehigh is depreciating this $756,655.00 in assets in its returns to the Internal Revenue Service and is thereby recovering the costs of the assets. If the Utility is permitted to treat them for regulatory rate-making purposes as revenue instead of CIAC, then the effect would be to maintain rate base and return at a correspondingly higher level than if these amounts are determined to be CIAC, which would reduce rate base and thereby the net investment upon which a return could be earned for regulatory purposes. Thus, the appropriate amount of contributions-in-aid-of-construction for the water system as of the closing date of March 31, 1979, equals $1,057,000.00. The amount of contributions-in-aid-of-construction attributable to the sewer system as of that date equals $1,389,977.00. (Net of amortization). The detailed calculations and adjustments supportive of the above findings with regard to rate base are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Schedules I, II and II. The first issue to be concerned with in calculating the operating expense basis for the revenue requirement is the cost of the above-referenced CIAC study. The Utility prepared this special CIAC study because of its fear that, in view of the Commission's decision in Tamarac Utilities, Inc. v. Hawkins, 354 So.2d 437, that it would not otherwise be able to meet its burden of proof on the issue of contributions and therefore would suffer a dismissal of the petition. In the Tamarac case, the Public Service Commission auditors encountered numerous problems resulting from a lack of primary data supporting the amount of contributions and the Commission issued an order allowing the Utility to provide clarifying evidence. When the Utility failed to satisfactorily perform this task, it ultimately suffered a dismissal of its petition and a refund of monies collected under interim rates. In this case, however, it has been demonstrated that there is no dearth of primary data or books and record supportive of the level of CIAC; nor has an order been issued requiring this Utility to provide such clarification or a "study" of its CIAC. Moreover, in the case of this utility, a previous rate case has been finalized wherein it was found by the Commission that there was a definite, specific level of contributions which were also consistent with those alleged by the petitioner in that proceeding. Thus, there is adequate primary data upon which a determination of CIAC can be computed in this proceeding without resort to a "Special CIAC Study" and the additional increment of rate case expense it represents. It should be further noted that even if the instant case involved a "Tamarac situation" where financial books and records were not adequate to properly document contributions-in-aid-of-construction that, in that event, if a CIAC study were made, then the proper rate-making treatment would be to amortize tile cost of that study over several years, since it is a large, nonrecurring expense in the Utility's operation, as opposed to allowing the entire expense to be written off (and charged to the customers through rates) based upon one year. The Utility has alleged that certain additional pro-forma adjustments to various expense items should be accomplished in order to arrive at the appropriate revenue which will support an adequate rate of return. Thus, the increased costs alleged for purchases of lime, chlorine and gasoline, depicted in the attached schedules incorporated herein, were undisputed, agreed to, are reasonable and therefore should be accepted. The alleged pro-forma cost for payroll is a mere estimate and not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Additionally, it was established by the Commission's accounting witness that certain rate case expenses arose from a prior rate case and therefore should be removed from consideration in arriving at revenue requirements for purposes of this proceeding. This adjustment was not contested, nor were similar adjustments to remove depreciation expense on construction work in progress, to remove depreciation expense on the contributed property, to remove unsupported property taxes, and to remove property tax as an expense and depreciation expense attributable to non-used and useful portions of the Utility's invested plant. None of these adjustments were disputed by the Utility. They are appropriate and reasonable and should be adopted. The Utility has also requested allowance of a $55.00 annual fire hydrant charge and a $10.00 charge for the initial commencement of service. The Utility submitted evidence (Exhibits 6 and 7) supportive of the actual number of water and sewer connections made during the test years as well as the costs upon which the initial commencement of service charge requested is based. The Commission did not dispute, therefore, the requested $10.00 charge for initial commencement of service and, inasmuch as the current $25.00 annual fire hydrant charge was established in the late 1960's and was shown to be no longer sufficient to cover costs, the Commission also did not dispute the increase in the annual fire hydrant charge from $25.00 to $55.00, which accordingly should be increased. Cost of Capital The Utility has requested a rate of return of 11.76 percent which includes an attrition allowance of .78 