Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Florida Land Company which is, in turn, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Continental Group, Inc., a New York corporation. The parent developer companies are providing and will continue to provide the required financial backing. The Utility served 421 primarily residential customers at the end of 1979, the test year agreed to by the parties. This was the first rate proceeding involving the Utility since it was established in 1975. Service The Utility is providing satisfactory water and sewer service. There were no service complaints presented at the public hearing by the customers, nor were there any citations or corrective orders outstanding. Rate Base The Utility experienced rapid growth during the 1976 - 1979 period, increasing the number of customers served from 62 to 421. Therefore, year end rate base rather than average rate base should be utilized. 1/ The water and sewer rate bases are $155,920 and $179,360 respectively. These amounts are based on the computations detailed below and incorporate proposed Commission adjustments to which the utility stipulated. In addition, reductions to plant in service and construction work in progress (CWIP) were made by the Utility to reflect excess plant capacity which is of no benefit to current customers. The Utility replaced its reverse osmosis water treatment plant with a lime softening system in 1979. The new facility will be somewhat more expensive to operate but will improve water quality and fire flow (pressure). Because of the reverse osmosis water treatment plant retirement, the $3,615 in building and $34,541 in treatment plant assets remaining on the Utility books should be removed. This is a total adjustment to Utility Plant in Service of $38,156. A further reduction in both water and sewer rate base is needed to adjust the working capital allowance to the standard authorization, which is one-eighth of operation and maintenance expenses. The proper amounts to he authorized in these accounts are $5,338 water and $2,931 sewer. TEST YEAR PER UTILITY UTILITY ADJ. TEST ADJ. TO YEAR PER COMM. ADJ. & CORRECT. TO UTILITY ADJ. UTILITY TEST YEAR EXHIBIT BALANCE TEST YEAR $820376. $-551059. $269317. $-38156. $231161. 57866. -57866. 0. 0. 0. -18841. 17155. -1686. 0. -1686. -238419. 159526. -78893. 0. -78893. Water Rate Base Plant in Svc. C.W.I.P. Accum. Depr. C.I.A.C. Net of Amort. Working Capital Allowance 4755. 1421. 6176. -838. 5338. Income Tax Lag 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Rate Base $625737. $-430823. $194914. $-38994. $155920. Sewer Rate Base UTILITY COMM. ADJ. TEST UTILITY ADJ. TEST & CORRECT. YEAR PER ADJ. TO YEAR PER TO UTILITY ADJ. UTILITY TEST YEAR EXHIBIT BALANCE TEST YEAR Plant in Svc. $591945. $-205690. $386255. $0. $386255. C.W.I.P. 77919. -77919. 0. 0. 0. Accum. Depr. -2815. 2551. -264. 0. -264. C.I.A.C. Net of Amort. -321611. 112049. -209562. 0. -209562. Working Capital Allowance 2558. 401. 2959. -28. 2931. Income Tax Lag 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Rate Base $347996. $-168608. $179388. $-28. $179360. Operating Revenues The Utility is seeking water revenue of $41,429 and sewer revenue of $35,550. Computations and adjustments in support of these amounts along with test year expenses are detailed below. Because of the extraordinary expenses associated with replacement of the water treatment plant, it would not be appropriate to utilize test year data to determine operating costs. Therefore, a projected or pro forma operating expense of $42,789 removing replacement expenses is proper. A further adjustment to water operations is required to eliminate $1,987 of depreciation expense on contributed property as not authorized by current law. 2/ In addition, the useful life of various items of equipment should be increased to periods of 20 to 40 years. These extended depreciation periods are based on an engineering study which the Utility does not challenge. Finally, the requested revenue increase of $27,432 and the associated gross receipts tax of $686 are reversed to show test year operating results. The requested sewer revenue increase of $19,413 and gross receipts tax of $485 are also reversed on the sewer operating statement to show test year operating results. As with the water plant, depreciation on contributed sewer plant is disallowed, reducing depreciation by $5,261. Water Operating Statement UTILITY COMM. ADJ. TEST UTILITY ADJ. TEST & CORRECT. YEAR PER ADJ. TO YEAR PER TO UTILITY ADJ. UTILITY TEST YEAR EXHIBIT BALANCE TEST YEAR $ 14006. $ 27423. $ 41429. $-27423. $ 14006. 38039. 11368. 49407. -6678. 42789. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6325. 3762. 10087. -5525. 4562. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1979. 500. 2479. -686. 1793. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Oper. Revenues Oper. Expenses Operation Maintenance Depreciation Amortization Taxes Other Than Income Other Expenses Income Taxes UTILITY COMM. ADJ. TEST UTILITY ADJ. TEST & CORRECT. YEAR PER ADJ. TO YEAR PER TO UTILITY ADJ. UTILITY TEST YEAR EXHIBIT BALANCE TEST YEAR Total Operating Expenses $46343. $15630. $61975. $-12889 $49084. Oper. Income -32337. 11793. -20544. -14534. -35078. Rate Base $ 825737. $ 194914. $ 155920. Rate of Return -5.17 pct. -16.54 pct. -22.50 pct. Oper. Sewer Operating Statement UTILITY COMM. ADJ. TEST UTILITY ADJ. TEST & CORRECT. YEAR PER ADJ. TO YEAR PER TO UTILITY ADJ. UTILITY TEST YEAR EXHIBIT BALANCE TEST YEAR Revenues $16137. $19413. $35550. $-19413. $16137. Oper. Expenses Operation 20462. 3208. 23670. -233. 23437. Maintenance 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Depreciation 619. 9060. 9679. -5261. 4418. Amortization 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Taxes Other Than Income 1747. 630. 2377. -485. 1892. Other Expenses 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Income Taxes 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Total Operating Expenses $22828. $12898. $35726. $-5979. $29747. Oper. Income $-6691. $6515. $-176. $-13434. $-13610. Rate Base $847996. $179388. $179360. Rate of Return -1.92 pct. -10. pct. -7.59 pct. Capitalization Debt $ 555,624. 60.96 percent Customer Deposits 6,195. .68 The capitalization of the Utility is as follows: Amount Percent to Total Common Equity 349,627. 38.36 $ 911,446. 