Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented, the following facts are determined: The UTILITY is owned by Florida Land Company, a Florida corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Continental Group, Inc., a New York corporation. In 1975, the UTILITY constructed a water and sewage treatment system to serve a residential and commercial development known as Greenwood Lakes. The UTILITY's water and sewer rates and charges have not changed since the COMMISSION's approval of initial tariffs in 1976. (Testimony of Crosby; P.E. 1.) I. Elements of Ratemaking In fixing the water and sewer rates to be charged by a public utility, the COMMISSION must consider: (1) the value and quality of the service, (2) the utility's rate base, (3) the cost of providing the service, and (4) a fair return on the utility's rate base. Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes (1979). Each element is addressed separately below. Quality of Service The UTILITY's water supply is provided by two deep wells with a total capacity, based on present pumps, of 2.376 million gallons per day. Treatment is provided by aeration and chlorination. The water system operates under an operating permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation. Water samples and reports are made monthly, and the water system presently meets all drinking water standards of the Department. (Testimony of Crosby, Heiker; R.E. 1.) The UTILITY's sewage treatment system consists of a .10 million gallon per day package plant; treatment consists of extended aeration followed by gravity flow to evapo-percolation ponds providing on-site disposal. It operates under an operation permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation, and complies with Department's sewage collection and treatment standards. (Testimony of Crosby.) Rate Base Rate base consists of the UTILITY property that is used and useful in providing the service for which rates are charged. In its application, the UTILITY proposed a rate base; after review, the COMMISSION suggested several adjustments, which are not opposed by the UTILITY. Use of a year-end test year is appropriate because of the extraordinary growth experienced by the UTILITY during 1979. For the test year ending December 3l, 1979, the UTILITY's adjusted water rate base is $135,977; the adjusted sewer rate base is $131,764. They are calculated as follows: RATE BASE Test Year Ending December 31, 1979 WATER SEWER Utility Plant in Service $190,969 $225,722 Construction Work in Progress 1,214 4,297 Accumulated Depreciation 18,920 2/ 14,801 2/ Contribution in Aid of Construction (CIAC)-Net of Amortization -48,831 -86,458 Working Capital Allowance 3,030 3,198 Income Tax Lag -0- - 194 RATE BASE $135,977 $131,764 (Testimony of Lowe; P.E. 1, 2, 3, R.E. 3.) Operating Statement The following Operating Statement reflects the UTILITY's revenue earned, costs of operation, and not-operating income during the test year. It shows that the UTILITY suffered a loss of $26,429 in its water operations and a loss of $19,101 in its sewer operations. OPERATING STATEMENT Test Year Ending December WATER 31 , 1979 SEWER Operating Revenues: $10,172 Operating Expenses: Operatic 25,314 $14,365 22,436 Maintenance -0- -0- Depreciation 18,199 10,132 Amortization -0- -0- Taxes Other Than Income 1,088 898 Other Expenses -0- -0- Income Taxes -0- -0- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $44,601 $33,466 Operating Income ($26,429) (Testimony of Lowe; P.E. 1, 2, 3, R.E. 3.) ($19,101) The UTILITY requests an annual water revenue increase of $36,154, and a sewer revenue increase of $31,715, which would produce gross annual revenue of $54,326, and $46,080, respectively. The adjusted Operating Statement, constructed to reflect this additional requested revenue, is as follows: CONSTRUCTED OPERATING STATEMENT Test Year Ending December 31, 1979 WATER SEWER Operating Revenues: Operating Expenses: $54,326 $46,080 Operation 30,634 25,580 Maintenance -0- -0- Depreciation 3,812 2/ 3,436 2/ Amortization -0- -0- Taxes Other Than Income 2,280 1,941 Other Expenses -0- -0- Income Taxes 1,424 968 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $38,150 $31,925 Operating Income $16,176 $14,155 Rate Base $135,977 $131,704 Rate of Return 11.90 percent 10.74 percent (Testimony of Lowe; P.E. 1, 2, 3, R.E. 3.) Rate of Return The capital structure of the UTILITY is as follows: AMOUNT PERCENT TO TOTAL Debt 4/ $1,450,000 60.90 Customer deposits 6,389 .27 Common Equity 924,550 30.83 TOTAL $2,380,947 100.00 The proposed annual gross water revenues of $54,326, and sewer revenues of $46,080 will allow the UTILITY to earn a rate of return of 11.90 percent on its water rate base, and 10.74 percent on its sewer rate base. With debt service costs now in excess of 12.50 percent, the return on equity will be nominal; however, there is no evidence that this will cause the UTILITY's service to suffer. (Testimony of Smith; P.E. 6.) II. Capitalization of Interest on Non-Used and Useful Equipment The UTILITY's plant is larger than necessary to serve its present customers. In its application, the UTILITY seeks COMMISSION approval to capitalize its interest costs on that portion of the UTILITY's plant which is non-used and useful, and excluded from rate base. Capitalization will allow the UTILITY to recover its interest expenses over the useful life of the property involved. The COMMISSION has previously allowed capitalization of interest under similar circumstances, Docket No. 760054-WS, Application of North Orlando Water and Sewer Corporation, Order No. 7455, dated October 4, 1976. Here, the UTILITY's request is reasonable, concurred in by the COMMISSION, and should be granted. (Testimony of NewIon, Cooke, Lowe; P.E. .) III. Rate Structure The UTILITY currently uses a conventional two-tier rate structure. A base facility charge (BFC) rate structure is a more equitable method of distributing costs associated with providing a utility service. Under a BFC structure, customers pay a base charge which covers their pro-rata share of the UTILITY's fixed costs, and a gallonage charge which covers the costs of pumping, treating, and distributing the actual water gallonage used. Such a structure would require the UTILITY to alter its current customer service policy to insure that the base charge is paid during temporary discontinuances of service. (Testimony of Washington.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the UTILITY's application for increased sewer rates and charges be granted and that it be authorized to file revised tariff pages containing rates designed in accordance with the base facility charge concept to produce gross annual water revenues of $54,326 and annual sewer revenues of $46,080; That the UTILITY be required to notify each customer of any rate increase authorized, explaining the reasons for such increase. A letter of explanation should be submitted to the COMMISSION for prior approval; That the UTILITY be allowed to retain all interim revenues collected pursuant to COMMISSION Order No. 9416 and cancel the rate refunding bond previously submitted; and That the UTILITY be allowed to capitalize interest on non-used and useful equipment which is excluded from rate base. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Betmar Utilities, Inc.'s application for an expansion of territory under its water and wastewater certificates in Pasco County should be approved by the Public Service Commission.
Findings Of Fact Betmar Utilities, Inc. is a private utility company who owns and holds Florida Public Service Commission Certificates Number 137W and No. 98S. These certificates grant Betmar the right to operate a water and wastewater system in a specified territory within an unincorporated area of Pasco County. Betmar seeks an extension of its certified territory into the areas immediately to the north and south in an unincorporated area of the county. There is, or will be in the near future, a need for water and wastewater services in the proposed amended territory. An Application for Amendment of Territory was filed with the Commission to allow Betmar to service the area on November 13, 1989. When Betmar noticed the City of its pending application, an objection was filed to the proposed expansion. The objection specifically relates to the property on the south side of Geiger Road, which extends 330 feet south of the roadway, and adjoins the City's boundaries. Although the City does not currently provide services to this locale, it does own water and sewer lines on the northern side of Geiger Road in the Silver Oaks area. Other water and sewer lines in the City's system extend below the south side of Geiger Road at the far eastern portion of the area for which Betmar is seeking the extension of territory. In an interlocal agreement between the City and the County dated February 9, 1988, these governmental entities established designated service areas for water and wastewater services in this particular area of the county. The purpose of the agreement was to promote the economic delivery of services to citizens in the area, and to provide for the necessary long-range planning inherent in the provision of these services. Prior to the agreement, the County was authorized to provide the services to the areas for which an extension is sought by Betmar. The service area boundaries delineated in the agreement were to be periodically reviewed in conjunction with the review of each party's respective comprehensive plans. Pursuant to this agreement, the City and County determined that the City's Service Area Boundry would include the area south of Geiger Road that abuts Betmar's current service area. The City and the County each relied upon this interlocal agreement in the creation of their respective comprehensive plans. However, no additional action has been taken by the City to service the area. The City is not actually operating within the disputed area for a number of reasons. First of all, the City has adopted an ordinance which requires annexation of contiguous property as a condition of