percent. There is no dispute as to the debt-equity ratios in the capital structure of the Utility. The common stock equity represents approximately 49.57 percent of the total capitalization. Long-term debt makes up 35.96 percent of capital and cost-free capital items make up 14.47 percent. The cost rate of the equity in the capital structure was established by the Commission's financial expert witness to be 14.5 percent or the midpoint in a range for companies and utility companies possessing a similar degree of risk to equity investors of 13.5 percent to 15.5 percent. The 14.5 percent cost of equity figure represents an accurate assessment of the opportunity costs of equity capital for such a company. The imbedded cost of long-term debt is 8.3 percent, which is a very advantageous rate to be enjoyed by such a company in today's money market and reflects a high degree of management efficiency on the part of the operation and management personnel of the petitioner. These two items, when combined with a zero cost factor shown to be appropriate for the cost-free capital items, results in a calculated rate of return of 10.35 percent, which does not take into account an attrition allowance due to inflation. The Utility advocated an attrition allowance equal to 10 percent of the weighted cost of equity capital to help offset the erosion in earnings caused by inflation. There can be little doubt that attrition of earnings due to significant inflation in costs of operation experienced by such companies is a very real factor. However, this record contains no substantial and competent evidence to demonstrate whether the utility wants coverage of capital attrition or attrition of its ability to cover operation and maintenance expenses nor which could justify the alleged 10 percent factor or any other quantification of attrition of earnings which may be experienced. Thus in the absence of a definitive establishment of the appropriate attrition factor, a cost of equity and a corresponding return on rate base in the midpoint of the range found above is appropriate. Thus, the proper return on rate base for this Utility has been shown to be 10.35 percent, which is within the range 9.85 percent to 10.84 percent. A summary of the cost of capital structure and weighted cost of capital calculation is depicted as follows: CALENDAR YEAR 1979 COMMON STOCK EQUITY RATIO 49.57 COST RATE 14.5 WEIGHTED COST 7.19 LONG TERM DEBT 35.96 8.8 3.16 COST FREE 14.47 -0- -0- 10.35 Floor CSE at 13.5 9.85 Ceiling CSE at 15.5 10.34 In summary, the required operating revenue for the Utility's water system should be $658,451.00 which results in an operating income of $211,407.00. The sewer system requires an annual, gross operating revenue of $475,629.00 in order to obtain a return or operating income of $130,017.00. The operating expenses and adjustments supportive of these figures are depicted in more detail in Schedules IV, V and VI attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The sewer revenue requirement found herein is less than the interim revenues authorized for sewer service, thus a refund is in order.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Lehigh Utilities, Inc. be granted in part, and that the Utility be authorized to receive a gross annual water revenue of $658,451.00 and gross annual sewer revenue of $475,629.00 to be achieved by rates filed with and approved by the Public Service Commission. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Utility be required to file revised tariff pages containing rates designed to produce annual revenues in the above amounts. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Utility be required to refund the interim sewer revenues previously authorized in this proceeding which exceed those sewer revenues determined to be appropriate herein. It is further RECOMMENDED that the above refunds be accomplished within ninety (90) days. This Recommended Order entered this 13th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: R. M. C. Rose, Esquire 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William H. Harrold, Esquire 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 The Petitioner is a utility regulated by the Commission that is in the business of acquiring and operating water and sewer systems in Florida, principally in Central Florida. It now operates 39 systems, of which at least 30 water systems and 5 sewer systems are located in Orange, Lake and Seminole counties. In this case, the Central Florida Division has one water system in Lake County (Picciola Island) , two water systems in Orange County (Daetwyler Shores and Lake Conway), three water systems and one sewer system in Seminole County (Bretton Woods/Druid Hills, Dol Ray Manor, and both water and sewer in Chuluota; these systems serve 949 water customers and 98 sewer customers. Southern commenced operating these systems in the spring of 1978, purchased them from Central Florida Utilities, Inc. in October, 1978 and applied to the Commission for a transfer, which application is still pending. (Docket 780278- WS; Hearing Examiner's Recommended Order approving the transfer was filed January 29, 1979) Notwithstanding customer complaints of the quality of the water service (low or fluctuating pressure, excess chlorine, sediment, no noticed interruptions