100.00 percent Rate Design Both parties seek adoption of a base facility charge rate structure. This rate design provides a fixed charge to each customer served computed on that customer's share of fixed operating costs. The second element of the base facility charge represents the variable cost of water actually used. This rate design provides an equitable method of allocating service costs and has been adopted in virtually all recent water and sewer rate proceedings. The base facility charge should also be utilized where there is a temporary discontinuance of service. The Commission proposes a tariff revision incorporating a monthly standby charge equal to the base facility charge. Again, this method allocates the Utility's readiness to serve costs equitably among both active and temporarily inactive customers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Sugar Mill Utility Company 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 $41,429 annually, and gross sewer revenue of $35,550 annually, based on the number of customers served at the end of the test year. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner be permitted to retain interim revenues collected pursuant to Respondent's Order No. 9392, and that tie rate refunding bond requirement of said order be cancelled. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact The applicant, Island Village Condominiums, prepared and submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation a completed application for construction of its extended aeration sewage treatment plant. The relative distance and direction from the proposed treatment plant to major bodies of surrounding surface water are depicted in an aerial photograph which accompanied the application. The elevation of the surrounding waters in all directions is 39 feet. When the treatment plant is operated in compliance with its design features, the effluent from the plant will exceed the Department's standards for effluent discharge. The zone of discharge will be confined to the owners' property. Surface waters will not be involved in discharge. There will be no adverse impact upon ground waters. The treatment plant would not create a hazzard to the deep water wells of Point O' Woods Utilities, Inc. The treatment plant, as designed, meets or exceeds the engineering standards established by the Department. The likelihood of geologic subsurface failure is remote. Ground water levels are included on the schematic plan which accompanied the application to the Department. The tops of the holding ponds are above the 100-year flood level. The treatment plant will produce no noticeable odor. No exterior lights are to be used with the plant. The noise from the plant's operation would not travel more than 200 feet. The holding ponds would be more than 120 feet from the nearest surface water. The estimate of the cost is accurate at $98,000. Martin I. Gunn, Inc., is the developer of the property, which is also owned by the corporation, Island Village Condominiums, also known as Island Village of Inverness. The treatment plant will become the property of the home owners association and will be operated by the association from maintenance fees paid by the home owners. Martin I. Gunn/Island Village is not a public utility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the permit for the construction and operation of an extended aeration sewage treatment plant be issued to Island Village Condominiums subject to the general and specific conditions stated in the Department's original notice. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 19th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire Post Office Drawer. B Winter Park, Florida 32790 Donald F. Perrin, Esquire New Bank of Inverness Building Highway 41, South Post Office Box 1533 Inverness, Florida 32650 William W. Deane, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria J. Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In light of the aforementioned stipulations entered into by the parties, the parties agreed that the only remaining disputed issue was the quality of service being provided by Petitioner. In this connection, the record establishes that Petitioner operates nine water systems in Duval County, one of which is known as the "Milmar Plant." Water furnished through this plant has, in the past, violated applicable regulatory standards with regard to high iron levels and corrosivity, to such an extent that the system was the subject of a Corrective Order entered by the Duval County Public Health Division of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in 1980. However, as a result of Petitioner's agreement to connect to the City of Jacksonville water system, these problems should be alleviated when the switch-over and connection are accomplished. Accordingly, as a condition to approval of the requested rate increase, Petitioner should be required to complete the switch-over and connection to the City of Jacksonville water system prior to the entry of a Final Order granting the requested rate increase.
The Issue The issues are: (1.) Whether Respondents' request for variance from requirements of Rule Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, should be granted. (2.) Whether Respondents are guilty of violation of certain provisions of Chapter 381 and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 10D-6, Rule Chapter 17-550, and Rule Chapter 17-555, Florida Administrative Code, regulating the operation of onsite sewage disposal systems.
Findings Of Fact Respondent V.M.P. Corporation (VMP) operates a lounge known as Stud's Pub in Jacksonville, Florida. Licensed for 75 seats, the lounge actually contains 50-55 seats and employs five people full time. Additionally, 10-15 independent entrepreneurs known as dancers may be present at times. The dancers are not employees of Respondents. Less than 25 people, other than patrons, are present at the facility at any time. Respondent Vincent M. Paul (Paul) owns the facility and the corporation. The lounge is on lots that were platted prior to 1972. Petitioner is the statutory entity with authority for granting variances for onsite sewage disposal systems regulated by Petitioner pursuant to provisions of Section 381.