receiving its water and sewer services. The disputed portion of the proposed amended territory is not within the city limits and has not been annexed. Secondly, the City is not prepared to build utility lines to service the disputed proposed amended territory until the new bypass road along Geiger Road is built, and the proper right-of-way is obtained. At that time, the City would like to extend the Silver Oaks line under Geiger Road to the south, and the line along the eastern side of the disputed portion of territory to the west. These anticipated expansions correlate with the City's Service Area Boundry in the interlocal agreement which remains unchanged between the City and the County. A proposed service date was not provided by the City at the formal hearing. The City seeks to control land use and development of property along the Geiger Road corridor though its ability to provide or withhold utility services. Betmar also has water and sewer lines abutting or located on all properties described in its application for extension, including the area in controversy. These lines are currently active due to Betmar's water and sewer system which is in the center of the area targeted for expansion. Both Betmar and the City have the technical and financial ability to provide water and wastewater services in the proposed amended territory. Betmar has a tariff approved by the Commission which allows it to charge 110% of the cost of the extension of service from its existing lines to any property seeking service. Owners of property abutting Geiger Road have contacted Betmar about the possibility of providing service. A formal request for service has been made by Jake Developers for service in that area. Betmar's sewage collection facilities abutting the Geiger Road property are gravity lines. The City's sewage collection facilities in close proximity to the area are force mains. Betmar does not charge impact fees for connection into its system. The City charges a water impact fee of $350.00 and a sewer impact fee of $1,278.00 for connection into its system. Betmar anticipates a reduction in water and sewer rates if the extension is approved. Betmar presented no evidence about plans for further financial investment which would enable the utility to provide service in the area for which the extension has been requested because Betmar believes further investment is unnecessary. Betmar has an agreement with the County that states the County will provide bulk wastewater treatment to Betmar for the purpose of offering centralized wastewater services from the County's Southeast Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant for a twenty-five year term. The County has placed a possible qualification on the term of years in the agreement by inserting the following clause: ... its first responsibility is to the customers inside its own service limits and that it reserves the right to act in the best interest of those customers in all circumstances. The agreement between the County and Betmar has not been approved by the Commission.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Commission should deny Betmar's application for an amendment to its certified territory in Pasco County as the applicant has failed to provide that it will be allowed the continued use of the County's Southeast Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant for the twenty-five year term set forth in the agreement presented at hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #2. 2. Accepted. See HO #1. 3. Accepted. See HO #3. 4. Accepted. See HO #11. 5. Accepted. See HO #4. 6. Accepted. See HO #9. 7. Accepted. See HO #11. 8. Accepted. See HO #13. 9. Accepted. See HO #14. 10. Accepted. See HO #9. 11. Accepted. See HO #9. 12. Accepted. See HO #11. 13. Accepted. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #16. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. See HO #17. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted that an interlocal agreement between City and county existed. See HO #5. The rest of the paragraph is rejected as legal argument. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #2. 2. Accepted. See HO #12. 3. Accepted. See HO #12. 4. Accepted. See HO #3. 5. Accepted. See HO #11. 6. Accepted. See HO #4. 7. Accepted. See HO #12. 8. Accepted. See HO #9. 9. Accepted. See HO #9. 10. Accepted. See HO #9. 11. Accepted. See HO #5. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott L. Knox, Esquire 28870 U.S. Highway 19 North Suite 230 Clearwater, Florida 34621 Thomas P. McAlvanah, Esquire 37818 Highway 54 West Zephyrhills, Florida 34248 Robert J. Pierson, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0863 David Swafford, Executive Director Florida Public Service Commission 106 Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Steve Tribble, Director Records and Recording Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Susan Clark, General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 212 Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue Whether, and to what extent, Magnolia Valley Services, Inc., should be allowed to increase its water and sewer service rates.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: I. The Application By application filed on August 14, 1980, APPLICANT sought authority to increase its water and sewer rates, on an interim and permanent basis, in amounts sufficient to produce $60,847 in annual gross water revenues, and $100,768 in sewer revenues. By Order No. 9571 dated September 30, 1980, the COMMISSION authorized an interim sewer revenue increase, under bond, of $8,205, and denied an interim increase in water revenues. The COMMISSION has approved APPLICANT's use of a test year ending December 31, 1979. At hearing, the APPLICANT amended its application by reducing its requested water revenues to $50,287, and increasing requested sewer revenues to $101,522. (Testimony of Gregg, Prehearing Statement; P-4.) II. Depreciation Rate Depreciation is a method of allocating the cost of fixed assets to their estimated useful life. As an above-the-line operating expense, it affects a utility's net operating income; by its impact on accumulated depreciation of plant-in-service and accumulated amortization of contributions-in-aid-of- construction, it also effects calculation of rate base. (Testimony of Walker, Gregg; P-3, R-1.) The COMMISSION has promulgated no rules as guidelines which establish generally, or in particular, the useful life of utility assets or the method by which their depreciation should be calculated. In practice, however, it has allowed utilities to apply a straight-line 2.5 percent depreciation rate and a 40-year useful life to all depreciable assets. Any deviation from this 2.5 percent across-the-board rate must be justified by the utility. (Testimony of Heiker.) Here, the APPLICANT proposes depreciation rates which vary according to the estimated useful life of the plant or equipment involved. In contends that its shorter estimates of useful life of specific assets reflect reality and actual experience more accurately than an across-the-board 40-year life standard. For example, rate meters are routinely replaced on a 20-year basis and lack of reserve capacity and changing voltages have substantially reduced the expected life of electrical motors and equipment. The APPLICANT's estimates of useful life were established by the opinion of a utility consultant and engineer whose qualifications went unchallenged by the COMMISSION; no competent evidence was offered to discredit or rebut his conclusions. The COMMISSION's engineer candidly admitted that depreciation "is really a nebulous thing," (Tr. 64) and declined to assert that the APPLICANT's depreciation schedules were erroneous. (Tr. 69.) The COMMISSION disputed the APPLICANT's depreciation schedules by referring to an unpublished 1973 staff memorandum retained at the agency's offices and not produced at hearing. That memorandum purportedly adopted 1973 depreciation rates developed by the American Water Works Association. Upon motion of APPLICANT, testimony concerning the contents of that memorandum was subsequently stricken. The COMMISSION engineer also testified that he was unfamiliar, even generally, with how the American Water Works Association's depreciation rates were derived. In light of the quality of the evidence presented of record, the APPLICANT's depreciation rates (including estimated useful life) are accepted as persuasive. (Testimony of Heiker, Gregg; P-1, P-3.) III. Attrition Allowance The APPLICANT seeks to include in operating expenses an attrition allowance of $1,992 for water and $8,161 for sewer operations based on alleged attrition it experienced between 1975 and 1979. It defines attrition as increased annual expenses which cannot be recovered at the time they are incurred. The COMMISSION opposes the requested attrition allowance on the grounds that: (1) the attrition study performed by the APPLICANT is unreliable, and (2) that the recent enactment of Section 367.081(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), which allows the passing through of certain increased expenses to customers, eliminates the need for a special attrition allowance. (Testimony of Gregg, Walker; P-2.) The COMMISSION's position is well taken. First, a major portion of the cost increases experienced by the APPLICANT in the past will be able to be passed through to its customers pursuant to Section 367.081, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980). 