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.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application to increase its water and sewer rates to its customers in Palm Beach County should be granted; and Whether Petitioner failed to comply with Florida Public Service Commission Orders Nos. 0924 and 8382 directing Petitioner to comply with information submission requirements in connection with its application for rate increase. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATION Petitioner's rate increase request should he granted in accordance with the findings in this recommended order. Such rates are just, reasonable, not unjustly discriminatory and consistent with Section 367.081, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980) Commission Orders No. 8924 and 0382 did not, by their terms, direct Petitioner to comply with minimum filing requirements by a date certain. Therefore, Petitioner's lengthy and unexcused delay in complying with such requirements does not constitute a violation of the Orders.
Findings Of Fact Background In May, 1978, Petitioner, Mangonia Park Utility Company ("UTILITY"), filed with the Respondent, Florida Public Service Commission ("COMMISSION"), applications to increase, on an interim basis, its sewer and water rates to its customers in Palm Beach County, Florida. By Order Nos. 8924 and 8382, issued on June 21 and July 7, 1978, respectively, the COMMISSION suspended the proposed rates, approved interim water and sewer rate increases, found that the UTILITY's application did not comply with the COMMISSION's minimum filing requirements, and acknowledged the UTILITY's statement that it would file an application which meets filing requirements by September 1, 1979. Between November, 1979, and April, 1980, the UTILITY supplied additional information but did not fully comply with the minimum filing requirements. On May 15, 1980, the COMMISSION issued an Order requiring the UTILITY to show cause why the interim rates should not be repealed and monetary penalties imposed for the UTILITY's alleged failure to comply with Order Nos. 8924 and 8382. The question of the UTILITY's compliance with those Orders was set to be heard in conjunction with its rate increase application. It was not until May 29, 1980 that the UTILITY submitted a completed application and complied with the minimum filing requirements. On November 5, 1980, the COMMISSION forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal Section 120.57 hearing. This case was then set to be heard on January 21, 1981. At hearing, the UTILITY called Philip D. Mitchell and Boyd D. Ellis as its witnesses and offered Petitioner's Exhibits No. 1 through 6 into evidence. On February 16, 1981, the COMMISSION timely submitted its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Testimony of Willis, Ellis, P-2, R-1). II Rate Increase Application The UTILITY owns and operates water treatment facilities consisting of three wells, two pumps, a lime softening unit, and two storage tanks. Since April, 1979, the City of Riviera Beach has provided treatment to the UTILITY's sewage. The UTILITY's sewage facilities now consist of a master lift station, pumps, and sewage lines. The approved test period for this rate proceeding is the twelve months prior to June 30, 1979. During the test year, the UTILITY provided water service to 113 residential customers, 49 general service customers, and one multiple dwelling customer; it provided sewer service to 75 residential customers, 47 general service customers, and one multiple dwelling customer. As a result of its analysis of the UTILITY's application, together with its books and facilities, the COMMISSION proposed various adjustments, almost all of which were accepted and agreed to by the UTILITY. At hearing, issues involving the UTILITY's request for pro forma salary adjustments and recovery for income tax liability were eliminated when it withdrew its request. The only factual issue which remains concerning the requested rate increase is the useful life and depreciation rate which should be applied to the UTILITY's plant and equipment. Useful Life and Depreciation Rate The COMMISSION contends the standard 40-year useful life with a 2.5 percent depreciation rate is appropriate; the UTILITY contends that such a depreciation rate does not take into account changing technology and obsolescence, and that a 25 to 30-year useful life with a 3.3 to 4 percent depreciation rate is more appropriate. The UTILITY acknowledged that the determination of useful life of utility equipment required engineering judgment. However, it presented no testimony by a qualified engineer on the subject. Its evidence consisted solely of its accountant's long- standing "conceptual objection" to use of a 40-year useful life for utility plants. The only competent and credible evidence on the question was presented by the COMMISSION. Its qualified engineer testified that he conducted an on-site independent study of the UTILITY plant and concluded that, in this instance, a 40-year useful life, with a 2.5 percent depreciation rate, was appropriate. In view of the foregoing, it is determined that a 40-year useful life, with a 2.5 percent depreciation rate, should be applied against the UTILITY's plant. (Testimony of Mitchell, Munt). Having thus determined the appropriate depreciation rate for use in this case, the parties have agreed to the following rate- making factors: Rate Base The adjusted test year rate base for the UTILITY's water system is $210,799; the rate base for its sewer system is $65,151. Both are calculated below: RATE BASE TEST YEAR ENDED 06/30/79 WATER SEWER Utility Plant in Service $ 386,611 $ 287,939 Plant Held For Future Use -0- (3,750) Acquisition Adjustment 18,990 -0- Accumulated Depreciation (42,485) (28,541) Amortization of Acquisition Adjustment (4,600) -0- Contribution in Aid of Construction (Net of Amort.) (154,349) (203,069) Working Capital Allowance 6,632 12,572 Income Tax Lag -0- -0- Rate Base 210,799 65,151 (Testimony of Willis, Mitchell, R-3) Net Operating Income The UTILITY's adjusted operating income for the test year - a $15,673 loss (water) and a $46,837 loss (sewer) - together with its rate of return, are depicted below: OPERATING STATEMENT TEST YEAR ENDED 06/30/79 WATER SEWER Operating Revenues $ 46,441 $ 60,192 Operating Expenses Operation 43,759 94,572 Maintenance 9,297 6,002 Depreciation (sic) 4,716 993 Amortization 541 -0- Taxes Other Than Income 3,801 5,462 Income Taxes -0- -0- Total Operating Expenses 62,114 107,029 Operating Income $(15,673) $(46,837) Rate of Return (7.44 perct) (Testimony of Willis, Mitchell, R-3) Capital Structure and Cost of Capital (71.89 perct) The UTILITY's capital structure, and weighted cost of capital, are as follows: COST OF CAPITAL COMPONENT RATIO COST RATE WEIGHTED COST Long-Term Debt Customer Deposits 99 perct 9.84 perct 1 perct 8.00 perct 9.74 perct .08 perct 100 perct 9.82 perct (Testimony of Mitchell, Clinger, R-5) Rate of Return Based on its cost of capital, the parties have agreed that percent constitutes a fair rate of return on the UTILITY's rate base. The UTILITY has a deficit in common stock equity; a return on negative investment is inappropriate. (Testimony of Mitchell, Clinger, (sic), R-5) Rate Structure The UTILITY's current water rates are conventionally structured using a minimum monthly charge which includes a minimum number of gallons and a one-step excess rate over that minimum; its residential and general service sewer rates are structured using a flat rate. The parties agree that the rates should be revised in accordance with what is known as the base facility charge (BFC) rate design. The purpose of this design is to recover the costs of providing service to each particular customer. Its monthly charges consists of two components: A base charge which covers expenses not related to actual water use, such as depreciation, billing and collecting, property taxes, debt interest, maintenance, etc., and a gallonage charge based on the allocated costs associated with pumping, treating and delivering the water to the customer. Sewer rates are similarly structured and directly related to actual water consumption. The BFC rate design structure equitably distributes the fixed and variable costs of providing service to customers and allows them to exercise greater control over the rates which they pay. In implementing the BFC rate design, the COMMISSION makes two specific recommendations which are not opposed by the UTILITY, are reasonable, and should be followed: (1) that public fire hydrants not be charged, and (2) that the monthly charge for private fire lines be one-third of the BFC charge for the particular sized connection. (Testimony of Taylor, R-4A) Required Revenue In order to be allowed the opportunity to earn a 9.82 percent return on its rate base, the UTILITY should file rates which generate annual gross revenue at $83,747 for the water system and $114,792 for the sewer system. This revenue should produce net operating revenue of $20,700 and $6,398, respectively. (Testimony of Mitchell, Willis, R-3) III Alleged Violation of Commission Order Nos. 8924 and 8382 The COMMISSION contends that the UTILITY violated Order Nos. 8924 and 8382 by its failure to comply with minimum filing requirements until May 29, 1980. For such violations, the COMMISSION seeks to impose a penalty of $200. The orders in question do not explicitly direct or order the UTILITY to file an application which complies with the minimum filing requirements by a date certain. Consequently, the UTILITY's lengthy and unexcused delay in complying with such requirements does not constitute a violation of or refusal to comply with the orders in question. (Testimony of Mitchell, Willis, R-1)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Queens Cove Properties, Inc. Mr. Alex B. Cardenas is president of the parent development company as well as the utility. The water system was constructed for the sole purpose of providing water to purchasers of lots in the Queens Cove subdivision. However, the Petitioner obtained certification as a public utility to serve the general area in the belief that it was required to do so. See Section 367.031, Florida Statutes. Lots in this subdivision have sold for $15,000 to $24,000, which includes undifferentiated amounts for availability of water service. The water service is part of a "bundle of rights" which the purchaser obtains with his lot. (e.g. bridge, roads, underground utilities). In addition, existing lot owners have purchased the "bundle of rights" separately from their land (where Queens Cove was not the original property seller) at prices ranging from $4,000 to $8,000. Again, the charge for water service availability was not differentiated from other rights. At the time of the second hearing, the utility had 45 connections--42 single family residences, one developer's office, one model home, and an irrigation outlet. Ten customers testified (five by adoption) at these hearings as to service problems. The water treatment plant is of the reverse osmosis type. This system is complex and costly to maintain, but is useful where as here the raw water contains a high level of natural impurities. The utility has not properly maintained this system and water taste, smell and clarity are generally poor. The customers also experience frequent periods of very low water pressure. Furthermore, they are unable to contact the utility when outages occur after business hours since there is no emergency phone number provided. The testimony of a Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) representative also established that chlorine residuals are not properly maintained and a high coliform reading in June, 1980, will require monitoring by DER. Thus, overall service is unsatisfactory and must be improved before the Petitioner is allowed to receive a return on its investment. See Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes, which requires the Commission to consider service in setting rates. Profits earned by a utility with service deficiencies such as these would normally be placed in escrow until the problems were corrected. Here, however, the utility does not seek to earn a return on its investment, but only to break even. In addition, there was no competent, substantial evidence adduced by either Petitioner or Respondent to demonstrate what the utility's investment is. Therefore, rate base cannot be determined in this proceeding, and consequently no return can be established. Appendix one hereto details Petitioner's test year expenses as set out in its rate application, with adjustments to correct erroneous entries and to delete or reduce expenses which were not shown to be reasonable and prudent. No controversy exists with the exception of allowances for plant manager compensation, office rent and rate case expense. The Petitioner's request for an annual manager's salary of $20,000 was not supported by the evidence. No salary is currently paid for this function, nor is a plant manager as such required or utilized. Rather, the limited functions of a plant manager can be handled by one of the full time maintenance or administrative employees. This procedure is consistent with management practices in other small, developer-owned water utilities. Such delegation does not, however, relieve the owner from his duty to hire qualified personnel and provide adequate resources. A separate allowance for office rent is not justified. The Petitioner has no office in the immediate area but uses the owner-developer's office in Stuart. There is no need for a separate office under the present organizational structure, and therefore no expense for this item should be authorized. Evidence on rate case expense (attorney and accountant fees) was submitted by post-hearing pleadings pursuant to agreement of the parties. The Petitioner seeks $9,702 rate case expense, amortized over three years, or $3,234 annually. The Respondent proposes to allow $6,000 amortized over five years, or $1,200 annually. As with other expenses, the amount authorized will be paid by customers and any portion disallowed will be borne by the owner of the utility. The rate case expense sought here is $215 per customer, which far exceeds the average water/sewer utility rate case expense of $6.92 per customer. A substantial portion of these expenses were incurred as a result of Petitioner's failure to keep adequate records and its initial decision to proceed without counsel. Therefore, the reduction of authorized expenses to $6,000 proposed by Respondent is appropriate. However, Petitioner's proposed three-year amortization period better represents industry experience and is consistent with current Commission policy. Therefore, the rate case expense authorized is $6,000 amortized over three years, or $2,000 annually. The Petitioner currently bills its customers on a monthly basis using a minimum gallonage charge. This rate design neither encourages conservation of water nor accurately reflects the cost of providing service. Therefore, the utility should be required to adopt the base facility charge rate structure. This charge includes a fixed amount for the customer's share of the utility's fixed costs, as well as a gallonage charge to represent the variable expenses associated with water consumption. Petitioner requested authority to increase its tap-in or meter installation fee from $100 to $200. This increase was authorized on an interim (escrow) basis by Order 9140. The utility has now withdrawn its request for the increase and should return the escrowed amounts to all customers who have paid the $200. In addition, Petitioner should be required to pay interest on customer deposits at the rate of 6 percent prior to July 1, 1980, and 8 percent after that date. See Section 25-10.72, Florida Administrative Code. Since no interest on deposits has ever been paid, the credit must be retroactive to the date of each customer's deposit. Proposed findings of fact were submitted by the Petitioner and the Public Service Commission. To the extent these proposed findings have not been adopted herein or are inconsistent with the above findings, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on tide foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Island Services, Inc. be granted in part, and that Petitioner be authorized to file new rates structured on the base facility charge concept, designed to generate gross water revenue of $12,823 annually, based on the average number of customers served during the test year. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be required to refund $100 to all customers who have paid the interim $200 water connection charge and that its tariff be amended to show that $100 is the authorized charge for this service. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner pay interest on deposits at the annual rate of 6 percent through June 30, 1980, and at 8 percent thereafter, with such payments retroactive to the dates of deposit. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: R. M. C. Rose, Esquire 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marta M. Crowley, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission Fletcher Building, 101 E. Gaines St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas E. Gonano, Esquire Citizens Federal Building Suite 200 1600 South Federal Highway Fort Pierce, Florida 33450
Recommendation That pursuant to Article 12.1.2, General Conditions of the Contract for construction of State Project Number HSMB-6115, Drivers License facility, Hillsborough County, Florida, a change order be approved and issued increasing the total contract sum in the amount of $6,788.00 as authorized under Paragraph 8.5 of the aforesaid contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: May Jo Carpenter, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida Stephen C. Cheeseman, Esquire Gordon and Maney 2919 First Financial Tower Tampa, Florida
The Issue Whether the application of Petitioner Florida Cities Water Company, to increase the ratios it charges customers for water service in Lee County should be granted. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATION Conclusions: Factors pertinent to ratemaking and enumerated in Section 367.081, Florida Statutes, have been considered in this pro- ceeding. The Petitioner utility has not justified use of "year-end" rate base; those adjustments which it has supported with a preponderance of evidence have been accepted, those lacking sufficient eviden- tiary support have been rejected. Peti- tioner's application for rate increase should be granted to the extent provided in this Recommended Order; the resulting rates are just, reasonable, compensatory, and not unjustly discriminatory. Recommendation: That the Commission recalculate adjusted rate base, operating income, and the result- ing additional and total gross revenues in a manner consistent with this Recommended Order, and that Petitioner be authorized to file new rates structured on the Base facility charge concept designed to generate the addi- tional and total annual gross revenues so specified.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: I. The Application By its application, the UTILITY seeks authority to increase its rates sufficiently to generate additional annual gross revenues of $1,483,300. It attributes the need for increased revenues to extensive additions recently made to its water plant pursuant to COMMISSION Order No. 6209 entered in Docket 74176-W. The UTILITY claims that the increased investment and higher operating expenses associated with such plant additions effectively reduce its rate of return to 4.2 percent; it asserts that the requested additional revenues are necessary to allow it to earn a fair and reasonable rate of return of 12 percent. (Testimony of Reeves, Cardey; P-2, P-8.) II. Rate Base There are three issues involving the proper determination of rate base in this case: (1) whether "year-end", rather than "average" rate base should be used, (2) whether an Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) for post-test period additions allowed in rate base is proper, and (3) whether connection fees collected from 1969 to 1973 should be recorded as Contributions in Aid of Construction (CIAC) "Year-end" v. "Average Rate Base In determining rate base, absent extraordinary or emergency conditions or situations, "average" rather than "year- end" investment during the test period should be used. City of Miami v. Florida Public Service Commission, 208 So.2d (Fla. 1968). The Florida Supreme Court has suggested that average investment "should not be departed from except in the most unusual and extraordinary situations where not to do so would result in rates too low as to be confiscatory to the utility." Id. at 258. Year-end investment may be used only when a utility is experiencing extraordinary growth. Citizens v. Hawkins, 356 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1978). The UTILITY has not established that it meets the standard for utilization of "year-end" rate base, i.e. , that it has experienced unusual and extraordinary growth. Its customer growth rate averaged 8.2 percent for the last seven years, with a 10.56 percent gain during the test year. This growth rate has been experienced by many other Florida utilities of similar size and is neither extraordinary nor unusual. Neither is the UTILITY's growth extraordinary when measured in terms of water sold. Between 1975 and 1979, its growth in water sales averaged approximately 11 per- cent, in 1980--6 percent. In terms of plant growth, the UTILITY averaged 19.37 percent over the last seven years; the growth rate for 1979 was 12.03 percent. However, in 3980, its investment in gross plant grew at a 33 percent rate. The UTILITY's growth rate was repeatedly described as "substantial" by its consultant, K. R. Cardey, but substantial growth does not equate to extraordinary or unusual growth as defined by the Florida Supreme Court. Furthermore, the UTILITY did not establish that failure to use "year-end" rate base would reduce its rates to a confiscatory level. See, City of Miami, supra. It follows that "average" investment during the test period is the proper method to utilize in determining rates in this case. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding.) Appropriateness of Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) After the test period, the UTILITY completed five major additions to its plant, all of which were required by previous order of the COMMISSION. (Order No. 6209, Docket 74176-W.) The COMMISSION agrees that, since it required these post-test period additions, they should be included in rate base at full weight. Since these additions, which total $5,966,569, were under construction during the test period, the COMMISSION contends they should be recorded as Construction Work in Progress (CWIP). The UTILITY agrees that these additions should be included in rate base but seeks to include, as well , an AFUDC allowance in the amount of $326,422.2 AFUDC represents interest that was capitalized on each of these additions while they were under construction during and after the test period. Since these additions are already included in rate base at full weight, the inclusion of AFUDC in rate base would allow the UTILITY to duplicate earnings on its investment. Such a result would be unreasonable, improper, and should not be allowed. (Testimony of Reeves, Deterding; P-1, P-3, P-10, R-2.) Connection Fees: CIAC or Revenue From 1969 through 1973, the UTILITY operated under the regulatory jurisdiction of Lee County, not the COMMISSION. During those years, it was the UTILITY's practice and policy to record connection fees, which totaled $226,582, as revenue, not CIAC. Since connection fees are ordinarily considered CIAC, the COMMISSION proposes to adjust CIAC by $226,582. (Testimony of Deterding, Cardey; P-8, R-2.) Contributions in Aid of Construction are defined as monies used to offset the acquisition, improvement, or construction cost of utility property used to provide service to the public. Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes (1980). The UTILITY's consultant testified that connection fees collected and credited to revenue by the UTILITY during 1971, 1972, and 1973, totaling $176,773, were "not used to offset the improvements or construction costs of the [UTILITY's] property. (P-8, p. 6.) The COMMISSION, on cross-examination, did not question the accuracy or impeach the credibility of this statement; neither did it present any evidence to controvert or rebut the UTILITY's assertion as to how the connection fees were used. The only evidence on the question presented by the COMMISSION consisted of its accountant's conclusion: "During the years from 1969 to 1973, Florida Cities Water Company recorded many tap-in fees collected as revenue. These should properly be recorded as contributions in aid to construction. This adjustment [of $226,582] adds these contributions." p. 5.)(Testimony of Deterding, Cardey; P-8, R-2.) In its Proposed Recommended Order, the COMMISSION asserts that the UTILITY has the burden of showing: (1) the correctness of collecting funds normally authorized for service availability and using them for another purpose, and (2) the exact manner in which the funds were used. (Proposed Recommended Order, p. 6.) However, there was no evidence in the record to show that the UTILITY's treatment of connection fees during 1971 through 1973, was incorrect or violative of Lee County's regulatory standards. Neither is there any evidence to show that the connection fees collected in those years were used as contributions in aid of construction, i.e., to offset acquisition, improvement, or construction costs. The only evidence presented as to how those fees were actually used was that of the UTILITY's consultant; he testified that those funds were used only to defray operation and other expenses associated with the new customers. This evidence was sufficient to shift to the COMMISSION the burden of presenting evidence on the question or discrediting the evidence presented by the UTILITY. The COMMISSION did neither. It is found, therefore, that the $176,773, representing connection fees collected between 1971 and 1973, do not constitute CIAC, the UTILITY's testimony in this regard being persuasive. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-8, R-2.) However, as to the years 1969 through 1970, the UTILITY presented no evidence that the $48,809 in connection fees collected during that time were used only for operating and maintenance expenses and not to offset acquisition, improvement, or construction costs. In the absence of such evidence, the COMMISSION testimony that connection fees should ordinarily be treated as CIAC is persuasive. The connection fees collected during 1969 and 1970, calculated to be $49,809, are therefore properly included as CIAC. (Testimony of Deterding, Cardey; P-8, R-2.) In light of the above findings and the absence of disagreement concerning other adjustments proposed by the COMMISSION, the elements of the UTILITY's adjusted rate base are: RATE BASE Test Year Ended March 31, 1980 Utility Plat in Service $ 11,178,094 Construction Work in Progress 5,966,569 3/ Accumulated Appreciation (626, 160) CIAC,(Net of Amortization) (3,041,747) 4/ Advances for Construction (111,567) AFUDC (326,422) 5/ Working Capital Allowance 146,911 Materials and Supplies 117,450 Income Tax Lay [To be calculated based on additional gross revenues rec- opmended herein.] RATE BASE [To be determined upon recalculation.] In order to determine the adjusted rate base which should be utilized, Income Tax Lag requires recalculation in a manner consistent with the above findings and Section III below. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-3, P-8, P-10, R- 2.) III. Operating Income Operating Expense: Water Royalty Charge In calculating operating income for the test year, the UTILITY included $18,577 as an operating expense attributed to a $.03 per gallon royalty charge it paid an affiliate for water pumped from the Green Meadows well field. The UTILITY operates this water field on a 21-acre site and has easements to locate 26 wells. It pays no other cost for the water. The COMMISSION disputes the reasonableness of this charge because it is not an arms-length transaction, and the UTILITY has not explained the basis of the $.03 charge, the cost to the affiliate of the land involved and its subsequent sales price (the affiliate reserving the water use rights) , and the identity of the present owner. The COMMISSION's accountant testified that reasonableness of the charge could be determined by analyzing the costs of the rental of the land based on the original cost of the property to the affiliate. In response, the UTILITY established that the $18,577 expense is less than it would cost tide UTILITY, in terms of annual revenue requirements, to purchase the land involved. But the UTILITY failed to address the cost of renting the property, based on the affiliate's acquisition costs, or furnish information necessary to make such a determination. The COMMISSION is entitled to clearly scrutinize the expenses claimed by a utility and require that their reasonableness be shown. Tide UTILITY did not adequately explain or support the reasonableness of its claimed royalty expense, and it should therefore be disallowed. (Testimony of Reeves, Deterding; P-6, R-2.) Depreciation and Taxes: Adjustments Attributable to Post-Test Period Plant Additions The parties disagree on whether adjustments should be made to test year operating expenses to reflect increases in depreciation and taxes due to the five post-test year plant additions completed subsequent to the test period. The evidence is uncontroverted that these plant additions, including the Green Meadows water treatment plant and related facilities, were required by prior COMMISSION order and that they were necessary to provide service to existing customers of the UTILITY. The parties have also agreed that the full cost of these additions should be included in rate base, at full weight. The operating expenses of the UTILITY during the test year should be adjusted as was rate base, for known and no net changes in order to reflect conditions which will prevail when the rates become effective. The UTILITY's 2.1 percent composite depreciation rate should thus be applied against the new plant additions, and tide resulting depreciation expense included in the cost of providing service. Similarly, taxes (other than income) on the $5,960,569 worth of plant additions are known and eminent, are a cost of providing service, and should be included as an adjustment to test year taxes. The COMMISSION presented no policy or factual justification or explanation for its opposition to these adjustments to test year operating expenses. It does not contend that these expenses are other than known and eminent, attributable to the government-ordered plant additions, and will be part of the cost of providing service during the period the new rates will be in effect. The UTILITY's evidence in support of these adjustments is therefore persuasive. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-8, P-10, R-2.) Similarly, the UTILITY contended that test year income tax should be adjusted to reflect changes in revenue, operating expenses, depreciation, taxes, and interest expenses attributed to operation of the new plant addition. The COMMISSION offered no reason or explanation why such an income tax adjustment should not be made; changes in income tax due to the operation of the plant additions are known and eminent, and should be allowed as adjustments to test year expenses in order to adequately represent the UTILITY's future costs of service. However, due to the findings herein relating to use of "average rate base, the AFUDC allowance, treatment of connection fees previously collected, the water royalty charge, depreciation, and taxes, the income tax adjustment proposed by the UTILITY requires recalculation. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-0, P-10, R-2.) In light of the above findings, and the UTILITY's lack of opposition to other adjustments proposed by the COMMISSION, the known elements of adjusted operating income are: operating revenues of $2,419,437 and operating expense (operation) of $1,175,291. In order to determine adjusted operating income which should be used in this case, depreciation, taxes other than income, and income taxes require recalculation consistent with the findings contained in Sections II and III, infra. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-8, P-10, R- 2.) IV. Capital Structure, Cost of Capital, and Rate of Return The parties agree that UTILITY's capital structure and cost of capital are as follows: CAPITALIZATION COMPOSITE WEIGHT Rate 15 pct. 16 pct. Long-Term Debt 49.33 pct. 10.68 pct. 5.27 pct. 5.27 pct. Equity Capital 41.25 15-18 6.19 6.60 Subtotal 90.58 pct. 11.46 pct. 11.87 Deferred Federal Income Taxes 4.74 pct. -0- -0- -0- Customer Deposits .90 8.00 .07 .07 subtotal 96.22 Investment Tax Credit 3.79 pct. Average 11.53 .45 pct. 11.94 pct. .45 TOTAL 100.00 pct. 11.98 pct. 12.39 pct. They are also in agreement that a 12 percent return on the UTILITY's rate base, including a 15-16 percent return on equity, is a fair and reasonable rate of return. (COMMISSION's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 7; P-8, P-5.) V. Additional Required Revenues In order to determine the additional gross revenues which the UTILITY should file rates designed to generate, the authorized operating income should be computed by multiplying 12 percent times the adjusted rate base computed pursuant to Paragraph 10 above. The UTILITY should then be authorized to earn additional gross revenues equivalent to thee difference between the authorized operating income and the adjusted test year operating income computed pursuant to Paragraph 14 above. VI. Rate Structure and Rates The UTILITY proposes, with the COMMISSION's concurrence, that its new rates be structured in accordance with the Base Facility Charge Rate Design (BFC) and that the 25 percent surcharge currently imposed on general service customers be eliminated. The new BFC rate structure design contains a customer charge and a gallonage charge, both of which are directly related to the cost of providing the service. The customer charge assures that all customers pay their pro rata share of certain fixed and operating costs of the UTILITY which are not related to the amount of water used by the customer. The gallonage charge is based on the actual amounts of water used. With