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). The lounge is serviced by a septic tank with a drainfield which is covered by an asphalt parking lot. The portion of the parking lot over the drainfield is bounded to the west by a dirt city street, to the north by other pervious surfaces, to the east by the lounge and to the south by the remainder of the asphalt parking lot. A sign on the premises which advertises the business is protected from automobile traffic by concrete barriers. The septic tank system and drainfield were installed prior to 1972 by a previous owner. Respondent Paul retrofitted the septic tank system after 1972. Respondent Paul was responsible for paving over the drainfield after he purchased the property. Petitioner's representatives inspected the lounge, determined the drainfield to be covered by the asphalt parking lot and requested Respondents to remove the asphalt covering. Respondents requested a variance pursuant to Rule 10D Administrative Code, for the asphalt covered drainfield and other deficiencies of the onsite sewage disposal system. Petitioner's review board recommended denial of the request on the basis that the variance would not constitute a "minor deviation" from rule requirements. Although the term is not defined by Petitioner's rule, Petitioner's usage of this term was the result of the consideration by Petitioner's review board of the application for variance within the context of Section 385.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes, which authorizes Petitioner to grant variances only where the hardship is not intentionally caused by the applicant, where no reasonable alternatives exist and where no evidence of adverse effect upon public health or ground and surface waters is demonstrated. Respondent has no record of failure of the septic tank or drainfield. Water samples from the onsite potable water well filed with Petitioner tested below detectable limits for nitrates and coliforms, the only parameters Petitioner is required to analyze. Respondents' records of water flow or usage from the well into the lounge show daily flow rates of between 320 and 580 gallons, with an average rate of between 450 and 480 gallons. Respondent Paul is responsible for the installation of an unpermitted chlorinator on the water supply system which provided actual flow information. The only onsite water well has no grout sealant. It is the only well of which the parties are aware that lies within 100 feet of the septic system. The potable water well is located approximately 42 feet from the edge of the covered drainfield. The well head does not extend above line surface and there is no concrete pad around the wellhead. The exact depth of the well is unknown, although the well is located upgradient of the drainfield and a nearby junkyard. Denial of the variance would require that Respondents uncover the drainfield since there is no practically available offsite sewage system currently available. Soil in the area of the drainfield is classified as well- draining sand. Due to the impervious surface covering the drainfield, Petitioner's representative was unable, during his inspection, to discern any symptoms of drainfield failure in the form of "blow field should be totally unobstructed to allow aerobic processes to take place in the drainfield which will permit the breakdown of contaminants. A portion of Respondents' 1200 gallon septic tank is located partially under and immediately adjacent to Respondents' facility. A dousing tank which retains liquid waste and operates as part of the septic system is also totally covered by the asphalt pavement. Although there has been no detectable failure of the system, every eight or nine months Respondents have the septic tank and dousing tank pumped out. The tanks never get full.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby Recommended that a final order be entered by Petitioner denying the variance requested by Respondent with exception of such minimal distance as may be required to relocate the water well as far as possible from the drainfield on the Respondent property, and, Further Recommended that such final order also assess Respondent Paul an administrative penalty of $500 for each of the four violations contained in the Administrative Complaint which were proven in this proceeding for a total of $2000, and a continuing assessment of $500 per day for each violation for a total of up to $2000 per day after first allowing Respondents a 60 day period within which to correct all four violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 3rd day of May, 1993.
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 Respondents' Division of Hotel and Restaurants' license should be suspended or revoked, or a civil penalty assessed for alleged violation of Division Rule 7C-4.01(5)(c) and Florida Statute s. 509.221, as set forth in Notice to Show Cause issued by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On April 19, 1977, Johnny Bell, inspector for petitioner's Division of Hotels and Restaurants, received notification from the Health Department of Sarasota County that respondents' place of business, Port-of-Call, resort apartments located at Longboat Key, Florida, was not connected to the sewerage system of Longboat Key. Bell inspected respondents' premises and discovered that a septic tank system was in use at the Port-of-Call. He informed respondents that they must connect to an "approved" sewerage system within sixty (60) days. On June 20, 1977, Bell returned to the premises and found that no action had been taken to connect to the Longboat Key system. Respondent Edward W. Henderson informed him that he should not have to go on such a system because his septic tanks were adequate and functioning properly. Bell did not examine the septic tanks or ascertain if they were, in fact, in proper condition and operating satisfactorily. He proceeded to issue a Notice to Show Cause as to why respondents' license No. 68-606H should not have a civil penalty assessed against it or be suspended or revoked. The stated cause for such intended action was as follows: "Division Rule 7C-4.01(5)(c) ; Florida Statutes 509.221 -- Failure to have sewage system hooked into public sewerage system." The Notice to Show Cause also informed respondents of their right to an Administrative Hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Respondents thereafter requested such a hearing. There is no food operation at the Port-of- Call. (Testimony of Bell, Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That the charges against respondents be dismissed. Done and Entered this 10th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence C. Winson, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building, Suite 210 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John W. Meshad, Esquire 100 South Washington Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33577