2/ Those costs include increased power costs and ad valorem taxes. The APPLICANT responds that Section 367.081(4), supra, will not enable it to fully recover increasing expenses when they occur because rates may be adjusted, based on increased operating costs, not more than twice a year. Section 367.081(4)(e), supra. However, this new law should be implemented before it is pronounced inadequate to fulfill its purpose. Experience may show that major costs increase sporadically, or at predictable cycles, which facilitate carefully timed rate increases under Section 367.081(4), and that two such increases a year may prove fully adequate. (Testimony of Gregg, Walker; P- 2, R-1.) Secondly, the attrition study (P-2) submitted by the APPLICANT does not reasonably justify, or provide a reliable basis for projecting an attrition rate into the future. The 1975-1979 historical cost increases have not occurred at a constant rate. The 1979 increase in water operation costs was less than one- half of the average increase experienced between 1975 and 1979; in sewer operations, the 1979 cost increases were less than one-third of the four-year average. Moreover, a major factor in increased sewer costs was the 1978 conversion to a spray irrigation, total retention, sewage treatment system. Since this system meets the 1983 federal Clean Water Act standard of no- discharge, it is unlikely that increased operational costs relating to treatment changes will continue to occur. In short, the 1975-1979 historical cost increases of APPLICANT have been sporadic and do not support an assumption that they will continue to occur at the same rate. To include an attrition allowance based on such an assumption would be unwarranted. (Testimony of Gregg, Walker; P-2, R-1.) IV. Allowance of an Undocumented Operating Charge The APPLICANT proposed a $600 sewer expense item which was opposed by the COMMISSION because of lack of documentation. In response, the APPLICANT submitted--immediately prior to hearing--a cancelled check in the amount of $1,000. The discrepancy between the two amounts remains unexplained. Such action falls short of providing adequate documentation, and the proposed $600 sewer expense item must therefore be rejected. See, 25-10.77, FAC. V. Elements of Ratemaking and Applicant's Gross Revenue Requirements The parties agree: (1) that 14.5 percent is a fair and reasonable rate of return on rate base and reflects the actual cost of capital to APPLICANT; that the new rates should be designed in accordance with the base facility design concept, and that the quality of APPLICANT's water and sewer service is satisfactory. The remaining elements of ratemaking--rate base and net operating income--are not in dispute, and are depicted below: 3/ RATE BASE Test Year Ended 12/31/79 Water Sewer Plant in Service Accumulated $269,887 $511,200 Depreciation $(37,384) 4/ $(54,685) Net Plant $232,503 $456,515 Contributions in Aid of Construction (179,251) (360,055) Accumulated Amortization 22,421 Net Contributions in Aid of 4/ 41,231 4/ Construction (156,830) (318,824) Working Capital 3,515 7,082 TOTAL $ 79,188 $144,773 OPERATING STATEMENT Test Year Ended 12/31/79 Water Sewer Operating Revenues $53,300 $72,608 Operating Expenses: Operations 25,552 45,353 Depreciation 3,848 5/ 4,876 5/ Maintenance 2,572 6/ 11,306 6/ Amortization 1,439 Taxes Other Than Income 4,654 7/ 8,338 7/ TOTAL Operating Expenses $36,626 $71,312 Net Operating Income$16,674 $ 1,296 By applying a 14.5 percent rate of return against a rate base Of $79,188 for water and $144,773 for sewer, it is concluded that the APPLICANT should be allowed an opportunity to earn a return, or net operating income of $11,482 for water and $20,992 for sewer. Annual gross revenues of $48,108 (water) and $92,304 (sewer) are required to produce such a return--resulting in a net annual reduction of water revenues of $5,192 and a net increase of $19,696 in sewer revenues. VI. Interruption of Service Treatment Without Advance Notice Although the overall quality of its service has been adequate, infra, the APPLICANT has unnecessarily inconvenienced customers by interrupting water service without advance notice. These interruptions were planned in advance and not made on an emergency basis. The APPLICANT failed to adequately explain or excuse its failure to give timely notice. (Testimony of Pepper.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Magnolia Valley Services, Inc., be authorized to file new rates structured on the base facility charge concept and designed to generate gross annual revenues of $48,108 for water operations and $92,304 for sewer operations, based on the average number of customers served during the test year. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be directed to strictly comply in the future with Section 25-10.56, Florida Administrative Code, by giving advance notice of service interruptions which are not emergency in nature. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts relevant to the issues presented for determination are found: Quality of Service The prime concern and complaint of the customers who testified at the hearing was the quality of water they receive in their homes. The water was described as containing high levels of chlorine, to the extent that it smells of chlorine and, on occasion, fades or bleaches colored clothing when washed. At times, the water is cloudy or rusty in appearance and contains debris, such as sand, dirt or pebbles. One witness testified that clothing had been stained by rust in the wash water. Samples of water received into evidence illustrate the muddy appearance of the water, with debris visible. At times, the water is colored with algae, resulting in greenish-colored ice cubes. Broken appliances are attributed by several customers to have resulted from the debris contained in the water. Customers have experienced low water pressure in their homes and water outages for up to ten hours without prior notice from the petitioner. It was not established whether such water outages were the result of routine maintenance or emergency repairs. Several witnesses found it difficult to contact petitioner regarding billing errors and that slow or no responses to their inquiries were received. The billing errors included mailing the bill to the wrong address and the amounts of the bill. One such latter complaint is presently before the consumer affairs division of the Public Service Commission. The only complaints regarding sewer service were that there is often an unacceptable odor and that "there was sewage boiling out on my street two days in a row." (T.51) Notice of the hearing in this cause was mailed to all customers on February 25, 1981. The rate case documents were delivered by an employee of petitioner to the Clerk's office of the Lake County County Commission in the Lake County Courthouse on February 17, 1981. Water samples are taken on a monthly basis from each of the petitioner's plants. These samples are then analyzed for water quality in a state-controlled laboratory and the results are then sent to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the local Health Department. Personnel from these regulatory bodies occasionally visit the plants and make independent tests. None of the petitioner's water systems or its sewer system are presently under citation from any regulatory body. A citation existing prior to the petitioner's acquisition of the Palms Mobile Home Park water system has been removed. Prior to the hearing, Petitioner's vice-president of operations, Charles Sweat, had not received any complaints from customers regarding the level of water pressure in their homes. With regard to notification of customers of water outages, it is the petitioner's policy to give a twenty-four hour written notice to all customers for planned, scheduled maintenance which would require the water to be off for any length of time. When accidents or emergencies occur, petitioner devotes its concentration to the restoration of service and advance notice is not possible. The Department of Environmental Regulation has minimum requirements relating to the amount of chlorine which must be added to a water system. There are no maximum requirements. One of the Fern Terrace water samples received into evidence at the hearing was very brown in appearance. On the day upon which that sample was taken, the system had experienced a malfunction of the air compressor, causing all the water to go out of the system. The brown-colored water was the result of debris and rust that had built up in the bottom of the tank. The inside of the tanks are cleaned on a periodic basis, and that particular tank had been cleaned approximately six months ago. Petitioner does have a main flushing program, and each system is flushed on a regular basis, the frequency of which is dependent upon the type of pipeline used and the quality of the water in the system. A flushing report is maintained to record the appearance of the water at the beginning and at the end of the flushing, the chlorine residual in the water, the amount of time taken and the estimated gallons flushed out of the line. No explanation was provided for another muddy water sample received into evidence. Rate Setting for the Morningview Sewer System The Morningview sewer system is capable of supporting a maximum of forty-two (42) residential connections. At the end of the 1979 test year, the system had only twenty-six (26) connections. The respondent, Public Service Commission seeks to impute sewer revenues from the unsold lots in the Morningview subdivision so as to recognize the plant capacity of 42 connections. It was undisputed that the sewer plant was 100 percent used and useful and no adjustment was made to this figure. Since petitioner's acquisition of the Morningview sewer system, it has experienced an average annual growth rate of 13.16 percent. During the last year and one-quarter, the growth rate has been approximately 25 percent. The number of connections has increased from 19 in 1976 to the present 30. Eleven connections have been added in a little over four years. The revenues from the imputed connections were obviously not collected during the test year, nor were they collected in 1980. It would take approximately three years to collect the imputed revenues at the current rate of growth. The Public Service Commission has not adopted a rule allowing this imputation method of ratesetting. The pro forma approach has been used in setting rates for a new utility or development, and has been described as an "innovative" method of adjusting used and useful plant. Expenses in addition to increased costs for electrical power and chlorine necessitated by the increased number of connections were not considered by the Public Service Commission to be material. Additional connections to the sewer system would involve some additional billing and service costs, though the difference in fixed costs for serving 42 connections and 26 connections is minimal.