implementation of the base facility charge system, the UTILITY should lower its current $20 charge for reconnections during working hours to $10; similarly, its current $25 charge for reconnection after working hours should be reduced to $15. These lower charges are sufficient to cover the costs associated with the service rendered. The UTILITY also proposes various increases in its service availability, or connection charges. These increases, based on increased construction costs, will be used to finance additional facilities and stabilize rates to existing customers. The BFC rate design system proposed by the UTILITY is fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory. In light of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider the "alternative" rate structure which was presented to the COMMISSION staff on the day of hearing. With such time constraints, meaningful review of the "alternative" rate structure proposal was not possible. (Testimony of Byrd, Collier; R-1, R-3.) VII. Adequacy of Service Customer testimony criticized the 25 percent surcharge currently Imposed on general service customers, and the magnitude of the requested rate increase. Several customers complained of the quality of the water supplied. Under the proposed rate structure, tide surcharge on general service customers will be eliminated. While several customers complained of sediment in their drinking water, testimony established that the new Green Meadows softening plant should help alleviate that problem. The water supplied by the UTILITY meets all regulatory and health standards of the Health Department and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The UTILITY is currently under no citation for violation of any regulatory standards. It is found that the quality of the water service offered by the UTILITY is adequate. (Testimony of Collier, Reeves, Customers; P-7.) VIII. Franchise Fees The UTILITY has collected $395,000 in "franchise fees" for Lee County, but has not paid them to the county due to questions surrounding the legality of the franchise fee. Neither have the funds been placed in a special escrow account pending resolution of this controversy. The UTILITY should ensure that such franchise fees are deposited in a special interest-bearing escrow account, and take steps to ensure that this controversy is resolved without further delay. (Testimony of Cardey; Late-filed Exhibit P-12.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the COMMISSION recalculate adjusted rate base, operating income, and the resulting additional and total gross revenues in a manner consistent with this Recommended Orders and that Petitioner be authorized to file new rates structured on the base facility charge concept designed to generate the additional and total annual gross revenues so specified. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 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 27th day of February, 1981.
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, specifically: (1) misconduct in the practice of architecture, and/or; (2) violation of a rule adopted pursuant to Chapter 481, Florida Statutes (1983).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, John H. Vongunten, has been a registered architect in the State of Florida, having been issued license number AR- 0006074 which expires on January 31, 1987. The Respondent graduated third in a class of 600 from the University of Pennsylvania. While attending the University of Pennsylvania, Respondent received several honors, including the John Stewardson Memorial Scholarship, was runner-up for the Rome prize, and was Phi Beta Kappa in architecture. Respondent first registered as an architect in Kansas in 1949 and in Florida and Ohio in 1956. Respondent is a member of the American Institute of Architects, the American Registered Architects, and the Guild for Religious Architecture. During his career, Respondent has worked as an assistant on a project with Frank Lloyd Wright, completed 56 churches, 23 automobile agencies, 15 industrial projects and 4 health care facilities. Respondent's background also includes a brief military career where he served as a carrier based fighter pilot, flew with the Blue Angels and received the Navy Cross for service during World War II. The Respondent was employed by Hunton, Shivers, Brady, Associates, P.A. from 1981 until his termination in September of 1984. The Respondent was assigned to provide services to the joint venture of Medical Facilities Consultants (MFC), of which Hunton, Shivers, Brady Associates, P. A. took part. MFC is an architectural firm under contract with the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) to review design plans for health care facilities. Pursuant to its contract with HRS, MFC was required to provide consultative services and perform detailed analysis of proposed medical facilities construction projects and to determine compliance with state licensure standards with respect to architectural, mechanical, electrical and structural engineering disciplines. MFC is a joint business venture which combined the efforts of the architectural firm of Hunton, Shivers and Brady Associates, P.A. and Tilden, Lobnitz and Cooper, Inc. Consulting Engineers. Tom R. Hunton was designated as the representative of the firm to act as contract administrator with HRS for non-technical matters related to administration and work flow. Mr. Hunton was the only individual with complete authority to sign documents and bind the firm in matters relating to the contract. MFC is business operations consisted solely of its work for HRS. The Respondent was employed by MFC as senior architect in charge of the review process. Respondent reviewed the architectural portion of all plans that came in the office; other employees reviewed mechanical and electrical aspects of the plans. Respondent, as senior architect, was the coordinator between mechanical, electrical and architectural. The review process consists of three (3) primary stages of plan submittal to HRS. The first stage is the furnishing of schematic plans. Schematic plans are not very detailed and may consist of single line drawings of the proposed facility. The second stage is much more detailed and is called the submission of preliminary plans. Walls with elevations and other details are shown in this second stage of review of the "design development drawings." The third and final phase is the construction documents review stage. At this stage, there is a full list of plans, including architectural, engineering, landscaping and civil engineering portions of the project. Under a typical review, the design professionals seeking to build the project submit the plans to HRS through the plans and construction section of the Office of Licensure and Certification located in Jacksonville. The plans are thereafter passed on to MFC for their review of the plans pursuant to the previously mentioned contract. MFC provides assistance in all these stages of the review process. MFC then reviews the plans and submits a report to HRS which recommends approval or disapproval and may contain comments about the project. The Office of Licensure and Certification then decides to approve the project or to disapprove it. HRS receives plan review fees as a part of the plan review process. Requests for official plan review fees are made in writing by Mr. Rosenvold. MFC principals and employees generally do not have direct contact with the design professionals. However, at the schematic plans stage, often a meeting is held at the HRS office in Jacksonville between HRS officials, MFC and the design professionals. MFC officials were instructed by Richard Rosenvold, administrator for the Plans and Construction Section, not to contact the design professionals without prior approval of the Office of Licensure and Certification. During the summer of 1984, MFC was employed to review the design documents for a health-care project known as "The Cloisters of Deland" to be built in Deland by the firm of MacMahon-Cajacob Associates. The Cloisters of Deland is planned as a retirement community on an eleven and one-half acre site in downtown Deland. A multi-story building is projected to house general-use facilities on the first floor including administration, food service and activity areas, and a 60-bed skilled nursing facility on the entire second floor. The remaining 6 floors are projected to contain apartments. HRS is required to review the nursing home portion of the project. When HRS submits plans for review to MFC, MFC generally has 30 days in which to respond. An architectural review, a mechanical review, an electrical review and a fire protection review is completed. After these reviews are completed, Tom Hunton reviews the comments, if any, and signs off on a package which is sent to HRS recommending approval or disapproval and including comments. The Cloisters project was scheduled to be returned to HRS by MFC on or before August 31, 1984. Tom Hunton signed off on the The Cloisters of Deland project on August 29, 1984 recommending disapproval. Contrary to normal procedure, the disapproval package signed by Mr. Hunton was not mailed immediately to HRS, but was held up by Respondent. In the review process, it was Respondent's job to review the comments of the architect, the mechanical engineer and electrical engineer, mark the comments approved or disapproved, and give the package to Hunton. When Hunton signed off on The Cloisters project on August 29, 1984, it was disapproved in all three categories: architectural, electrical and mechanical. The Cloisters project package was not mailed out immediately after Hunton signed it because Respondent kept it in his office for an undetermined reason. On September 5, 1984, the Respondent telephoned Mr. MacMahon (supervising architect for The Cloister project) in Deland and advised him that the construction documents of The Cloisters of Deland had been reviewed and that they contained numerous violations and would be disapproved by the Office of Licensure and Certification. The Respondent advised Mr. MacMahon that he was in a position to assist them in making corrections that would avoid disapproval. The Respondent advised that he had a team of "moonlighters" available to assist them at the rate of $100 an hour per man. Respondent told MacMahon that the moonlighting service would be a way to get contingency approval, and thus, avoid rejection and considerable loss of time. Because Mr. MacMahon was planning to leave town for a short period of time, he asked his partner, Alan Cajacob, to handle the matter with Respondent. On September 6, 1984, Respondent and Mr. Cajacob spoke on the telephone. Respondent suggested a meeting to discuss the situation concerning problem areas in the plans. Mr. Cajacob was interested in finding out what the comments or problem areas found in the plans by the reviewers were; he, therefore, agreed to a meeting. The Cloisters project was under construction and time was critical to the project. Thereafter, a meeting was held on Saturday, September 8, 1984, between Mr. Cajacob, the Respondent, and Mr. Carl Stanton. Mr. Cajacob invited Mr. Stanton (supervisor and project manager of construction at The Cloisters) to attend the meeting because Stanton was thoroughly knowledgeable about the project. Mr. Cajacob anticipated that Respondent would bring a list of the deficiencies or comments from the reviewing team to the meeting for discussion. However, Respondent advised Cajacob that it was his intention to obtain a clean set of construction