Findings Of Fact Quality of Service There were no customers of the utility present at the public hearing, except for the Department of the Navy. As a result, there is no public testimony in the record relating to the quality of the water and sewer service provided by the utility. However, a representative of the Department of Environmental Regulation and an engineer from the Public Service Commission agree that the utility's water treatment meets all relevant quality standards, and its sewage treatment is within acceptable limits. Nevertheless, there exist problems of infiltration into the company's sewage lines which have resulted in variations in its level of treatment efficiency. The Department of the Navy acknowledges that some of these infiltration problems originate at the Navy housing facility, and the Navy asserts that corrective measures will be undertaken. In the meantime, the Navy contends that the sewage flows from its housing facility have been underestimated, resulting in an overstatement of revenue to the utility. However, there is insufficient specific evidence in the record to support a finding of fact resolving this issue. Since the variations in the utility's sewage treatment efficiency are within acceptable levels, the Company's wastewater treatment is found to be satisfactory. Rate Base By its exhibits, the utility has alleged its adjusted rate base to be $59,401 for water and $87,134 for sewer. Public Service Commission adjustments reduce and correctly state the water rate base to be $19,356 and the sewer rate base to be $65,552. The utility contests the removal of $16,530 from sewer rate base as a contribution in aid of construction (CIAC). This amount is the difference between the $155,000 paid by the Duval County School Board to a partnership consisting of the utility's partners and others, and the $138,170 recorded on the books of the utility. It contends the $16,330 represents a contractor's profit to one of the former partners of utility, but this amount is properly recordable as CIAC and should be removed from rate base. Other adjustments are either not contested, or make no material difference in the utility's revenue requirements, and should be accepted. The accompanying schedules 1 and 3 detail the rate base for both water and sewer with appropriate explanations for the adjustments. Cost of Capital Representatives from the utility and from the Public Service Commission presented evidence on the issue of cost of capital. The major area of disagreement relates to the company's capital structure. The Commission contends that the utility is 100 percent debt, while the utility asserts the capital structure to be 52.97 percent equity and 47.03 percent debt. The Commission's contention is based on the annual reports filed by the utility wherein a deficit is reported in the equity account. The utility, however, has made several adjustments to the investment shown in the annual reports which it alleges increase equity from a deficit of $39,804 to a positive amount of $92,727. The first adjustment made by the utility is in the amount of $22,700 to make the amount of investment equal to rate base, in accordance with principles of double entry bookkeeping. However, because revenue requirements of public utilities are based on used and useful plant in service rather than on total assets, it is not uncommon for the rate base to be different in amount from the total capitalization. Thus, this adjustment is unnecessary and improper. The utility's second adjustment increases the amount of investment by $39,464 as the Unrecovered Cost of Abandonment of Utility Plant. The plant to which this adjustment refers was abandoned, and because of the hazards presented by the abandoned structure, it was disassembled and scrapped. The unrecovered costs were written off for tax purposes, but were not written off for regulatory purposes. This amount should be treated as any other loss, and the adjustment to increase investment should be disallowed. When a utility has recovered the cost of a loss due to abandonment through a write off against income, the placement of the amount of the investment in the capital account results in accounting twice for the loss. The third adjustment involves an amount of $57,067 representing loans procured by the utility's partners from a financial institution. Although these loans were made directly to the partners, the proceeds were used by the utility and the company services the debt. The utility contends that these funds are equity, and it has increased the investment account by the amount thereof. However, the intent of the parties to the transaction was that the funds borrowed by the partners were loaned to the utility, not invested in it. Accordingly, the utility's adjustment is improper; the amount of the loan should be considered as debt in the utility's capital structure; and it should be allowed to earn the embedded cost of this debt, but not an equity return on the amount thereof. In summary, since this utility's equity account has a deficit balance, the appropriate capital structure is 100 percent debt. The cost of this debt is its embedded cost, estimated to be 11.75 percent overall, and the weighted cost is 10.21 percent, as shown in the following table. CAPITAL STRUCTURE COMPONENT PERCENT OF AMOUNT CAPITAL COST RATE WEIGHTED COST Mortgage Note $36,593 20.9 8.00 2.312 Loans Outstanding 48,162 38.0 9.69 3.681 Proposed Note 41,870 33.1 12.76 (est) 4.220 TOTAL $126,625 100.0 10.213 perc. These "Amounts" are the non-current portion of the debt. Operating Statements The accompanying schedules 2 and 4 detail the operating statements for both water and sewer, with appropriate adjustments. The utility contests the Commission's disallowance of depreciation on its proforma plant acquisition. However, the plant has not yet been constructed. Thus, although the proforma plant adjustments have been agreed to, depreciation expense thereon cannot be allowed. The utility further challenges a Commission adjustment disallowing depreciation expense on contributed assets. This adjustment is proper and should be allowed. The utility also contends that it should be allowed income taxes, asserting that an unincorporated proprietorship is entitled to the same income tax expense as a corporation, and that the related income taxes do not have to be paid, merely accrued. However, the purpose of the income tax accounts in the NARUC Uniform System of Accounts is to allow entities which pay income accounts in which to record them. There is no provision in the uniform system for recordation of a nonexistent expense. Since the utility admits that the partnership has paid no income taxes, the disallowance is proper. Finally, the utility contests what it claims is disallowance by the Commission of all its proposed amortization of abandoned plant. However, the exhibits reflect that the Commission increased