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that no adverse consequences be imposed upon the petitioner in its application for rate increases as a result of the quality of water and sewer service provided to its customers in Lake County, Florida. It is further RECOMMENDED that revenues not be imputed for 42 connections to the Morningview sewer system. Respectfully submitted and entered this 24th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 24th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: R.M.C. Rose Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin and Richards Suite 103, 1020 Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 M. Robert Christ Legal Department Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve Public Counsel Room 4 - Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe Cresse, Chairman Public Service Commission The Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Anna Marie Norman 1219 LaSalida Way Leesburg, Florida 32748 Marilyn Smith 2924 North Porto Bello Avenue Leesburg, Florida 32748 Patti L. Wolf 2922 Alta Street Leesburg, Florida 32748 Anna P. Cowin 2913 North Porto Bello Avenue Leesburg, Florida 32748 Pam Angelillo 2922 Cocovia Way Leesburg, Florida 32748
The Issue Whether, and to what extent, Respondent S.E. Morris and Sons, Inc., should be allowed to increase its sewer rates.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: Applicant owns and operates a small sewage treatment plant located on Santee Drive in Morris Manner Subdivision, Springfield, Florida. The plant operates on a contact stabilization mode and has a design capacity of 35,000 gallons per day. (Testimony of Addison; R-1.) The plant and collection system were built in the late 1960s to serve a residential subdivision known as Morris Manor, then being developed by the Applicant. There are currently 79 residential customers served by the sewer plant. An additional 22 lots located in Morris Manor subdivision may eventually be sold, developed, and hooked into the existing sewer system. (Testimony of Addison; R-1.) I. Quality of Service Several customers complained of noxious odors emitted from the sewer plant. Prior to July, 1980, the plant was operated in an extended aeration mode, with a design capacity of 15,000 gallons per day. However, the plant's flow frequently exceeded 15,000 gallons per day, a fact which most likely contributed to periodic odor problems. The Applicant's failure to properly clean and maintain the plant's polishing pond also contributed to increasing odor problems, particularly during the summer time. (Testimony of Estler.) On September 12, 1980, Applicant executed a Consent Order with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation requiring a change in mode to contact stabilization and proper cleaning and maintenance of the polishing pond. Under the changed mode, the plant's design capacity is effectively increased to 35,000 gallons per day. The Applicant has complied with the provisions of the Consent Order. During the past six months, the plant has operated in conformance with Department of Environmental Regulation treatment requirements. The odor problems have been ameliorated, and, with the proper monitoring and maintenance, should not reoccur. In view of the substantial improvement in the plant's operation and maintenance and its current compliance with state standards, it is concluded that the sewer service applied by the Applicant is of acceptable and satisfactory quality. (Testimony of Estler, Addison.) II. Rate Base A utility providing satisfactory sewer service has a statutory right to an opportunity to earn a fair return on its investment in property used and useful in the public service. Section 367.081(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1980). That investment constitutes its rate base. Here, the parties dispute two items concerning the Applicant's proposed rate base: (1) accumulated depreciation, and (2) "used and useful" plant. In the past, the Applicant depreciated its plant using a 15-year serviceable life, 6.67 percent, straight-line depreciation rate. This rate was used by the Applicant for tax purposes, and was indicated on its annual reports filed with the Commission. However, use of a 40-year life, 2.5 percent depreciation rate is more appropriate. The Commission's response is to represcribe the preferred 40-year, 2.5 percent rate as though the company had, in fact, used that rate in the past; the effect is to decrease accumulated depreciation reserve and correspondingly increase net rate base. (Testimony of Lowe, Hale; I-4A, I-4B, I-2, R-2.) If, in the past, the Applicant actually recovered its book depreciation expense (at a 15-year, 6.67 percent rate), the Commission admits that its proposed recalculation of accumulated depreciation reserve would allow Applicant to recover plant costs--to the extent of the add-back--a second time. (Tr. 163.) It is now impossible to discern whether the claimed depreciation expenses were actually recovered through past rates. But if the past rates were insufficient for such purpose, that is a loss which must be borne by the Applicant. Rate payers have no obligation to compensate Applicant for past losses by paying higher rates in the future. (Testimony of Hale, Lowe; I-2.) In the past, the Commission has consistently disallowed recalculation of depreciation reserve which results in customers being required to build depreciation reserve anew. In Re Belvedere Water Company, 83 PUR 3d 202 (1970). The only reason offered in this case for departing from this practice is the small size of the Applicant's utility: ". . .if this were a large utility, my stand would be opposite; but because this is a very small utility, I don't think the company should be penalized." (Tr. 163.) This is an unacceptable basis for deviating from a regulatory requirement. Its application would adversely affect predictability in regulatory decision making and even-handed treatment of utility customers. The Commission's proposed recalculation of accumulated depreciation reserve is therefore rejected. The more appropriate treatment, one which comports with generally accepted accounting principles and the Commission's past practice, is to leave the existing depreciation reserve unaltered. The Applicant's plant should be depreciated at the preferred 40-year, 2.5 percent rate in the future. Those future charges would accumulate and increase the depreciation reserve account. (Testimony of Hale.) A utility is entitled to an opportunity to earn a fair return only on property which is used and useful In the public service. 367.081(2), Fla. Stat. The Applicant's sewer plant, under its current contact stabilization mode of operation, can adequately treat an average flow of 35,000 gallons per day. By applying the standard average flow criteria of 350 gallons per day per residence, it is concluded that Applicant's plant can adequately treat the sewage flow generated by 100 homes. Currently only 79 homes utilize its service. Thus, the plant has excess capacity of approximately 20 percent. The remaining 21 vacant subdivision lots--which the plant is capable of serving--are owned by the Applicant; no definite plan has been made to sell or develop them in the future. Consequently, use of the plant's current excess capacity is neither imminent nor reasonably expected in the foreseeable future. (Testimony of Addison, Estler.) The Commission's engineer treated the plant as 100 percent "used and useful"--its full valuation was consequently included in Applicant's proposed rate base. He based his "used and useful" conclusion on the fact that, several times during the test period 2/ , peak flows exceeded 35,000 gallons per day. Yet, he agreed that average flows are more significant in determining the operating capacity of a plant than peak flows; he gave no engineering reason why peak rather than average flows should be used to calculate "used and useful" plant; and he admitted that the plant has adequate capacity to handle an additional 20 homes. (Tr. 135.) It is concluded, therefore, that, since 20 percent of the plant is neither used and useful now, nor reasonably expected to be so in the foreseeable future, only 80 percent of the plant's valuation should be considered used and useful and included in rate base. (Testimony of Estler, Hale.) In accordance with the foregoing findings, the Applicant's rate base is depicted below: RATE BASE Test Period Ended 12/31/79 Utility Plant in Service $11,940 Accumulated Depreciation (6,676) Contributions in Aid of construction -0- Working Capital Allowance 1,337 Income Tax Lag -0- NET (Adjusted) RATE BASE $ 5,548 3/ III. Net Operating Income Two items remained in dispute concerning the Applicant's net operating income: (1) calculation of depreciation expense, and (2) salary expense. Depreciation Expense Since the Applicant should be allowed to allocate the balance of its plant over its remaining 30-year service life--using a 40-year, 2.5 percent depreciation rate--the Applicant's proposed depreciation expense should be reduced $597. Depreciation expense for the test year should therefore be $175. The Commission agrees that, assuming Intervenor's position on accumulated depreciation revenue is proper, this adjustment is also appropriate. Salary Expense Tom Morris visits the plant for one to two hours on a daily basis and performs essential clean-up and maintenance tasks. For this service he receives an annual salary of $2,600. This calculates to a hourly wage of $5-$6 per hour which is not considered unreasonable for the work performed. This salary should, therefore, be allowed. (Testimony of Morris, Hale; R-2.) Net operating income is thus depicted as follows: ADJUSTED OPERATING STATEMENT Test Year