and lack of fire protection capabilities) and Southern's admission of the general disrepair of the systems at the time of the purchase, the systems are in compliance with governmental standards. The utility has spent $52,000 since the test year on repair and upgrading with another $87,000 necessary to complete the required projects, of which $25,000 is for governmentally mandated improvements to the Chuluota wastewater system. The Petitioner's use of the purchase price of $215,800 for the facilities involved in the seven systems as the amount of plant in service as of June 30, 1978, rather than Respondent's use of the 1977 annual reports of the prior owner, is appropriate because: it follows past FPSC decisions on this subject with respect to this utility; the purchase price was considerably less than FPSC's estimated replacement cost of over $800,000; the purchase was an arms-length transaction; the books of the prior owner were considered unreliable; and, following complete integration of operations with Petitioner's other systems in Lake, Orange and Seminole counties, the customers should obtain the best possible service at the lowest rates obtainable. Alternatively, the Utility is entitled to an acquisition adjustment that achieves the same rate base as using the purchase price. Petitioner's rate bases using a 12-month average, rather than the preferred 13-month average, are as follows: Water Sewer Average test year plant $178,305 $ 62,242 Mandated additions 25,000 Accumulated depreciation (1,833) (623) CIAC (net of amortization) (6,703) Working Capital 11,241 1,801 Income tax lag (776) (370) $180,234 $ 89,050 The capital structure and rate of return is as stipulated by the parties as follows: WEIGHTED TYPE AMOUNT RATIO COST COST Common Stock $1,882,055 60.44 14.0 percent 8.46 Long Term Debt 1,037,372 33.31 8.89 2.96 Cost Free 194,768 6.25 0 0 TOTAL $3,114,195 100.00 11.42 perc. Rate of Return The above rate bases and rate of return provide an authorized constructed net operating income from water service of $20,583 and from sewer service of $10,170. This results in the following constructed statement of operations for year ended June 30, 1979: Water Sewer Operating Revenue $122,993 $29,085 Operating Expense Operation 84,760 12,346 Maintenance 4,103 2,065 Depreciation 3,531 1,245 Taxes, other than income 6,138 1,409 Income taxes 3,878 1,850 Total $102,410 $18,915 Net Operating Income $ 20,583 $10,170 It is noted that the above revenue requirement is more than the interim authorized revenue of $97,184 for water and $17,640 for sewer. The staff proposed that the rate structure should be changed from the present block structure far water and flat rate for sewer to a base facility charge for both water and sewer. This concept is appropriate since it serves to conserve water and insures that each customer pays his fair share of the costs of providing service. No evidence opposing this type rate structure was presented.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Southern States Utilities, Inc., Central Florida Division, be granted and that the utility be authorized to file new tariffs to be approved by the Florida Public Service Commission that would have provided for the test year ending June 30, 1979 annual gross revenues of $122,993 for water service and $29,085 far sewer service. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to implement rates for fire protection service in Belle Isle and a base facility charge in structuring water and sewer rates. It is further RECOMMENDED that the refund bond be returned to utility. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. H. E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth H. Myers, Esquire 1428 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 William H. Harrold, Esquire 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Owens, Esquire 101 E. Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Steve Tribble, Clerk Florida Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert T. Mann, Chairman Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for consideration in these cases concern whether the Petitioners are entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit, or the grant of a variance from the permitting requirements embodied in the statutes and rules cited herein, so as to authorize installation of an OSDS for property they own near the Suwanee River in Dixie County, Florida. See, Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are the owners of certain real property located in Dixie County, Florida, in close proximity to the Suwanee River, more particularly described as Lots 22 and 37, High Point Suwanee Riverfront Estates, a subdivision platted and recorded in 1983. Lot 22 is approximately 150 feet by 127 feet by 121 feet, and Lot 37 is approximately 100 feet by 175 feet by 176 feet in dimension. The lots were purchased on September 22, 1987 and December 10, 1987, respectively. The parties have stipulated that evidence and factual testimony adduced in this proceeding shall apply equally to the circumstance of both lots since they are in close proximity to each other and have similar elevations and other site characteristics. Accordingly, these Findings of Fact will be based upon that stipulated, combined evidence; and all Findings of Fact