the amount of amortization expense from $2,790 to $3,284 for water, and from $3,016 to $6,468 for sewer, to allow for amortization of the abandoned plant. Revenue requirements The application of a 10.21 percent rate of return to the adjusted rate base for both water and sewer requires that the utility receive gross annual revenues of $33,752 for water and $81,432 for sewer. These revenues represent increases of $9,381 and $23,446 for water and for sewer, respectively. See Schedules 2 and 4 attached). Rate structure The utility provides water service to an average of 67 residential customers, 12 general service customers and 11 multi-dwelling customers (Average 346 Units). It provides sewer service to an average of 26 residential customers, 12 general service customers and 4 multi-dwelling customers (Average 645 Units). The present residential water rates are structured to provide for a minimum quarterly charge, which includes a minimum number of gallons, and a one- step excess rate over that minimum. The proposed rates follow the same basic structure. The present general service water rates are structured in the same manner, except that the rates for this classification are approximately 25 percent higher than residential. The proposed rates follow the same basic structure. The present multi-dwelling water rates are structured in compliance with the provisions of the old Rule 25-10.75, Florida Administrative Code, which provided that the rate for master metered multiple dwelling structures should be 66 2/3 percent of the minimum residential rate, with an equal minimum gallonage allowance included within the unit minimum charge. The total number of gallons to be included within the minimum gallonage allowance was determined by the number of units served, with excess gallons over the cumulative allowance to be billed at the excess residential rate. The proposed races follow the same basic structure for determining the minimum gallonage allowance and excess gallonage over the minimum allowance. The proposed minimum charge per unit has been structured approximately 25 percent higher than the proposed minimum unit charge for residential service. The proposed excess rate has been structured at the same level as general service, which is approximately 25 percent higher than the residential service rate. Any rate structure that requires a customer to pay for a minimum number of gallons, whether those gallons are used or not, is discriminatory. Over 27 percent of this utility's basic residential customers did not use as much as the minimum gallonage allowance during the test year. The average number of gallons consumed in the gallon brackets below the minimum allowance bracket was 3,197 gallons per customer per quarter. A rate structure that requires the general service customers to pay a higher rate than the other classifications of service is also discriminatory. Since the Cost of Service to Multiple Dwelling Structures Rule 25- 10.75, Florida Administrative Code, was repealed by Commission Order No. 7590, issued January 18, 1977 in Docket No. 760744-Rule, it has been the practice of the Public Service Commission to structure this type customer in the general service classification, and to structure water rates under the Base Facility Charge form of rate design. The basic concept of this type rate design is to determine a base charge whose foundation is based on the associated costs of providing service to each type customer. The charge covers associated costs such as transmission and distribution facility maintenance expenses, depreciation, property taxes, property insurance, an allocated portion of customer accounts expenses, etc. The amount of the charge is determined by an equivalent residential connection formula using the standard meter size as the base. There are not any gallons included within the frame of the Base Facility Charge. The second structure is to determine the appropriate charge for the water delivered to the customer. This charge would cover related costs such as pumping expenses; treatment expenses, an allocated portion of customer accounts expenses, etc. The primary reasoning supporting this type structure is that each customer pays a prorata share of the related facility costs necessary to provide service, and thereafter the customer pays for only the actual number of gallons consumed under the gallonage charge. The present residential sewer rates are structured in the manner of a quarterly flat-rate charge for all residential customers. The proposed rates are structured with a minimum charge, which includes a minimum number of gallons and an excess rate above that minimum. The present general service sewer rates are structured so that a percentage factor is applied to the water bill to determine the sewer charge. The rates for this classification are structured approximately 25 percent higher than residential. The proposed rates are structured with a minimum charge, which includes a minimum number of gallons and an excess rate above the minimum. The proposed rates are structured approximately 25 percent higher than residential. The present multi-dwelling sewer rates are structured in compliance with the provisions of the old Rule 25- 10.75, Florida Administrative Code, which provided that the rate for sewer service to multiple dwelling units should be 66 2/3 percent of the basic charge for sewer service to single residential units. The proposed rates are structured with a minimum charge for each unit, which includes a minimum number of gallons, and an excess rate over the minimum. The minimum charge per unit and the excess rate are structured approximately 25 percent higher than residential. Since the repeal of Rule 25-10.75, Florida Administrative Code, it has been the practice of the Public Service Commission to structure this type customer in the general service classification of customers, and to structure sewer rates under the Base Facility Charge form of rate design. This should be implemented by the utility for both water rates and sewer rates. The utility has been misapplying its schedule of rates for the commercial sewer classification of service. The schedule calls for 250 percent of the water bill with a minimum charge of $0.15 monthly ($24.45 quarterly). However, the utility has been billing its commercial sewer customers 250 percent of the water bill plus the minimum charge. This amounted to an overcharge to this customer classification of approximately $1190 during the test period. The utility should be required to make the appropriate refund to each commercial sewer customer, and the amount of this