Ended 12/31/79 Operating Revenue: $ 3,479 Operating Expenses: Operation and Maintenance 10,699 Depreciation Expense 175 Taxes O/T Income 73 Income Taxes -0- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE $10,947 Operating Income $(7,469) (Testimony of Lowe; R-2.) IV. Cost of Capital The Commission used a 12.16 percent overall weighted cost of capital, including a 12.5 percent return on equity, which was uncontroverted: PERCENT OF TOTAL COST RATE WEIGHTED COST RATE Equity $204,114 94.7 percent 12.5 percent 11.84 percent Debt 11,532 5.3 6.0 .32 TOTAL $215,646 100.0 percent 12.16 percent A fair rate of return on the Applicant's net rate base is determined to be 12.16 percent. (Testimony of Lowe; R-2.) V. Additional Revenue Requirements By applying a 12.16 percent rate of return against a rate base of $5,548, it is concluded that Applicant should be allowed to earn a return, or operating income of $674.64. Annual gross revenues of $11,826 4/ are required to cover operating expenses and produce such a return, resulting in a net increase of $8,348 in gross revenues. VI. Rate Design If economically feasible, the Applicant's flat monthly rates should be replaced by an alternative rate structure known as the "base facility charge rate design." This is a more equitable structure because it contains a commodity charge which varies according to the amount of water consumed. The Applicant currently pays the City of Springfield 20 percent of the sewer fee in exchange for mailing and collecting sewer bills from customers. The costs of converting the city's billing system to the base facility charge rate design is not known. The Applicant should be required to determine the costs associated with converting to the base facility charge rate design, and report its findings to the Commission within 90 days of entry of the final order in this case. VII. Whether Applicant Should be Limited to Rates Originally Requested In order to determine its eligibility for Commission staff assistance in preparing its rate-making application, the Applicant completed and filed the appropriate Commission forms. 5/ In its initial eligibility filing, Applicant included a proposed sewer rate of $11.00 per month. Subsequently, a revised form was filed indicating a proposed rate of $13.00 per month. The Intervenor contends that Applicant should be limited to the $11.00 per month rate originally proposed. (I-1, 1-2.) It would be unreasonable to impose such a rate limit based on initial eligibility information documents. Such documents are necessarily completed before a rate application and supporting documents are completed and analyzed. The request for staff assistance in preparing the rate application, in itself, presupposes that the utility, due to its small size, lacks the expertise and specialized knowledge required to prepare and present a rate application. No contention is made that customers would be unfairly surprised by a flat rate which is more than $11.00 per month. Indeed, the uniform rate approved by the Commission was $13.08 per month; all customers were notified prior to hearing that Applicant proposed to make the interim rate permanent. (I-1, I-2.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That S.E. Morris and Sons, Inc., be authorized to file new rates designed to generate gross annual revenues of $11,826 based on the average number of customers served during the test year. To the extent interim rates result in excess revenues, such revenues should be refunded to the customers. That, within 90 days from entry of the final order in this case, S.E. Morris and Sons, Inc., be required to determine and report to the Commission the economic feasibility of redesigning its rates pursuant to the base facility charge rate design system. If such an alternative rate design is not economically practicable, new monthly flat rates designed to produce the required revenue should be filed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 24th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Quality of Service Of more than 250 customers presently served by the utility, only four customers testified at the hearing. Two were concerned that water and sewer rates were already too high and no further increase in rates should be allowed, a third complained of the utility's water having a bad taste and odor, while the fourth objected to an odor emanating from the utility's sewerage treatment plant approximately one year ago. Additionally, a number of deficiencies in the quality of service were identified by the Commission in Order No. 9216, supra. However, all deficiencies have now been resolved to the Commission staff engineer's satisfaction. Based on the entire record, the evidence supports a finding that the utility's water and sewer service is satisfactory. Rate Base Petitioner has proposed a rate base of $10,897 and $36,832 respectively for its water and sewer operations for the twelve months ending June 30, 1979, which is the test period in this proceeding. The Commission staff proposed five further adjustments to water and sewer rate base, none of which were contradicted by the utility. These adjustments affect plant in service, accumulated depreciation, contributions in aid of construction (CIAC), accumulated depreciation on CIAC and the working capital allowance. The adjustments are supported by the record, and should be accepted. The following schedule portrays the adjusted rate base for the utility's water and sewer operations, and the basis for each of the adjustments made in arriving at those amounts. Ponderosa Parks, Inc. Average Rate Base Year Ending June 30, 1979 WATER ADJUST TEST UTILITY ADJUST. YEAR Utility Plant $52,293 9,142 (1) $61,435 Accum. Deprec. (9,335) (1,055) (2) 10,390 CIAC (33,926) (5,938) (3) (39,864) Accum. Deprec.- CIAC -0- 6,742 (4) 6,742 Working Capital 1,865 60 (5) 1,925 Rate Base $10,897 $19,848 SEWER ADJUST TEST UTILITY ADJUST. YEAR Utility Plant $92,962 ($15,631)(6) $77,331 Accum. Deprec. 18,270 5,718 (7) (12,552) CIAC (39,188) 254 (8) (38,934) Accum. Deprec.- CIAC -0- 6,320 (9) 6,320 Working Capital 1,328 (215)(10) 1,113 Rate Base $36,832 $33,270 Adjusts water plant in service by (a) reallocating a portion of sewer plant to water operations, (b) readjusting the cost of certain water meters, and (c) adjusting the plant accounts from a year-end basis to a 13-month average balance. Adjusts accumulated depreciation to (a) reflect the use of a composite depreciation rate of 2.5 percent of all water plant and lines except meters for which a 2.63 percent rate is used, and (b) restate the balance in the account using a 13-month average balance in lieu of year-end balance. Adjusts contributions in aid of construction by (a) restating an amount previously improperly booked as revenues during the years 1970-1974, and (b) restating the year-end balance to a 13-month average. Adjusts the balance in the accumulated depreciation on CIAC account to reflect the use of a 13-month average rather than a year-end balance. Recomputes the working capital allowance to reflect one-eighth of adjusted operating and maintenance expenses. Adjusts sewer plant in service by (a) reallocating certain water lines from sewer to water operations, (b) removing certain non-utility land from the land account, (c) deleting that portion (50 percent) of the sewage treatment costs not used and useful in providing sewer services, and (d) adjusting the plant accounts from a year-end balance to a 13-month average balance. Adjusts accumulated depreciation by (a) using a 2.5 percent composite depreciation rate on all sewer plant and lines except for a 2.63 percent rate on meters, and (b) reflecting the use of a 13-month average in said account. Adjusts contributions in aid of construction by (a) adding to that account contributions previously recorded as revenues in 1970-1974, and (b) using a 13-month average in lieu of a year-end balance. Restates accumulated depreciation on CIAC by using a 13-month average in lieu of a year-end balance. Recomputes the working capital allowance to reflect one-eighth of operating and maintenance expenses. Net Operating Income Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 shows adjusted test year gross operating revenues of $20,370 for water operations and $14,692 for sewer operations. The utility's net operating income for the same time period on water and sewer services was $1,282 and $48 respectively. Staff Exhibit Nos. 2 and 4 make adjustments to operating revenues, operating and maintenance expenses, depreciation expense, and taxes other than income, none of which were contested by the utility. The record supports a finding that these adjustments are appropriate, and should be accepted. The following schedule shows the net operating income of the utility for the year ending June 30, 1979 and the derivation of those amounts. Ponderosa Parks, Inc. Average Rate Base Year Ending June 30, 1979 WATER ADJUST TEST UTILITY ADJUST. YEAR Operating Revenues $20,370 2,083(1) $18,287 Operating Expenses: Operation 16,137 (736)(2) 15,401 Depreciation 1,663 (1,119)(3) 544 Taxes other than 1,228 (52)(4) 1,236 Income Net Operating Income $ 1,282 $ 1,106 SEWER ADJUST TEST UTILITY ADJUST. YEAR Operating Revenues $14,692 4,293 (5) $10,399 Operating Expenses: Operation 10,121 (1,216)(6) 8,905 Depreciation 2,741 (1,781)(7) 960 Taxes other than 1,783 (107)(8) 1,675 Income Net Operating Income $ 48 $ 1,141 Adjusts test year water revenues by (a) removing that amount requested by the utility to show actual results of operations, and (b) reflecting a new surcharge rate (66/1000 gal.) charged by Pasco Water Authority. Adjusts operating and maintenance expenses by (a) removing costs associated with excessive unaccounted for water, (b) disallowing purchased water costs related to a prior accounting period, and (c) annualizing the new cost of water ($1.03/1000 gal.) purchased from Pasco Water Authority. Adjusts depreciation expense by (a) reflecting a composite depreciation rate of 2.5 percent for plant and lines and 2.63 percent for meters, and (b) removing depreciation expense on