will apply to both lots, except as to elevation figures peculiar to each lot and as otherwise noted in these Findings of Fact. The Petitioners purchased Lot 22 for $14,995.00 and Lot 37 for $12,500.00. They were purchased in September and December of 1987, respectively. The Petitioners purchased them with the intent of holding them for investment and building a retirement-type home on one of the lots. On March 22, 1990, the Petitioners applied for an OSDS permit for the lots in question. The new systems applied for would be for a frame-type "stilt home", which would contain three bedrooms and a heated and cooled area of 1,232 feet, which equates to a 350-450 gallons per day sewage flow under the standards contained in the Respondent's rules. Hubert H. Raker, a certified, land surveyor of Cross City, Florida, performed a survey on the property, shown by Petitioners' Exhibit NO. 1 in evidence. That survey establishes a benchmark elevation for Lot 22 of 11.79 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). That benchmark is actually six inches above the grade level elevation of the property at the benchmark location. Lot 37 was established to have a benchmark elevation of 12.25 feet above MSL, also six inches above the actual grade level of the lot at the benchmark elevation site. The site of the proposed installation of the OSDS has an elevation of 11.19 feet above MSL, as to Lot 22, and 11.75 feet above MSL, as to Lot 37. The ground water level, at the time the site evaluation was made by the Respondent's representative, was 60 inches below the surface of the grade for Lot 22 and 54 inches below the surface of the grade for Lot 37. The wet season water table for both lots was shown, by "mottling" existing in the soil beneath the surface of the lots, to be 54 inches below `:he surface of both lots. The soil type for both lots, starting with six inches below the surface, is of a "slight limited" soil characteristic and is fine sand down to approximately 48 inches and from 48 inches to 72 inches, consists of "loamy-sand". Such soils are well adapted to OSDS installation and operation. The property was shown, by the Respondent's own Composite Exhibit NO. 2 in evidence, to not be subject to frequent flooding. The property is, however, as to both lots, beneath the ten-year flood elevation established by the Suwanee River Water Management District's calculations and admitted into evidence in this proceeding as a part of Respondent's Composite Exhibit NO. 2. The ten-year flood elevation for both lots was shown to be 15 feet above MSL. Thus the surface elevation of both lots is somewhat below the 15-foot, ten-year flood elevation. The bottom of the drain-field or absorption-bed trenches, if the systems were installed on the lots, would be a greater distance beneath the ten- year flood elevation. Thus, the property is located within the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwanee River and is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Suwanee River. Other properties and lots in the immediate proximity of the Petitioners' two lots are equipped with OSDS's, including a number of "mounded systems", involving the placement of septic tanks and drain fields in elevated earthen mounds in order to elevate them above the ten-year flood elevation. Petitioner, John W. Holian, testified in a general way that such a system might be feasible and advisable in his situation, as well as the possibility of installing an aerobic septic tank treatment and disposal system, involving the injection of air into the septic tanks so that aerobic, (as opposed to anaerobic), bacteria could perform the sewage treatment function, which typically perform the function better than does a conventional anaerobic system. Petitioner Holian, did not offer any detailed testimony or evidence which would explain and establish how such a system could work without endangering the health of the Petitioners or members of the general public, if placed on the lots in question below the ten-year flood elevation, nor if or how such a system would protect against degradation of the ground or surface waters involved in the proximity" of the sites. If the system were mounded above the ten-year flood elevation, the Petitioners did not establish, through proper engineering testimony and other evidence generated by a registered engineer, that the use of the fill for the earthen mound for such a system would not raise the level of the "base flood." In summary, although the Petitioners suggested such a mounded system or an aerobic system or such a system possibly used in combination, the Petitioners did not go beyond suggesting an alternative and did not offer evidence which could establish that such an alternative would be a reasonable operationally feasible one and would adequately protect the ground or surface waters and the members of the general public from health hazards associated with sewage effluent. See, Rule 10D-6.47(6), Florida Administrative Code. On May 1, 1990, the Respondent, by letter, advised the Petitioners that they should pursue a formal administrative proceeding upon the initial denial of their OSDS permit application and advised them that an application for a variance from the requirements of Rule 10D-6.47(6), Florida Administrative Code, regarding the ten-year flood elevation problem at issue, should not be pursued but rather, the formal hearing process before the Division of Administrative Hearings should be employed by the Petitioners. The Respondent asserts, that the Petitioners were not accorded the opportunity to avail themselves of the variance procedure because of the Respondent's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, which it opines precludes it from granting any variances or permits for OSDS within the ten-year flood elevation. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwanee River Task Force" recommendation to preclude such systems beneath the ten year flood elevation was entered on January 17, 1990. The Respondent has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to entertain and grant or deny variance applications. The Petitioners apparently took-that advice because no variance application was filed. It is noted, somewhat parenthetically, however, that in terms of the requirements for the establishment of a right to a variance, the Petitioners have not shown that no reasonable alternatives exist to a standard subterranean septic tank and drain field OSDS, (such as those alternatives referenced in the paragraph next above, which efficacy was, nonetheless, not established by the Petitioners). Neither did the Petitioners establish, in terms of the variance requirements in the authority referenced below, that the installation of an OSDS would not have an adverse effect on the public's health or the quality of the ground or surface waters involved at the sites. Because these two necessary elements of proof necessary to establish the right to a variance, through hardship, were not proven by the Petitioners, the elements of proof necessary to establish the right to a hardship variance have not been made out by the Petitioners and one could not be granted under the proof of record in this proceeding, even had the Petitioners made formal application for such a variance. That is not to say, however, that with proper preparation and presentation of evidence, entitlement to a variance could not be established in the future.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3109 AND 90-3445 The Petitioners filed no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-9. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John W. Holian 466 South Lake Triplet Drive Casselberry, Florida Frances S. Childers, Esquire Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a utility regulated by the Commission that is in the business of acquiring and operating water and sewer systems in Florida, principally in Central Florida. It now operates 39 systems, of which at least 30 water systems and 5 sewer systems are located in Orange, Lake and Seminole counties. In this case, the utility serves 547 water customers and 528 sewer customers in a subdivision known as University Shores. Southern commenced operating these systems in June, 1978, purchased them from University Shores Utilities, Inc. in September, 1978, and applied to the Commission for a transfer, which application was approved November 1, 1978, by Order 8550. The rates for service by these systems were granted by Order 6822 on August 6, 1975. Notwithstanding customer complaints of the quality of the water service (smell, taste, excess chlorine, sediment and no-noticed interruptions), the systems are in compliance with governmental standards. No customer complaints had been made to regulatory agencies, and the utility had handled only five for 1979 and to date in 1980. Due to a large increase in number of customers, a year end, rather than average, test year is appropriate; and the facilities are used and useful. Petitioner's rate bases are computed as follows: WATER SEWER Year end test year plant $526,737 $957,176 Construction Work in Progress 2,500 -0- Acquisition adjustment (net of amortization) (41,490) (78,300) Accumulated depreciation (67,172) (128,393) CIAC (net of amortization) (186,470) (489,438) Working Capital 5,476 6,386 Income tax lag (2,951) (4,225) $236,630 $263,214 The following capital structure and rate of return is that agreed to by the Petitioner and Respondent prior to intervention by the customers: WEIGHTED TYPE AMOUNT RATIO COST COST Common Stock $1,882,055 60.44 14.0 percent 8.46 Long Term Debt 1,037,372 33.31 8.89 2.96 Cost Free 194,768 6.25 0 0 TOTAL $3,114,195 100.00 11.42 percent The above rate bases and rate of return provide an authorized constructed net operating income from water service of $22,523 and from sewer service of $30,059. Although the return on water service is only 9.52, the revenue is limited to that in the application. This results in the following constructed statement of operations for year ended June 30, 1979: WATER SEWER Operating Revenue $94,550 $117,814 Operating Expense Operation 41,853 49,838 Maintenance 1,950 1,244 Depreciation 5,964 7,451 Amortization (860) (1,598) Taxes, other than income 8,363 9,726 Income taxes 14,757 21,124 TOTAL $ 72,027 $ 87,785 Net Operating Income $ 22,523 $ 30,059 Rate Base $236,630 $263,214 Rate of Return 9.52 11.42 percent It is noted that the above revenue requirement is more than the interim authorized revenue of $68,841 for water and $81,720 for sewer. The staff proposed that the rate structure should be changed from the present block structure for water and flat rate for sewer to a base facility charge for both water and sewer. This concept is appropriate since it serves to conserve water and insures that each customer pays his fair share of the costs of providing service. No evidence opposing this type rate structure was presented.