overcharge has been removed from test year revenues on the attached schedule 4. The utility is collecting a meter installation charge of $200, and a charge of $246 for each connection to the sewer system, without any apparent tariff authority. Further, the charges made for customer reconnect after disconnection for nonpayment are not adequate to cover the associated costs of this service. An investigation docket should be opened to consider the appropriateness of the meter installation charge, and to receive evidence of actual costs of service restoration. Finally, insufficient facts were presented to support a finding relative to the validity of the utility's sewer service contract with the Navy or the compatibility of the charges for sewer service to the Navy with the utility's tariff. These issues should be revisited during the course of the investigation docket. However, the utility's practice of requiring customer deposits when service is billed in advance should be discontinued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Buccaneer Service Company, 1665 Selva Marina Drive, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, be granted in part, and that the utility be authorized to receive gross annual water revenue of $33,752, and gross annual sewer revenue of $81,423, by rates to be approved by the Public Service Commission. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to adopt a Base Facility charge form of rate design for both water and sewer rates, and to make appropriate changes in its tariff. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to refund to each commercial sewer customer a prorata portion of the total amount of overcharges collected since the beginning of the test year. It is further RECOMMENDED that an investigation docket be opened for the purpose of making further inquiry into the appropriateness of the utility's meter installation charge, to receive evidence of actual costs of service restoration, and to determine the validity of the utility's contract for sewer service with the Navy and the appropriate rate to be charged for this service. And it is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to discontinue the practice of collecting customer deposits for service which is billed in advance. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 6th day of August, 1980. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issues in this case essentially are whether the Respondent, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), should reimburse Anthony F. Kopp, Owner, La Casa Del Sol, for the difference between the cost to him of the DER's remedy for the EDB contamination of the drinking water supply at La Casa Del Sol and the remedy that is least costly to the Petitioner, together with the cost of a new irrigation system, engineering and attorney fees, and other incidental costs to the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Anthony F. Kopp, is the owner of La Casa Del Sol (La Casa), a 40-acre development at 1255 U.S. Highway 27 North, Davenport, Florida. La Casa is divided into 309 mobile home lots, a clubhouse and five acres of common green space. In January, 1987, the Petitioner received a permit for construction of a water supply system for both drinking water and irrigation needs at La Casa. The construction permit was granted with the proviso that, when La Casa's population reached 350, a second backup drinking water well, six inches in diameter at 410 feet, with a casing to 366 feet, and an auxiliary power source would have to be installed. It would cost La Casa approximately $65,000 to install the backup well and auxiliary power source. La Casa did not reach a population of 350 until January, 1991. The St. Johns River Water Management District permitted the construction of the backup well, but the well never was constructed, and the construction permit now has expired. The auxiliary power source also was not installed. The main water supply system for La Casa was installed during the summer of 1987. It included a well and a system of lines for carrying water to each of the 309 lots. It also included hose bibs (faucets) at each lot so that the water also could be used for irrigation at each lot. The system also supplied water for irrigation of the common green space. Although all of the lots at La Casa were connected to the water supply system in the manner described, not all the lots had homes on them. During the summer of 1989, only about 175 of the lots had homes on them; by January, 1991, 198 lots had homes on them. Although not all of the lots were occupied, the entire water supply system was permitted, and no additional permits were required to provide water to the lots. However, when La Casa's population reached 350, the backup well and auxiliary power source would have to be installed under the permit conditions. In about May, 1988, DER tests showed that the La Casa water supply system was contaminated with ethylene dibromide (EDB) at levels in excess of the maximum allowable for drinking water. In October, 1988, the Petitioner completed and filed a Grant Application for EDB Clean-Up Funds. As part of the application, the Petitioner agreed that DER could: arrange for the purchase and installation of appropriate filters and inhibitors; provide a new well; or arrange for the connection of [the Petitioner's] well to an existing public supply system, whichever is more cost-effective as determined by the Department of Environmental Regulation. DER contracted with Continental Water Systems to provide a temporary carbon filter system for La Casa's water supply system to remove the EDB and supply uncontaminated drinking water to the development, pending a permanent solution to the EDB contamination. The temporary filter system was designed to provide 100 gallons per minute of water, which should have been adequate for drinking water needs at La Casa. However, water pressure problems arose due to algal growth and the use of the system for irrigation purposes in addition to the drinking water purposes for which it was designed. DER is a member of the Ground Water Task Force, which met biweekly or monthly to discuss, among other things, potable wells contaminated with EDB. Other member agencies are the Department of Heath and Rehabilitative Services, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Community Affairs. The Task Force discussed the La Casa contamination problem and agreed that the possibility of having La Casa connected to an existing water supply should be explored. DER began negotiating both with Polk County and with Haines City for a