CIAC from operating expenses in accordance with Section 367.081(2) Florida Statutes (1980). Adjusts taxes other than income taxes by removing gross receipts taxes associated with the requested revenues previously removed in item (1)(a) above. However, an appropriate amount of taxes ($52) should be added back after the new revenue requirements are determined. Adjusts test year sewer revenues by removing the revenues requested by the utility to show actual results of operations. Adjusts operating and maintenance expenses by amortizing the cost of nonrecurring repair work over a 3-year period instead of charging the total cost to test year operations. Adjusts depreciation expense by (a) recomputing the balances using a 2.5 percent composite depreciation rate for all sewer plant and lines except for a 2.63 percent rate on meters, and (b) removing depreciation expense on CIAC in accordance with Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes (1980). Restates taxes other than income by removing gross receipts taxes associated with the requested revenues previously removed in item (5). However, an appropriate amount of taxes ($107) should be added back after the new revenue requirements are determined. Cost of Capital Ponderosa has not requested a specific rate of return on utility investment. However, the requested revenues on water operations equate to a rate of return of 11.76 percent on water rate base while the requested amount of sewer revenues produces a rate of return on sewer operations of 9.15 percent. The utility and Commission staff agree such returns are reasonable given the circumstances of this proceeding. These rates of the returns are supported by the record, and should be used. Revenue Requirements The application of a 11.76 percent rate of return to the adjusted rate base for water operations reflects the utility is entitled to increase its water revenues by $1,260 in order to achieve that return. Similarly, it is necessary to increase sewer revenues by the amount requested, or $4,293, to produce the requested return of 9.15 percent. The utility should be permitted to revise its tariffs to generate these amounts of additional revenues. Rate Structure The utility's present rate structure imposes a minimum charge for the first 3,000 gallons of water used, and a gallonage charge for each 1000 gallons thereafter. Sewer charges for residential customers are presently assessed on a flat rate basis irrespective of the usage of the individual customer. This type of rate structure has two inherent deficiencies. First, it offers no means by which a customer may control the amount of his bill by consuming more or less amounts of water. Second, it fails to allocate in a fair and impartial manner the minimum costs associated with providing water and sewer service. A base facilities charge will remedy these deficiencies. Under this structure, a minimum charge will be imposed for the purpose of recovering the fixed or base costs of providing water and sewer service, such as depreciation, taxes and a portion of billing and customer accounting expenses. Thereafter, a charge for each thousand gallons used will be made. The latter charge will cover costs relating to purchased water, transmission and treatment expenses, and a portion of billing, collecting and customer accounting expenses. This type of rate structure is supported by the evidence, and should be used.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Ponderosa Parks, Inc., 301 Embassy Boulevard, Port Richey, Florida 33568, be granted and that the utility be authorized to file new tariffs to be approved by the Florida Public Service Commission that will generate additional annual gross water revenues of $1,260 and additional annual gross sewer revenues of $4,293. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to implement a base facility charge in structuring its water and sewer rates. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 21st day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted a water pollution operation permit for the Bennett Road Sewage Treatment Facility under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a sewage treatment plant known as the Bennett Road Sewage Treatment Facility in Orlando, Florida. The plant was originally built in the 1950's and its method of treatment has been modified and improved over the years. At the present time, the plant serves about 60 percent of the sewage treatment needs of the city. The sewage is first treated for the removal of biological compounds by means of trickling filters, followed by chemical treatment for removal of BOD, suspended solids, and phosphorus. In the latter process, aluminum sulfate is used, together with a polymer to assist in forming larger particles for more rapid settlement. These processes are followed by final settling, clorination and discharge through an outfall pipe approximately five miles to the Crane Strand Creek and thence to the Little Econlockhatchee River (Little Econ) which meets the Big Econlockhatchee River approximately twelve miles downstream and flows into the St. Johns River twenty- seven miles downstream. About 60 percent of the flow from Crane Strand Creek into the Little Econ is derived from the Bennett Road plant and there is no other significant source of pollutants from the remainder of the discharge. (Testimony of Jewett, Matthes, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 1,2) In 1973, Respondent's predecessor, the State Department of Air and Water Pollution Control, issued a temporary operation permit to Petitioner, subject to certain conditions, for the Bennett Road plant. The permit was effective until June 1, 1976, "or sooner pursuant to the permittee upgrading his facility to provide 90 percent treatment and obtaining an operation permit in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department Of Pollution Control." On May 7, 1976, Petitioner submitted an application for an operation permit wherein it was stated that the facility would be abandoned as soon as the Orlando Easterly Regional Facilities were constructed with a new treatment plant to be located in the vicinity of Iron Bridge Road. Respondent's manager of the St. Johns River District advised Petitioner by letter of July 21, 1976, of the Department's intent to deny the application for an operating permit. The reasons given were that (1) available data was insufficient to show sustained secondary treatment as defined in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17- 3, Florida Administrative Code; and (2) the facility's discharge caused violation of Section 17-3.09(3), F.A.C. The latter provision establishes one of the criteria for classification of Class III waters and provides generally that the concentration of dissolved oxygen in all such surface waters shall not average less than 5 mg/l in a twenty-four hour period and never less than 4 mg/l. Class III waters are designated in Rule 17-3.09 as "Recreation - propagation and management of fish and wildlife." In its above-mentioned letter, Respondent suggested that the Petitioner apply for a temporary operation permit. Petitioner chose to request an administrative hearing on the proposed denial and did so by petition filed herein on August 5, 1976. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties orally stipulated that Petitioner has been meeting the statutory and regulatory requirements as to secondary treatment so as to warrant withdrawal of Respondent's objection to granting the permit on that ground. The parties also agreed that the only matter remaining in issue is the question of whether Petitioner's discharge violates water quality criteria. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6,7) Petitioner began consideration of the need to replace or expand the Bennett Road plant about 1968. These plans have reached a stage where the Petitioner is now in the process of purchasing land and concluding a planning study required under federal law to construct a regional facility to service the eastern part of Orlando and a few of the northerly communities, including some in Seminole County. Such regionalization of sewage treatment facilities is encouraged by the federal government which provides 75 percent of the funding necessary for construction under Public Law 92-500 . It is anticipated that the proposed facility will be completed in 1980 at which time the Bennett Road plant will cease operations. The regional facility is to be located at Iron Bridge Road and its discharge would flow into the Little Econ several miles downstream of the present Bennett Road discharge. (Testimony of Matthes, Schneider, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2) Operation permits have been granted from 1971 to 1976 to a number of sewage treatment plants that will tie-in to the proposed regional facility. These permits were issued even though the discharge of most of the plants did not meet water quality standards. However, practically no secondary treatment plant can meet water quality standards in Central Florida without an extensive mathematical "modeling." These calculations made by Respondent are formulated from surveys of the body of water in question and result in what is termed "a waste load allocation." This term deals with a treatment standard that is computed to ascertain the assimilative capacity of a receiving body of water to take in pollutants from a particular source in order that water quality standards in terms of dissolved oxygen levels may be maintained. The waste load allocation is the standard which the treatment from the source must perform before it can be discharged. None of the above-mentioned plants nor the Bennett Road plant had been provided an assigned waste load allocation at the time of Respondent's adverse action on Petitioner's application. Neither had it been a past requirement of Respondent to require information concerning dissolved oxygen from an applicant in order to issue an operation permit. However, a preliminary survey of the Little Econ had been completed by Respondent by February 