documents and have them marked up in red pencil with comments from a team of people who could review them quickly over the weekend. Respondent told Mr. Cajacob that his reviewing team consisted of mechanical and electrical personnel who had previously worked as reviewers for HRS for these types of plans. The Respondent repeated his assertion that his moonlighting team could avoid a complete turndown of the construction documents and obtain a conditional approval of the plans. This could be accomplished because with the comments, changes in the construction documents could be made and inserted so that costly delay would be-avoided. Therefore, Cajacob gave the Respondent a "clean" set of plans. At the conclusion of the September 8th meeting, Respondent asked Cajacob for a total of one thousand dollars ($1,000). The Respondent wanted five hundred dollars ($500) "up front" money as a retainer to pay for his time and the time and expenses of his moonlighting team. In addition, he wanted $500 which would be due the following day when he returned with the marked set of drawings. Mr. Cajacob advised the Respondent that he could not produce that amount without the approval of the project owner and that he would need an invoice from Respondent to support his request. The Respondent then left the office with an unmarked set of drawings and stated that he would contact Mr. Cajacob later after he had spoken with his team members. Before leaving, Respondent told Cajacob and Stanton that their meeting should be held in confidence. At this point, Cajacob began to have his doubts about the propriety of the conversation but decided that he would contact HRS on that Monday and determine whether the Respondent's proposal was an appropriate way to proceed. Later that day, the Respondent telephoned Mr. Cajacob at home and advised him that without the full $1,000 up front, the moonlighting team could not provide the services they were offering. During this telephone conversation, Mr. Cajacob refused to provide the $1,000 up front and asked the Respondent to return the plans so that the normal procedure could be followed. At that point, Mr. Cajacob began to feel nervous and uneasy about the Respondent's proposal The following Monday or Tuesday, Mr. Cajacobe received a note from his secretary stating that Respondent had called and that the plans had been dropped off at a nearby Holiday Inn. Mr. Cajacob's secretary picked up the plans. After the return of the plans, Cajacob received several telephone calls and at least one letter from Respondent stating each time that he (Respondent) was very sorry, he had made a terrible mistake and requesting that Cajacob forgive him. On September 10, 1984, Mr. Cajacob, after discussing the incident with his partner, Mr. MacMahon, called Mr. Rosenvold in Jacksonville and apprised him of Respondent's contact. Thereafter, Mr. Rosenvold called Mr. Hunton and advised him of the complaint that Respondent had contacted the firm of MacMahon and Cajacob in Deland. At Rosenvold's request, Hunton investigated it. On Tuesday, September 11, 1984, Hunton and the surviving partner, Brady, met with Respondent and, effective September 12, temporarily suspended him while the matter was being investigated. The Respondent was terminated on September 18, 1985. Respondent's moonlighting team consisted of himself, and two other people who were going to review the electrical and mechanical aspects of the plans. The moonlighting team would have based their work on their own knowledge and Respondent did not intend to let them use the list of comments prepared by the MFC Reviewing Team. Respondent did not advise Hunton or Mr. Rosenvold that he intended to contact MacMahon or Cajacob regarding The Cloisters. Likewise, neither Hunton nor Mr. Rosenvold authorized the contact with MacMahon and Cajacob. After a turn-down or disapproval from HRS, the design professionals may resubmit new plans directly to HRS in Jacksonville. The instance of turn-downs in plans is rare. Only about 10%-15% of plans reviewed by MFC are disapproved. The Cloisters of Deland project had been disapproved five (5) times previously.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is recommended that: Respondent be found guilty of a violation of §§481.225(1)(i) and (j), Florida Statutes (1983); and that, Respondent's license to practice architecture be suspended for a period of one year and that an administrative fine of $1,000 be assessed. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of January, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Wings Slocum Benton, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph A. Scarlett, Esquire Joseph R. Clark, Esquire 208 West Howry Avenue Deland, Florida 32720 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. W. Hendry Executive Director Board of Architecture Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Findings of Fact Paragraph Ruling Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 1. Accepted; see R.O. paragraphs 3 & 4. Accepted; see R.O. paragraphs 3 & 4. Accepted; see R. O. paragraph 5. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 8. Accepted; see R.O. paragraphs 6 & 7. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 8. Accepted; see R. O. paragraph 4. Accepted; see R. O. paragraph 3. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted; see R. O. paragraph 8. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 8.I Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 8. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 9. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 9. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 13. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 14. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 8. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 7. Partially accepted; see R.O. paragraphs 11 and 12; matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 12. Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 12. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 12. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 11. Accepted; see R.O paragraph 12. Accepted; see R.O. paragraphs 11 and 12. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 13. Rejected as subordinate. Partially accepted; see R.O. paragraph 14. Matters not included therein are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 14. Not included in R.O. because subordinate. Not included in R.O. because subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Not included in R.O. because subordiante. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 13. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 14. Not included in R. O. because subordinate. Not included in R.O. because subordinate. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 15. Accepted see R.O. paragraph 15. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 14. Partially accepted; see R.O. paragraph 16. Matters not included are considered subordinate. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 16. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 16. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 16. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 17. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 17 Not included in R.O. because subordinate. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 18. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 18. Not included in R.O. because subordinate. Not included in R.O. because subordinate. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 19. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 19. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 20. Not included in R.O. because subordinate. Not included in R.O. because subordinate. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 21. Partially accepted; see R.O. paragraph 21. Matters not included therein are considered subordinate. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as a recitation of testimony Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony Rejected as a recitation of testimony Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Accepted; see R.O. paragraphs 13, 16 and 23 Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 17. Rejected as subordinate. Partially accepted; see R.O. paragraph 17. Matters not included therein are rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 16. Partially accepted; see R.O. paragraphs 13 and 16. Matters not included therein are rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 24. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 24. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 24. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 22. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 22. Rejected as irrelevant, subordinate and cumulative. Rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 25. Rejected as recitation of testimony and a conclusion of law. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and a conclusion of law. Partially accepted; although Respondent did teach a course in architectural ethics, at one point in his career, there was no evidence to indicate the specific content of the course on whether "conflicts of interest" were covered. RESPONDENT'S FINDINGS OF FACT Paragraph Ruling Accepted; see R.O. para. 4. Accepted; see R.O. paras. 4 and 9. Accepted; see R.O. para. 13. Accepted; see R.O. paras. 7. Accepted; see R.O. paras. 6, 7 and 14. Accepted; see R.O. para. 4. Accepted; see R.O. para. 5. Accepted; see R.O. paras. 7 and 10. Accepted; see R.O. paras. 7, 11 and 12; Partially accepted; see R.O. paras. 9 and 12. Matters not included therein are rejected as not supported by credible, competent and substantial evidence. Accepted; see R. O. paras. 13 and 14. Partially accepted; see R. O. paras. 15, 16, 17 and 18. Matters not included therein are rejected as subordinate. Rejected as argument and not supported by the evidence. Partially accepted; see R. O. para. 22. Matters not included therein are rejected as argument and subordinate. Accepted, but considered as a conclusion of law.