water line connection. Connection with the Polk County line would have been more expensive, and Polk County was not particularly interested in extending its line. Negotiations continued with Haines City. Negotiations with Haines City progressed to the point that DER was able to present for consideration by the Task Force cost figures for a permanent filter system at La Casa, with ten years of projected cost of operation and maintenance, as compared to the cost of extending the Haines City line. The Task Force agreed with DER that extending the Haines City line north to La Casa and connecting La Casa to it was the most cost-effective use of state funds to remedy the EDB problem at La Casa, particularly in view of other EDB-related drinking water supply problems in the area and anticipated future drinking water supply problems in the area. The Petitioner was not invited to participate in the negotiations with Polk County and Haines City and did not participate in them. Nor was the Petitioner invited to participate in either the DER or the Task Force decision- making process, and the Petitioner did not participate in those processes, either. However, the Petitioner, through his engineering consultant, was made aware in early 1989 that DER was exploring options to have La Casa connected to an existing water supply. DER paid approximately $400,000 for the Haines City water line extension and La Casa connection. This included $90,000 for Haines City impact fees to cover the 175 then existing mobile homes at La Casa (DER actually paid $450 per unit for 200 units), as well as the plumbing contractor fees for connecting La Casa to the extended city water line. It also includes the cost of installing a water meter at La Casa. The ten-year cost to the DER to solve just the La Casa drinking water problem using an EDB filter system would have been less than the cost to the DER of extending the Haines City line and connecting La Casa to it. But the evidence is clear that, in the long run, and taking into consideration other EDB-related drinking water supply problems in the area, and anticipated future drinking water supply problems in the area, the most cost-effective use of state funds to remedy the problem was to extend the Haines City line and connect La Casa to it. (Even the Petitioner's expert witness agreed that the Haines City extension and connection was the most cost-effective use of state funds to remedy the area's EDB problem.) DER advised the Petitioner of its agreement with Haines City in approximately May or June, 1989. By letter dated July 27, 1989, DER explained to the Petitioner the details of the agreement, specifically what DER would pay and what DER would not pay. By the fall of 1989, the Petitioner knew that work was beginning. At the time, the extension of the Haines City line and connection to La Casa was projected for completion in January, 1990, but there were delays, and the city water supply was not ready to be connected to La Casa until August, 1990. By this time, a dispute had arisen between the Petitioner and DER as to the cost to the Petitioner of connecting to the city water, and actual connection was further delayed. Finally, by letter dated October 11, 1990, DER gave the Petitioner an ultimatum: either be connected to the city water supply; or forfeit any state contribution to the cost of remedying the EDB contamination of the Petitioner's water supply. Faced with the prospect of having to open the winter peak season without any drinking water, the Petitioner agreed, under protest, to be connected to the city water supply, and initiated formal administrative proceedings to challenge DER's intended decision to limit the extent to which the DER would cover the Petitioner's costs. There was evidence that the plumbing contractor hired by DER may have caused damage to the landscaping and one mobile home that has not yet been repaired. However, DER acknowledged its responsibility for the damage and intends to have the plumbing contractor repair the damage. There also was evidence that the Petitioner received a bill from Haines City for the installation of a water meter at La Casa. But the evidence also was that DER may already have paid the bill. In any event, DER acknowledges its responsibility for the cost of the water meter as part of the cost of connecting La Casa to the extended city water line. Although DER had the Haines City water line extended in response to the Petitioner's Grant Application for EDB Clean-Up Funds, two commercial properties south of La Casa were connected because of EDB contamination, and the line also was extended north of La Casa in preparation to address anticipated future EDB contamination problems. Under the DER's response to the Petitioner's Grant Application, each additional mobile home unit over 200 connected to the city water supply will require the payment of a $450 impact fee. In addition, Haines City will charge monthly water fees of $1.80 1/ per 1000 gallons for the use of water at La Casa, with a $1,000 minimum charge per month. 2/ Based on current occupancy of 200 lots, the Petitioner estimates water fees of $42,000 per year, figured at approximately $5,000 per month for six peak months (based on a recent peak season monthly bill) and $2,000 per month for six off-peak months. However, it is not clear whether some of that estimated usage includes irrigation. If, in order to save gallonage fees, the Petitioner puts in a separate irrigation system supplied by its well, it will have to put in a separate distribution system since the current system is being used to bring city water to the lots. This would cost approximately $90,000. The Petitioner has paid approximately $2,100 in engineering fees to assess the problem with the temporary filter and to propose solutions, to estimate the cost of installing a separate irrigation system, and to estimate the cost to the Petitioner of connecting to the Haines City water supply. There was no evidence as to the reasonableness of those fees. The Petitioner also has paid approximately $4,500 in attorney fees to negotiate with the DER for payment of a larger portion of the Petitioner's cost of connecting to the Haines City water supply. There was no evidence as to the reasonableness of the attorney fees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition for Formal Hearing in this case. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 14th day of March, 1991.