1976, and from this, a mathematical model was later computed based on chemical analysis of water samples taken from designated areas in that body of water. In the aforesaid permits that were granted, a clause provided that the plants would have to work with the City of Orlando in resolving discharge problems and cooperate in the achievement of a regional system. Although water quality criteria had not changed in recent years, they had not been enforced because Respondent had had insufficient background water data. At the time Petitioner's permit application was recommended for denial, the primary basis therefor was the fact that the Bennett Road plant had not then reached 90 percent treatment capability over a sustained period. The question of water quality was incidental in view of the fact that that office did not then have the final determination of water quality as evidenced by the intensive survey of the Little Econ and the final math modeling. (Testimony of Jewett, Davenport; Petitioner's Exhibit 4) By interoffice memorandums from the Respondent's Director of the Division of Environmental Permitting to district and subdistrict managers, dated January 28 and April 13, 1976, Subject: Temporary Operating Permits, the said managers were instructed that no operating permits should be issued for any source not achieving secondary treatment of its wastes or not meeting water quality standards. In such cases, only temporary operating permits were to be issued. Further, it was stated in the April 13 memorandum that enforcement action would be initiated against municipal facilities if they were either not achieving 90 percent removal Of BOD and suspended solids or not meeting water quality requirements, and had either (1) not applied for a federal grant, (2) was not following up to ensure receipt of the grant, or (3) had received a federal grant but was not expeditiously accomplishing the grant requirements. It was stipulated at the hearing that the memorandums had not been promulgated as rules by Respondent under Chapter 120, F.S. (Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, Stipulation) Although the Little Econ is a highly degraded body of water, upstream of the Bennett Road discharge point it has a dissolved oxygen level of over 6 mg/l. After mixture with the Bennett Road discharge, the level drops to about 2 1/2 mg/l. Based upon the intensive survey taken by the Respondent in 1976, it was determined that water quality violations existed below the Bennett Road plant's discharge point but not above that point. It was further determined that the Bennett Road facility was contributing about 89 percent of the oxygen demanding substances in the system. In fact, the dissolved oxygen levels downstream from the Bennett Road discharge reached as low as one milligram per liter at several points. They ranged from that level up to approximately four and one-half milligrams per liter throughout the entire 27 miles of the system. The foregoing was the conclusion of Respondent's environmental specialist based on field data taken on August 30, 1976, at a time of the day when the dissolved oxygen levels would be at their highest. However, the drop in dissolved oxygen level to an even greater extent at certain points occurs in Respondent's mathematical model prediction that does not take into account any discharge from the Bennett Road plant. In fact, in such a "no discharge" situation, Respondent's prediction is that the dissolved oxygen level at points immediately following several control structures in the waters will produce an even greater drop than with the Bennett Road discharge taken into consideration. Although the control structures do not affect the actual oxygen demand on the system, they do increase the residence time of the water and permit substances to settle out. However, when the water flows over the dam, it creates reaeration that increases the oxygen level again. Therefore, although the control structures aggravate the problem, the Bennett Road discharge is in turn further aggravating the situation because some of the pollutants continue downstream. Part of the problem is due to the effect of deposits already on the bottom of the system and it is unknown to what extent they would be eliminated if the Bennett Road facility were taken out of the system. Although it is not anticipated that there would be a great rise in dissolved oxygen levels if the Bennett Road plant discharge were to be discontinued, Respondent's experts are of the opinion that there would be a definite increase in dissolved oxygen levels overall. Further, the field data and model predictions were based on high flow conditions but the 89 percent figure for pollutants from the Bennett Road facility was based on a low flow condition where it would be of more significance. Although the field data showed that at no point in the 27 mile course did the dissolved oxygen level of the water reach state standards of 5.0 milligrams per liter dissolved oxygen for Class III waters, the model prediction with no discharge from the Bennett Road facility shows that the dissolved oxygen level still would not meet state standards under high flow conditions. Under low flow conditions, though, the dissolved oxygen level without discharge from the Bennett Road plant would reach the state standards roughly halfway down the system. High flow conditions are more representative of an average of dissolved oxygen level during the year than under low flow conditions. The Bennett Road plant contributes approximately 60 percent of the total water flow reaching the St. Johns River. Even if the plant were to achieve advanced waste treatment standards, it still would not meet water quality standards. No evidence was presented as to the possibility of Petitioner using alternative methods of waste disposal, such as deep well injection, land irrigation, or the use of lakes and ponds. In fact, no discharge from the Bennett Road plant could be such as to raise the entire stream to meet the state requirement of 5.0 milligram per liter dissolved oxygen. (Testimony of Sawicki, Davenport, Armstrong, Horvath, Brown, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibit 3) An interoffice memorandum of Respondent's Grants section, dated October 28, 1976, pointed out that enforcement action had been shown to be a "great motivator in the area of bringing awareness to governmental agencies of their responsibilities in the field of pollution abatement." The memorandum sought compliance investigations of the various governmental entities within the area where the proposed regional sewage treatment system for East Orlando was to be undertaken, with recommendations that enforcement action be taken in the case of any violations of state standards. The memorandum further stated that enforcement action was already underway against the City of Orlando. The author of the memorandum denied that it was an attempt to force Respondent to proceed more vigorously with the regional system. (Testimony of Schneider, Petitioner's Exhibit 5) The Orange County Pollution Control Board requires variances from its rule that no treated effluent shall be discharged into the surface waters of the county. The Bennett Road plant operates under such a variance and at the present time is meeting county standards for sewage treatment. On May 19, 1976, the Orange County Assistant Pollution Control Director advised Respondent that the Bennett Road plant was meeting current state performance requirements and recommended approval of the operation permit. Although the county maintains records of the Little Econ River at various points, it has not used a mathematical model to determine whether the Bennett Road plant causes water quality violations. (Testimony of Sawicki, Petitioner's Exhibit 3)
Recommendation That the application of Petitioner City of Orlando, Florida for a water pollution operation permit for the Bennett Road sewage treatment facility be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Vance W. Kidder, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Circle East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida Gretchen R. H. Vose, Esquire Assistant City Attorney 16 South Magnolia Avenue Post Office Box 793 Orlando, Florida 32802 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION CITY OF ORLANDO, FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1573 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a utility regulated by the Commission that is in the business of acquiring and operating water and sewer systems in Florida, principally in Central Florida. It now operates 39 systems, of which at least 30 water systems and 5 sewer systems are located in Orange, Lake and Seminole counties. In this case, the utility serves 547 water customers and 528 sewer customers in a subdivision known as University Shores. Southern commenced operating these systems in June, 1978, purchased them from University Shores Utilities, Inc. in September, 1978, and applied to the Commission for a transfer, which application was approved November 1, 1978, by Order 8550. The rates for service by these systems were granted by Order 6822 on August 6, 1975. Notwithstanding customer complaints of the quality of the water service (smell, taste, excess chlorine, sediment and no-noticed interruptions), the systems are in compliance with governmental standards. No customer complaints had been made to regulatory agencies, and the utility had handled only five for 1979 and to date in 1980. Due to a large increase in number of customers, a year end, rather than average, test year is appropriate; and the facilities are used and useful. Petitioner's rate bases are computed as follows: WATER SEWER Year end test year plant $526,737 $957,176 Construction Work in Progress 2,500 -0- Acquisition adjustment (net of amortization) (41,490) (78,300) Accumulated depreciation (67,172) (128,393) CIAC (net of amortization) (186,470) (489,438) Working Capital 5,476 6,386 Income tax lag (2,951) (4,225) $236,630 $263,214 The following capital structure and rate of return is that agreed to by the Petitioner and Respondent prior to intervention by the customers: WEIGHTED TYPE AMOUNT RATIO COST COST Common Stock $1,882,055 60.44 14.0 percent 8.46 Long Term Debt 1,037,372 33.31 8.89 2.96 Cost Free 194,768 6.25 0 0 TOTAL $3,114,195 100.00 11.42 percent The above rate bases and rate of return provide an authorized constructed net operating income from water service of $22,523 and from sewer service of $30,059. Although the return on water service is only 9.52, the revenue is limited to that in the application. This results in the following constructed statement of operations for year ended June 30, 1979: WATER SEWER Operating Revenue $94,550 $117,814 Operating Expense Operation 41,853 49,838 Maintenance 1,950 1,244 Depreciation 5,964 7,451 Amortization (860) (1,598) Taxes, other than income 8,363 9,726 Income taxes 14,757 21,124 TOTAL $ 72,027 $ 87,785 Net Operating Income $ 22,523 $ 30,059 Rate Base $236,630 $263,214 Rate of Return 9.52 11.42 percent It is noted that the above revenue requirement is more than the interim authorized revenue of $68,841 for water and $81,720 for sewer. The staff proposed that the rate structure should be changed from the present block structure for water and flat rate for sewer to a base facility charge for both water and sewer. This concept is appropriate since it serves to conserve water and insures that each customer pays his fair share of the costs of providing service. No evidence opposing this type rate structure was presented.