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts relevant to the issues in dispute are found: On March 8, 1981, the petitioner provided notice of the administrative hearing which commenced on March 25, 1981, by placing a notice on the doorknob of each resident of Century Village. Customers not residing within Century Village and commercial customers were mailed notice of the hearing on the same date. A newspaper notice of the March 25, 1981 hearing appeared on March 18, 1981. Quality of Service There are approximately 7,700 utility meters in Century Village and there has been minimal growth within the utility since the 1979 test year. Sixteen customers of the petitioner testified at the hearing. Their testimony included objections to the sufficiency of the notice they received of this rate case proceeding, the requested rate increases, the taste and smell of the water, the mineral deposits in the water, the odor from the sewage treatment plant, the billing procedures employed by the petitioner and the manner of petitioner's responses to customer inquiries and complaints. The petitioner's billing cycle is not constant. On some occasions, the bill covers a period of twenty-eight days and, on other occasions, a billing cycle of thirty-five days is used. Many customers have installed, at their own cost, water filters to alleviate the objectionable smell, taste and mineral deposits in their water. Some customers testified that their cooking pots and pans had become blackened and pitted from the mineral deposits and sediments in the water. Several customers also complained of low water pressure in their homes. None of the testifying witnesses had consulted the local health department as to the quality of the water received from petitioner. At the time of the hearing, there were no outstanding complaints against petitioner filed with the Public Service Commission's Consumer Affairs Department. Previous complaints had been resolved in a timely fashion. The petitioner's water and sewer operations presently comply with all applicable State regulatory standards for water and sewer service. There are no citations or corrective orders pending against the petitioner's water and sewer systems. Petitioner is operating under a negotiated consent order which requires it to connect its sewer system to the regional system when said system becomes available. There was evidence that this connection to the County system will result in an increased sewer charge. The County will send one monthly bill to the petitioner and the petitioner will then bill the individual customers. The bulk rate charge was speculative at the time of the hearing. Pursuant to an agreement between the County and the petitioner, the petitioner will be required to maintain its sewage treatment plant on a standby basis after it connects to the County system. Rate Base. I. Gross Plant in Service This being the petitioner's first rate increase application, no prior amount of utility plant in service for either the petitioner's water or sewer system has been established or approved by the PSC. The petitioner alleges that its utility plant in service is $2,401,436 for water and $2,711,697 for sewer, for a total gross plant in service of $5,113,133. An officer of petitioner who is a certified public accountant testified that this figure is supported by the books and records of the petitioner. The PSC staff engineer, Jim Shoptaw, attempted to verify the petitioner's alleged original cost of plant. Several methods of determining original cost are utilized by the PSC. Though not formalized by rule, the methods used to substantiate the original cost of a utility system, in order of PSC preference, are as follows: an engineer's original cost study, a review of the contracts let for individual utility construction projects and a review of invoices for materials purchased. The invoicing method of establishing original costs is considered least effective because there is no way to verify that the materials purchased were actually placed or used for the water and sewer systems. When these three methods are not available, as built drawings or plans can be utilized to determine the amount and type of materials in the ground and a unit cost study can then be performed. In this case, the petitioner did not have either an engineer's original cost study or copies of the construction contracts. The maps or prints submitted by petitioner to the PSC staff were not accurate or complete. Mr. Shoptaw thus made an on-site inspection, with advanced notice, and was provided several boxes of invoices which were not organized in a systematic manner. A review of invoices allowed Mr. Shoptaw to verify only 39 percent of what petitioner claimed in its application as the amount of plant in service. Petitioner was then requested to supply respondent with a unit cost breakdown and the amount of pipe placed in service each year. A given year was not provided by the petitioner. After calculating the length and cost of pipe utilized, Mr. Shoptaw "trended" the costs and eventually determined that the petitioner's application had overstated the water system plant by approximately $107,000 and the sewer system plant by some $147,000. The unit cost information supplied to Mr. Shoptaw by the petitioner was based upon data collected from water and sewer installations in single- family residential communities. This was a result of a misunderstanding by petitioner's employees as to what information Mr. Shoptaw desired. The "trending" and reasonableness study performed by Mr. Shoptaw was also based primarily upon a comparison with utilities serving single-family areas. There are major differences between the costs of constructing multiple-family and single-family utility distribution systems. High density housing requires larger pipes run for shorter distances and a greater number of valves, manholes, connections and other materials due to the greater number of connections per mile. There are also road and construction problems and expenses in a multifamily complex not found in an area with single-family dwellings. It is considerably more expensive per linear foot to build in a high density area such as Century Village than in an area containing single-family dwellings. Approximately three weeks prior to the commencement of the hearing in this case, the staff of the PSC was provided with additional boxes of invoices to further document the petitioner's gross plant in service. When combined with those already submitted, the additional invoices substantiated 58 percent of the claimed plant in service. Mr. Shoptaw felt that use of the invoices was not compatible with his then completed trending methodology, that the additional invoices arrived too close in time to the hearing to be of assistance and that 58 percent of documented costs was not a large enough sample from which to determine the original cost of the entire system. Mr. Shoptaw expended approximately 500 hours preparing his report in this proceeding. A reasonable amount of time to be spent on a utility of this size with good record-keeping practices would be approximately 200 hours. There is some confusion in the record as to whether the PSC staff twice removed the same items from the petitioner's claimed gross plant in service as a result of the different surveys performed by Mr. Shoptaw and the PSC's accounting staff. (T. 998-1000). This issue was never clarified during the hearing. Rate Base. II. Accumulated Depreciation. Through the end of the 1979 test year, the petitioner utilized an annual depreciation rate of approximately 6 percent on its gross water and sewer plants. During the course of preliminary discussions with the PSC staff, petitioner agreed to adopt a depreciation rate of 2.5 percent per annum for these assets. The 2.5 percent annual depreciation rate is based upon the premise that petitioner's water and sewer facilities have a service life of 40 years rather than the 16.7 year life originally applied. The issue in dispute regarding this stipulated change in the annual rate of depreciation is whether the 2.5 percent rate should be applied retroactively to the year of inception or whether it should be applied to the future only. The construction of the petitioner's water and sewer systems began in 1969. Neither the petitioner's original decision to fix the useful life of the water and sewer systems at 16.7 years nor the PSC staff's decision to fix their lives at 40 years was based upon an engineer's expert opinion after a physical inspection of the assets. There have been no significant physical changes in the assets since their installation. Under generally accepted accounting principles, different treatment is prescribed for the "correction of an error in previously issued financial statements" and a "change in accounting estimate." The "correction of an error" treatment requires a restatement or a retroactive application. This treatment is accorded errors resulting from "mathematical mistakes, mistakes in the application of accounting principles, or oversight or misuse of facts that existed at the time the financial state- ments were prepared." A "change in accounting estimate" does not require a restatement or retroactive treatment and results from "new information or subsequent developments and accordingly from better insight or improved judgment." APB Opinion No. 20, paragraph .13. The service life or salvage value of a depreciable asset is an example of the estimate required in the preparation of a financial statement. APB Opinion No. 20, paragraph .10. Were petitioner permitted to retroactively apply the new 2.5 percent depreciation rate to 1969, the date construction of the water and sewer systems began, a possible result would be the utility's double recovery of depreciation expense through its rates. The impact upon the utility of not making a retroactive adjustment of the 2.5 percent depreciation rate would be to reduce rate base by some one million dollars per year and thus substantially reduce the petitioner's cash flow. Rate Base. III. Contributions-in-aid-of-construction (CIAC) Petitioner's water and sewer tariffs on file with and approved by the PSC in 1970 include copies of a schedule of tapping fees and three developer agreements. The developer agreement between petitioner and Century Village, Inc. entered into on November 1, 1968, defines CIAC and denotes the developer's responsibility to pay CIAC for the petitioner's water and sewer systems. Other developer agreements between Century Village, Inc. and secondary developers were also discovered which make reference to the agreement between petitioner and Century Village, Inc. The PSC staff seeks to impute as CIAC over two million dollars as a result of the developer agreements and the tapping fee schedule. If this amount were imputed as CIAC, the petitioner would have a zero rate base and recover through its rates only operation and maintenance expenses and taxes. According to petitioner's president, neither the tapping fees on file with the PSC nor CIAC pursuant to the developer agreements were collected by the petitioner since he assumed the presidency in 1970. The amounts which are claimed as CIAC by the petitioner were collected prior to the time Mr. Christopher became the petitioner's president. Those portions of the developer agreements regarding CIAC were not carried out because petitioner desired to build a rate base. The petitioner's overall policy of not accepting CIAC was reflected in a letter dated May 8, 1972 by petitioner to the PSC in response to PSC Order No. 5403 which required petitioner and other regulated utilities to file a service availability policy with the PSC. Other than this May 8, 1972 letter, petitioner has made no other attempt to revise the tariffs filed with the PSC with respect to the developer agreements or the tapping fees. Auditors from the PSC staff were unable to find any evidence from the books, records or tax returns of the petitioner that tapping fees or other CIAC were ever collected by petitioner other than as reported by petitioner in this case. No significant investments were written off as cost of goods sold for tax purposes. Capital Structure and Rate of Return During the test year, petitioner's actual capital structure was comprised of 85 percent debt due to outstanding loans held by affiliated companies. The capital structure of the parent company, Cenvill Communities, Inc., during the test year was approximately 41 percent common equity, 55 percent long-term debt and 4 percent deferred taxes. For this rate application, the respondent PSC used the capital structure of the parent company in its cost of capital calculations. Subsequent to filing the rate increase application, the petitioner recapitalized its capital structure so that its debt-equity ratio approximately matched the debt-equity ratio of the parent company. Utilizing various methodologies, including an analysis of average bond yields, a discounted cash flow study, a trend line analysis and an added risk