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 Respondents, Frank L. Reppa and Denise J. Reppa, own and reside in their dwelling located at 3863 Plumosa Drive, St. James, Florida. The property is a narrow canal front lot. All lots in the area are small and narrow and the dwellings thereon, mostly mobile homes, are placed closely together. On January 11, 1988, as the result of a nuisance complaint by the Reppa's next door neighbor, Stephen E. Havig, an Environmental Specialist with the Lee County Health Department, a part of the State of Florida DHRS, inspected the property in question and observed that effluent from the Respondents' drain field, a malodorous liquid, had run from Respondent's property down onto the driveway of their neighbors. On January 13, 1988, he returned to the property and spoke with Mrs. Reppa who admitted to living on the property. He again observed that the drain field in the Reppas' septic system was heavily saturated and had failed. Effluent was coming to the surface due to the high water table resulting from heavy recent rains and the failure of the system, and there was still a sewage odor to the effluent. The effluent showed in stains on the neighbor's drive. Mr. Havig told Mrs. Reppa that the problem had to be corrected as it was a violation of the law to allow it to remain. In response, Mrs. Reppa indicated they had no money to effect the repairs and because of that, Mr. Havig, who could have cited them immediately, indicated he would return to his office to see if they could be given some additional time to have the work done. After checking with his supervisor, Mr. Havig, on the same day issued an "Official Notification of Insanitary Nuisance" and a "Notice of Intended Action", both of which were sent by Certified Mail and receipted for by Mrs. Reppa on January 19, 1988. The Notice gave the Reppas until January 28, 1988 to correct the problem. On January 14, 1988, Mr. Havig again talked with Mrs. Reppa, telling her what he was sending and advising her how she could get the problem fixed. When he again went out to the property on January 28, 1988, he noted that the property had dried out due to a lack of rain. However, he could see no evidence that any repairs had been effected. He returned to the property on February 1, 1988 after a rain and observed that the problems had reoccurred. Mr. Havig again spoke with Mrs. Reppa on February 8, 1988, at which time she advised him the problem was to be repaired, but they were without funds to pay for it. At that time, Mr. Havig gave the Reppas three weeks to have the work completed with a contractor to be retained within one week. When he spoke with Mrs. Reppa on February 16, 1988, she stated she was still having trouble getting a contractor. She had contacted one contractor who looked at the system on February 15, 1988 and who proposed to remove the washing machine from the drain system. When Mr. Havig talked with Mrs. Reppa on February 19, 1988, she indicated she would have to discuss the matter with her husband. Mr. Havig stated at that time that the Department would have to proceed with enforcement action if work was not started on the correction by February 22, 1988. No corrective action was taken by the Reppas and the Administrative Complaint was filed as a result. DHRS considers it important to properly dispose of effluent because, since it contains human waste, it carries bacteria, viruses and a danger of parasites. Agency policy requires that the septic system be continually monitored and that the tank be pumped and the drain field be repaired when necessary. The Department has no funds available to assist those who cannot afford to make repairs. In order to be properly processed, effluent drainage from septic tanks needs a minimum of two feet of soil between the discharge outlet of the tank and the water table. The soil acts as a filter to remove harmful organisms and contaminants from the effluent before it reaches the water table. A high water table, due to heavy rains or other causes, prevents this filtration and causes the effluent to come to the surface. The situation is correctable. Two methods of correction are: 1) elevate the system above the water table, or 2) remove the saturated soil and replace it with a good grade of sand. In October, 1985, another complaint against the Reppas, relating to the same situation, was filed with DHRS. At that time, the Reppas paid $650.00 to have the system repaired by an individual who replaced the drain field, drawing it away from adjoining property and toward the road. Though the contractor assured them this would fix the problem, wash water would continue to come to the surface. As a result, Mrs. Reppa has refrained from washing clothes at her home and takes them to the laundry in town. Because of the actions they have taken, such as having the drain field expanded and moved, the pumping out of the septic tank in January, 1988, and the cessation of washing clothes at home, Mr. and Mrs. Reppa are convinced the system is not overflowing and that the water on the neighbor's property is the accumulation of surface water drainage when it rains. The Reppa property is higher than the neighbor's property and Mrs. Reppa believes that rain water drains down there. The new part of the drain field works and the water in question, she feels, cannot be effluent. The evidence of record, however, indicates to the contrary and that it is waste effluent. Inquiry by the Reppas indicates that it would take $750.00 more to fix the system and the Reppas do not have that money. They are still paying back the money they borrowed from Mrs. Reppa's parents to make the first repairs. Mr. Reppa is a commercial fisherman whose income has been substantially reduced due to the restrictions placed on the taking of redfish. Many neighbors in the area, according to the Reppas, discharge sewage directly into the abutting canal and allow wash water to run out onto the ground. The Reppas cannot comprehend why these individuals, mostly three month winter visitors, are not cited while they, full time residents, are.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: Recommended that an administrative fine of $50.00 per day be assessed against the Reppas for the violation established, said fine to be effective upon entry of a Final Order herein, with provision that the fine be remitted upon satisfactory proof that the violation has been corrected. Recommended in Tallahassee, Florida this 24th day of August, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Eugenie G. Rehak, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 06085 Ft. Myers, Florida 33906 Frank Lee Reppa, pro se Denise J. Reppa, pro se 3863 Plumosa Drive St. James, Florida 33986 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