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Southern States Utilities, Inc., University Shores Division, be granted and that the utility he authorized to file new tariffs to be approved by the Florida Public Service Commission that would have provided for the test year ending June 30, 1979 annual gross revenues of $94,550 for water service and $117,814 for sewer service. It is further RECOMMENDED that the refund bend be returned to utility. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. H. E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: R. M. C. Rose, Esquire 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William H. Harrold, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street - Fletcher Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve, Esquire Stephen C. Burgess, Esquire Benjamin H. Dickens, Jr., Esquire Office of Public Counsel Holland Building - Room 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street - Fletcher Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert T. Mann, Chairman Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street - Fletcher Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in the proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system permit ("OSDS") authorizing installation of an on-site sewage disposal system for property the Petitioner owns near the Suwannee River in Gilchrist County, Florida, in consideration of the relevant provisions of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, and whether the Petitioner should be entitled to pursue a variance from the permitting statute and rules embodied in that chapter of the code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owns certain real property located in Gilchrist County, Florida on the east bank of the Suwannee River, adjoining the river. The property is more particularly described as Lot 9, Block B, Two River Estates. The property was purchased on January 3, 1985 and was platted as a subdivision on January 5, 1959. The lot in question upon which the OSDS would be installed should a permit be granted, is approximately one acre in size. On April 30, 1990, the Petitioner made application for an OSDS seeking authorization to install such a conventional septic tank and drain-field system for disposing and treating household sewage effluent on the subject property. The system would be designed to serve a single-family residence, containing approximately two bedrooms, and approximately 1,200 heated and cooled square feet of living space. Upon making application, the Petitioner was informed that he would have to obtain a surveyed elevation of his property, as well as the ten-year flood elevation for his property for the river mile of the Suwannee River at which his property is located. The Petitioner consequently retained Herbert H. Raker, a registered land surveyor, who surveyed the elevation for his property. Mr. Raker established a bench mark elevation of 29.24 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The site of the proposed OSDS installation on that lot has an elevation at the surface grade of 28.5 feet. The subsurface of the lot at the installation site is characterized by appropriate, "slight-limited" soil extending 72 inches below the surface grade of the lot. The wet season water table is 68 inches below the surface grade of the lot. Consequently, there is more than adequate slight-limited soil to handle disposal and treatment of the sewage effluent from a single-family residence, such as is proposed, since the wet season water table is 68 inches below the surface of the property. Thus, a more than adequate treatment space and appropriate soil beneath the bottom surface of any proposed drain field to be installed at the site would exist so as to comply with the pertinent rules cited herein. The problem with a grant of the subject permit consists only of the fact that the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation, that is, it is approximately 1.5 feet beneath that elevation. The Suwannee River Water Management District report submitted to the Respondent agency by the Petitioner in the application process for the OSDS permit (in evidence) reveals that the ten-year flood elevation for the property in question is 30 feet above MSL. The soils prevailing at the proposed installation site, the great depth of the wet season water table, and the fact that the lot is approximately one acre in size and above the minimum size requirements for the installation of an OSDS, all militate in favor of a grant of the permit, except for the basis for its denial initially, that is, that it is simply beneath the ten-year flood elevation for purposes of the prohibition contained in Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code. Although located within the ten-year flood elevation, the site is not located within the regulatory flood way so that if a mounded system or other raised OSDS alternative system were proposed and installed, an engineer's certification would not be required regarding the issue of raising the base flood level by the deposition of fill at the installation site for purposes of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. There is no central water system available to the property; however, although there was conflicting testimony about the distance the proposed installation site would be from a neighbor's potable water well, the testimony of the Petitioner is accepted as being most certain in establishing that more than the required distance from that potable water well exists between it and the proposed septic tank and drain-field installation site, since the Petitioner established that approximately 110 feet is the actual separation distance. The Petitioner purchased the property to construct a single-family residence for himself and his family. He expended a substantial sum of money for the property and is unable to use it for its intended purpose without the subject permit or at least a variance so as to authorize him to install an OSDS. The Petitioner offered no concrete proposals or plans for an alternative system which might reasonably accomplish treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent in question without harm to ground or surface waters or the public health. No substantial proof was offered of a system which would either dispose of and treat the effluent at a location above the ten-year flood elevation or, if still below it, would adequately treat and dispose of the effluent sewage to safeguard the public health and the ground or surface waters involved, such that its existence slightly beneath the ten-year flood elevation would only be a "minor deviation" from that portion of the permitting rules. In point of fact, it would seem that a mounded system would be feasible on a lot this size, especially in view of the fact that the bottom surface of the proposed drain-field trenches or absorption beds would only have to be raised slightly over 1.5 feet from the surface grade of the subject lot and installation site in order to comply with the ten-year flood elevation parameter, which was the only basis for denial of this permit application. No proof was offered concerning how such a mounded system would be designed, installed and otherwise accomplished, however. Upon denying the initial application for the OSDS permit, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that he should pursue a formal administrative hearing process rather than make application for a variance and proceed through the internal variance board mechanism operated by the department in order to obtain a variance from the requirements of Rule 10D-06.47(6), Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent advised the Petitioner of this because the subject property was located within the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River; and as the Respondent interpreted the Governor's Executive Order Number 90-14, which incorporated by reference the "Suwannee River Task Force Report" commissioned by the Governor, the Order absolutely prohibited the granting of any variances authorizing installation of OSDS's beneath the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River or the granting of any OSDS permits themselves authorizing such installations.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Petitioner did not file a Proposed Recommended Order. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-10. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Gary Wilson P.O. Box 2061 Lake City, FL 32055 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