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Southern States Utilities, Inc., University Shores Division, be granted and that the utility he authorized to file new tariffs to be approved by the Florida Public Service Commission that would have provided for the test year ending June 30, 1979 annual gross revenues of $94,550 for water service and $117,814 for sewer service. It is further RECOMMENDED that the refund bend be returned to utility. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. H. E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: R. M. C. Rose, Esquire 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William H. Harrold, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street - Fletcher Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve, Esquire Stephen C. Burgess, Esquire Benjamin H. Dickens, Jr., Esquire Office of Public Counsel Holland Building - Room 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street - Fletcher Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert T. Mann, Chairman Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street - Fletcher Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If so, what action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is registered with the Department as a septic tank contractor. Gayle Gibson owns and resides in a three-bedroom, two- bath single-family home located at 2425 Riverlane Terrace in Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Gibson's property). In late 1993 or early 1994, Gibson was experiencing problems with the septic system on her property (in the form of sewage backup and resultant unpleasant odors). Gibson contacted Respondent (who is the son of Gibson's former mailman) and asked him to come to her property to ascertain what was wrong and to take whatever remedial action was necessary. Respondent complied with Gibson's request and went to her property. After examining the situation, he told Gibson that she needed to have the septic tank on the property pumped and a new drainfield installed. Respondent recommended that the new drainfield be installed on the side of Gibson's home, instead of in the front yard (where the existing drainfield was located). Gibson made arrangements for Respondent to perform these services in exchange for money and art work. These arrangements between Gibson and Respondent were not reduced to writing. On or about January 20, 1994, Respondent pumped out the septic tank on Gibson's property and Gibson paid him $200.00, by check, for having performed such work. In late February of 1994, Respondent installed a new drainfield on the side of Gibson's home and Gibson paid him $500.00, by check, for having performed such work. At no time did Respondent obtain a permit to install the drainfield. The heavy equipment that Respondent used to perform the work was unloaded in Gibson's front yard. The unloading of the heavy equipment damaged the front yard. It cost Gibson a total of $175.00 to have the damage repaired. The drainfield that Respondent installed was an EEE ZZZ Lay Drain system comprised of Styrofoam material. Considering the size of Gibson's home, the drainfield was grossly undersized, as Respondent should have realized. It was approximately one-third the size it should have been. Predictably, shortly after this undersized drainfield was installed, Gibson again experienced sewage backup and related problems on her property. Gibson informed Respondent of the reoccurrence of these problems. Respondent told Gibson that he would take remedial action if Gibson paid him another $500.00. Gibson refused to make any additional payments to Respondent. Respondent never returned to Gibson's property to correct the error he had made in installing an undersized drainfield. Gibson contacted the Department and advised it of the problems she was experiencing with her septic system. Following an investigation of the matter, the Department issued the Administrative Complaint described in Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. Subsequently, on January 13, 1998, in an unrelated case, the Department issued and served on Respondent a citation imposing a $500.00 fine against Respondent for abandoning, without good cause, a septic system installation project he was contractually obligated to complete. The citation contained a "Notice of Appellate Rights," which indicated that "[t]his citation becomes a Final Order of the Department if you have not contested the Citation within thirty (30) days of the date which the Citation was served upon you." Respondent has neither "contested" the citation, nor paid the $500.00 fine it directed him to pay.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the unlawful conduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining him therefor by suspending his septic tank contractor's registration for 90 days and fining him in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 29th day of June, 1998.
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.