premium, petitioner has computed a range of fair return on equity at between 18.96 percent and 21.13 percent, for an average fair return of 20 percent. Using a ten-year time period, a discounted cash flow methodology and a regression analysis, the PSC staff computed a cost of equity of 16.25 percent, with a range of between 15.25 percent and 17.25 percent. Petitioner originally requested an overall rate of return of 12.83 percent. This figure was changed during the hearing to 10.38 percent. The PSC staff has computed an overall rate of return of 12.11 percent. Income Taxes Petitioner has elected to participate in the consolidated income tax return filed by its parent, Cenvill Communities, Inc. The parent routinely assesses a 46 percent rate on all its subsidiaries having a positive taxable income for the tax year. The petitioner and the PSC staff are in agreement that an appropriate federal income tax rate for petitioner is 46 percent, and an appropriate state income tax rate is 2.7 percent. The Office of Public Counsel presented testimony to the effect that a 46 percent federal income tax rate is excessive because it reflects a greater percentage tax rate than the actual consolidated tax rate. It was argued that the effective tax rate for petitioner during the 1979 test year was 21.06 percent. Unusual capital gain transactions did occur during the test year. Other Operating Expenses and Undisputed Items Petitioner had a contract which called for a meter-reading payment of 25 or 30 cents per meter. The average meter reading expense, including transportation, for the South Florida area is 17 cents per meter. Meters may be read very quickly in Century Village because of its high population density. With each building having approximately 25 meters, one could easily read 75 to 100 meters an hour. A witness presented by the intervenor Ruchlis examined petitioner's books and concluded that there was insufficient data and supporting documents to validate some of the salary and operating expenses claimed by the petitioner. The PSC staff apparently recognized this deficiency and interviewed some of the employees to determine how much of their time was actually allocated to the petitioner. It was agreed between petitioner and the PSC staff that $25,000 should be deducted from petitioner's claimed salary expenses. For the purposes of this proceeding, petitioner's working capital needs are zero. The total amount of rate case expenses for this proceeding is $35,000, to be amortized over a five year period and allocated on a 50-50 basis between the water and sewer operations. The base facility charge concept is fair to all customers and should be employed as petitioner's rate structure.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the issues in dispute in this proceeding be resolved as follows: that the quality of water and sewer service provided by petitioner to its customers be found satisfactory; that the trending methodology utilized by Mr. Shoptaw in determining the petitioner's original cost investment in plant in service be approved, with the condition that a determination first be made as to whether certain items were deducted twice from petitioner's claimed amount of gross plant in service; that the 6 percent accumulated depreciation rate be applied from 1969 through the 1979 test year and the 2.5 percent rate be applied from that date forward; that the claimed amounts of $111,612 for the water system and $554,813 for the sewer system be approved as the appropriate amounts of contributions-in- aid-of-construction; that the appropriate capital structure for petitioner include a 40 percent equity ratio; that a fair rate of return on equity capital is 16.25 percent; that an appropriate federal income tax rate for petitioner is 46 percent; that a meter reading expense of 17 cents per meter is reasonable and appropriate; by petitioner be reduced by $25,000; that petitioner's working capital needs are zero; that an appropriate amount of rate case expense is $35,000 to be amortized over a five-year period and allocated equally between the water and sewer operations; and that petitioner's rate structure utilize the base facility charge concept. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of November, 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 16th day of November, 1981.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep, Inc., failed to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed against Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2014).1/
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers’ Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep., Inc., is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on March 3, 2008. Respondent’s registered business address is 952 TR Miller Road, Defuniak Springs, Florida. Ashley Adams is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent. On March 27, 2015, the Department’s investigator-in- training, Jill Scogland, and lead investigator, Sharon Kelson, conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance check at Lot 34 in the Driftwood Estates residential subdivision in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. Ms. Scogland observed two men on site. David Wayne Gibson was operating a front-end loader spreading dirt on site. Colby Smith was shoveling dirt on site. While Ms. Scogland was inspecting the site, a third man, Ashley Adams, arrived driving a dump truck with a load of dirt. Mr. Adams identified himself as the owner of Gulf Coast, and stated that he had an exemption from the requirement for workers’ compensation insurance and that he thought Mr. Gibson did as well. Mr. Adams advised Ms. Scogland that he hired both Mr. Gibson and Mr. Smith to work at the site.2/ At hearing, Respondent challenged the evidence supporting a finding that Respondent hired Mr. Gibson.3/ Specifically, Respondent argues that Ms. Scogland’s testimony that Mr. Adams told her he hired Mr. Gibson is unreliable because Ms. Scogland did not include that information in her field notes. Respondent claims that Ms. Scogland’s status as investigator-in-training on the date of the inspection is indicative of her unreliability. To the contrary, Ms. Scogland’s testimony regarding both the persons and events on the date of the inspection was clear and unequivocal. While Ms. Scogland admitted her field notes were not as detailed on the date in question as they are for more recent inspections, she was confident that her investigation of the facts was thorough. The fact that Ms. Scogland did not write down what Mr. Adams said does not render her testimony unreliable. The undersigned finds Ms. Scogland’s testimony to be clear and convincing. Ms. Scogland reviewed the Department of State, Division of Corporations’ online information and identified Mr. Gibson as President and Registered Agent of David Wayne Gibson Tractor Service, Inc. According to Ms. Scogland, the online records indicated the corporation had been administratively dissolved in September 2013. Ms. Scogland next accessed the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and determined that Mr. Gibson had obtained a workers’ compensation coverage exemption for himself, but the exemption had expired on February 15, 2015. The information contained in CCAS is information on new policies, cancellations, etc., reported to the Department by insurance agencies as required by administrative rule. Next, Ms. Scogland accessed the Division of Corporations’ website, verified Gulf Coast as an active corporation, and identified Mr. Adams as the sole officer of Gulf Coast. Ms. Scogland then accessed CCAS and determined that, although Gulf Coast did not have workers’ compensation coverage, Mr. Adams had an active exemption effective from February 12, 2014 through February 12, 2016. Mr. Adams had a prior exemption that expired on April 14, 2013, but had no valid exemption in place between April 14, 2013 and February 12, 2014. After contacting her supervisor, Michelle Lloyd, Ms. Scogland served Mr. Adams, on behalf of Gulf Coast, with a site-specific Stop-Work Order for failure to ensure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Ms. Scogland also served Mr. Adams with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The request was for Gulf Coast’s payroll, account, and disbursement records, as well as records identifying its subcontractors, payments thereto, and workers’ compensation coverage thereof, from March 28, 2013 through March 27, 2015 (the penalty period).4/ Mr. Adams did not provide any records to the Department in response to the records request. The Department’s penalty auditor, Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalty to be assessed against Gulf Coast for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance during the penalty period. The penalty to be assessed against an employer for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage is two times the amount the employer would have paid in workers’ compensation insurance premiums when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during the penalty period. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. Ms. Jackson consulted the Scopes Manual, which is published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), and identified class code 6217--Excavation and Drivers-- as the appropriate construction class code for the work being performed at the worksite. Respondent contests the assignment of class code 6217 to Mr. Adams, who was driving a dump truck and delivering a load of dirt to the site. Respondent admits that Mr. Gibson’s operation of the front-end loader was properly classified as Excavation and Drivers. NCCI Scopes Manual provides the following with regard to classification code 6217: Includes burrowing, filling or backfilling. * * * Code 6217 is applied to specialist contractors engaged in general excavation including ditch digging, burrowing, filling or backfilling provided such operations are not otherwise classified in the manual. The operations involve the removal of earth, small boulders and rocks by power shovels, trench diggers or bulldozers and piling it at the jobsite for backfill. The material may also be removed by dump trucks for fill in some other area. Code 6217 includes excavation in connection with building foundations, swimming pools, landscape gardening and waterproofing operations. * * * This classification also is applied to specialist contractors engaged in grading land and landfilling, provided these operations are not otherwise classified in this manual. This classification includes ditch digging, burrowing, filling or backfilling, and operations such as scraping, cutting, piling or pushing the earth to rearrange the terrain. These operations utilize equipment such as bulldozers, motor graders and carryalls. [emphasis supplied]. Mr. Adams’ operation of the dump truck falls squarely within the definition of Excavation and Drivers. The material in the dump truck was fill for the site under excavation, a purpose which is directly addressed in the manual under code 6217. Under Respondent’s interpretation, fill removed from the site by a dump truck would be an excavation activity, but would no longer be excavation when the dump truck arrived at another site (or at another location on the same site) with the fill. That interpretation is illogical. No evidence was introduced to support a finding that typical operation of a dump truck in preconstruction was classified by a different code in the Scopes Manual. It is found that Ms. Jackson properly applied the Scopes Manual in assigning code 6217 to the work being performed by Mr. Adams on the site. Having no payroll records from Gulf Coast, Ms. Jackson had to impute the statewide average weekly wage as Respondent’s payroll for Mr. Adams and his subcontractor, Mr. Gibson. The average weekly wages were calculated based on the Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability approved rate manual also published by NCCI and adopted by the Department by administrative rule. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of two times the workers’ compensation insurance premiums that would have applied to the purchase of insurance for Mr. Adams and Mr. Gibson during periods of non-compliance during the penalty. The period of non-compliance for Mr. Adams was April 15, 2013 to February 11, 2014, during which time his exemption had lapsed. The period of non-compliance for Mr. Gibson was February 16, 2015 to March 27, 2015, during which his exemption had expired. § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Utilizing the penalty calculation worksheet adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027, Ms. Scogland calculated a penalty of $12,181.42. On May 20, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Gulf Coast in the amount of $12,181.42. The Department correctly calculated the penalty based on the statutory formulas and adopted rules governing workers’ compensation insurance.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order upholding the Stop-Work Order and Amended Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep., Inc., for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Quality of Service: Twelve customers testified at the hearing in opposition to the proposed rate increase. The major customer objection is the size of the increase sought. Other objections are directed at the utility's rate structure, and the required tie-in to the PWA pipeline. Some customers desire to have separate rates set for the two areas served by J. C. Utilities, Inc., (Timber Oaks and San Clemente East), and one customer objected to the taste and smell of the water being provided. Nevertheless, an engineer from the Florida Public Service Commission presented evidence that the utility is meeting all state standards and is not under citation by the Department of Environmental Regulation. On the basis of the entire record, the evidence supports a finding that the utility's water and sewer service is satisfactory. Used and Useful Plant in Service. The utility contends that 33.72 percent of its sewer plant is not used and useful in the public service, and has deleted this amount from its sewer rate base. The Florida Public Service Commission engineer agrees, based on the actual recorded flows of the sewer plant and the growth of the system. The water plant in service is 100 percent used and useful in the public service. Acquisition Adjustment: The utility calculated an addition to rate base of $17,370 for San Clemente East (net of 1978 amortization) for acquisition costs, and presented evidence to demonstrate that this acquisition is in the public interest. Based on the entire record, the evidence supports a finding that this acquisition benefits the customers of J. C. Utilities, Inc., and is in the public interest. Thus, the adjustment is warranted. Income tax expense: Several questions are raised in the area of income tax expense. These deal with whether to treat the utility as a separate entity or part of a group filing consolidated tax returns, the appropriate computation of state income taxes, and the effect the capital structure of the utility has on taxable income for ratemaking purposes. All of these questions except one address the ultimate dollar amount of tax expense. The exception addresses the appropriateness of the expense. Only if income taxes are determined to be appropriate can the dollar amount of such taxes be considered. When net operating income is equal to or less than interest expense, there is no taxable income. This is generally true whenever a company's capital structure consists largely of debt or of debt only. The capital structure of J. C. Utilities, Inc., is comprised entirely of debt, according to the company's financial statements. The annual report shows capital stock of $10, a deficit in retained earnings of $68,834, and additional paid-in capital of $490. The utility's financial witness verified that J. C. Utilities, Inc. has no externally financed debt and relies for funds on its parent, U.S. Homes Corporation. The application reflects that the company's capital structure consists of customer deposits (debt), and loans and advances from the parent company (debt). This evidence supports a finding that the utility's capital structure is 100 percent debt. Accordingly, there can be no allowance for either state or federal income taxes in making a determination of revenue requirements for this utility. (See Order No. 9256 in Docket No. 790027-W) and all questions relating to the dollar amount of income tax expense are irrelevant. Cost of capital: J. C. Utilities, Inc., is financed totally by its parent company, U.S. Homes Corporation. The application originally requested a rate of return of 11.5 percent. At the hearing, various witnesses for the utility suggested rates ranging from 13.2 percent to 25 percent. However, since the utility has no equity, no return on equity can be provided. In calculating an appropriate rate of return to be granted to the utility, the original cost of debt rate of 11 percent and the recently revised rate of 8 percent on customer deposits can be used. These cost of capital components and rates thereon yield a weighted average cost of capital of 11.32 percent. This rate is supported by the evidence, and should be granted. Depreciation on Contributed Property: Appropriate adjustments have been made to the utility's water rate base and sewer rate base, and operating statements, to reflect the practice of the Florida Public Service Commission to add back accumulated depreciation on contributed property in rate base, and remove these items from operating expense. These adjustments appear on the attached schedules. Rate Base and Operating Statements: The attached schedules 1 through 6 detail the utility's rate base for water, rate base for sewer, and the water and sewer operating statements. Appropriate explanations for the various adjustments also appear in these schedules. Construction water: During the test year, the utility did not bill for construction water in the months of January, February, and March. Starting in April construction water ,and line flushing was metered and billed to the various construction companies connected with the Timber Oaks development. During the final nine months of the year when the construction water was accounted for a total of 28,626,903 gallons were sold which generated $17,590 in water revenue. In order to estimate the unaccounted for construction water, the nine months billing can be annualized. This amounts to an additional 9,542,301 gallons, which increases test year revenue by $5,725. Rate Structure: In order to structure rates that will be fair to all customers, they must not only generate the approved revenue, but should also assure that all classes of customers share in the cost to provide service. The base facility type of rate structure establishes a monthly minimum service charge, which covers fixed costs such as depreciation, property taxes, and allocated portions of billing, collecting, and customer accounting expenses. Meter size is still used to determine the demand factor. After the base charge is established, a charge per 1,000 gallons is determined. This charge recovers costs related to transmission and treatment, and allocated portions of billing, collections, accounting expense, plant labor, etc. Customers then pay a gallonage charge based on use. This allows each customer some control over the amount paid for service. This form of rate structure should be used in setting rates for J. C. Utilities, Inc. Separate rate structures: J. C. Utilities, Inc. provides water service to the separate, unconnected systems serving San Clemente East and Timber Oaks. An appropriate rate structure should be established to provide separate water rates for San Clemente and Timber Oaks, so that the customers of each system pay rates to cover only the costs associated with these systems. P.W.A. surcharge: Because permanent rates are to be established, the utility should no longer be permitted to make a separate surcharge for PWA water purchased. This expense should be incorporated into the other costs of J. C. Utilities, Inc. Connection charges: In its application, the utility requested an increase in water and sewer connection charges. The company used the current number of customers served by the water system to arrive at the customer hydraulic share. The correct way to establish the hydraulic share is to divide the number of customers that can be served by the system into the cost of the water plant. However, there is other information needed in order to accurately and fairly set connection charges, which was not presented by the utility. Rather than deny the request for an increase in water and sewer connection fees, an investigation docket should be opened for the purpose of determining whether increases are warranted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of J. C. Utilities, Inc., 2001 Ponderosa Avenue, Port Richey, Florida 33568, be granted in part, and that the utility be authorized to receive gross annual water revenues of $28,731 for San Clemente East, and $203,725 for Timber Oaks, and gross annual sewer revenue of $99,473, by rates to be approved by the Florida Public Service Commission. It is further RECOMMENDED that an acquisition adjustment of $17,370 be allowed for San Clemente East. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to implement a base facility charge in structuring its rates, in the manner set forth above. It is further RECOMMENDED that a separate investigation docket be opened for the purpose of resolving the matter of the utility's request for increased water and sewer connection charges. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 8th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Application of J. C. DOCKET NO. 790399-WS (CR) Utilities, Inc. to amend its ORDER NO. 9808 rates and charges. ISSUED: 2-23-81 / DOAH CASE NO. 80-1184 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 William B. Thomas, Hearing Examiner with the Florida Public Service Commission, on May 6, 1980, in Port Richey, Florida, on the application of J. C. Utilities, Inc., for increased rates and charges for water and sewer service provided to its customers in Pasco County, pursuant to Section 367.081, Florida Statutes. On July 1, 1980, the matter was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, but continues to be assigned to William B. Thomas, as DOAH Hearing Officer, for a recommended order. APPEARANCES: Jack H. Geller, Esquire, Suite 200, Clearwater professional Center, 600 Bypass Drive, Clearwater, Florida 33156, for J. C. Utilities, Inc., Petitioner. Samuel H Lewis, Esquire, 101 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, for the Florida public Service Commission and the public generally. The Hearing Officer's Recommended Order was filed on July 8, 1980. Timely exceptions to the Hearing Officer's recommended order were filed by the petitioner. Now after consideration of all of the evidence in the record, we enter our order.
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
