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 Petitioner is the receiver for Bayside Club, Islamorada, Inc., a dissolved Florida corporation ("Bayside"). Mr. Joseph Popplewell is a general contractor and former president of Bayside. Respondent is the governmental entity authorized by Chapter 76-441, Section 14(1), Laws of Florida, to adopt impact fees for the water system in the Florida Keys, to equitably adjust the financial burden of a new pipeline, and to expand it or improve appurtenant facilities between existing customers and new water users. In 1986, Bayside sought to construct a 30 unit hotel on approximately one acre of land in Monroe County, Florida. The development project was formally classified as an expansion of an existing eight unit hotel. The existing hotel, however, had little, if any, useful life, and, in substance, the project involved the development of a new 30 unit hotel. Bayside obtained a building permit on June 4, 1985. In the same month, the building permit was challenged by an adjacent land owner. The challenge asserted that the existing hotel constituted a grandfathered nonconforming use and that the building permit improperly treated the development site as if it were located in a zoning district which permitted hotel usage and subsequent expansion. During the last half of 1985, the Monroe County Commission considered the challenge to the building permit and found that the building permit was valid. The adjacent landowner filed suit against Bayside. The circuit court upheld the validity of the building permit. The suit was finally decided on May 29, 1990, when the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's decision that the building permit was valid. Dowd v. Monroe County, 557 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). On May 29, 1990, the circuit court entered its order declaring the building permit invalid. In 1986, Bayside was advised by Respondent that unit water system development fees ("impact fees") were scheduled to increase from $1,500 to $2,000. Bayside chose to avoid paying impact fees at the increased unit rate and to achieve a savings in development costs. On or about April 18, 1986, Bayside executed an Agreement For Water Service. On or about April 29, 1986, Bayside issued a check payable to Respondent in the amount of $36,840, which included impact fees in the aggregate amount of $33,000. As provided in Florida Administrative Code Rule 48-3.002 2., the Agreement For Water Service expressly stated in paragraph 1 that "SAID SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE SHALL NOT BE REFUNDABLE." Construction of the proposed hotel stopped sometime in 1986. A receivor was appointed for Bayside by the appropriate circuit court on June 14, 1991. Sometime in early 1992, the receiver for Bayside requested a refund of the impact fees. Respondent denied that request in a letter dated February 27, 1992, but refunded amounts paid by Respondent in excess of the impact fees. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's request for a refund did not constitute an unreasonable classification and did not establish a differential rate that was either unjust or inequitable. Respondent has consistently applied Florida Administrative Code Rule 48-3.002 2. to prohibit the refund of impact fees regardless of the classification or rate charged the person who paid the impact fee. Petitioner had adequate notice in Rule 48-3.002 2. and the Agreement For Water Service that the impact fees were nonrefundable. Respondent reasonably anticipated that the projected costs for expanding the water system would be incurred. The county commission and circuit court both upheld the validity of the building permit. If Bayside reasonably anticipated that projected costs for expanding the water system and appurtenant facilities would not be incurred due to a suit challenging the building permit, Bayside had the option of not paying the impact fees until the final conclusion of litigation. Bayside was on notice that the impact fees were nonrefundable and chose to forego its option not to pay the fees until the conclusion of the suit challenging the building permit. Bayside made a business decision to save money and time by paying the impact fees when it did. Viewed in the light of hindsight, that business decision was imprudent. Bayside did not notify Respondent that the costs of expanding the system were not reasonably anticipated until six years after Bayside chose to pay the impact fees. The nonrefundable impact fees imposed by Respondent in 1986 were just and equitable. Expansion of the water system pipeline and appurtenant facilities was reasonably required as a result of the development proposed by Bayside at the time that the impact fees were imposed. The costs attributable to such expansion were reasonably anticipated by Respondent at the time that the impact fees were imposed. The use of the impact fees was limited to meeting such reasonably anticipated costs of expansion. The impact fees imposed by Respondent in 1986 did not exceed a pro rata share of reasonably anticipated costs. Expansion of Respondent's water system was necessary irrespective of the proposed hotel. The expansion of Respondent's water system and appurtenant facilities was financed through the sale of debentures. The indebtedness incurred is made good through revenues in the form of rates, fees, and other charges. Under such circumstances, rates and fees were set with a view towards raising the money necessary to repay the loan. The impact fees did not cease to be just and equitable merely because they were set high enough to meet the water system's reasonably anticipated capital requirements.
Findings Of Fact 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 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
Recommendation That pursuant to Article 12.1.2, General Conditions of the Contract for construction of State Project Number HSMB-6115, Drivers License facility, Hillsborough County, Florida, a change order be approved and issued increasing the total contract sum in the amount of $6,788.00 as authorized under Paragraph 8.5 of the aforesaid contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: May Jo Carpenter, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida Stephen C. Cheeseman, Esquire Gordon and Maney 2919 First Financial Tower Tampa, Florida
The Issue This case concerns a dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent on the question of whether a certain underground utility operated by the Petitioner, namely a sanitary sewer force main, unreasonably interfered with the construction of an additional lane on the west side of Pasadena Avenue, between Huffman Way and Matthews Road in the City of South Pasadena, Florida. See Section 338.19, Florida Statutes. If it is found that the utility unreasonably interfered with the road construction, then a decision must be reached on the propriety of the $21,604.45 charge which the Respondent has placed against the Petitioner for the removal of the underground utility at the instigation of the Respondent. See Section 338.20, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this action, City of South Pasadena, is a municipal corporation located in Pinellas County, Florida. The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Transportation, is a governmental department within the State of Florida, which has, among other functions, the construction and maintenance of roadways within the State. This dispute arises between the parties based upon the Department of Transportation's decision to construct an additional lane on the west side of Pasadena Avenue, between Huffman Way and Matthews Road in the City of South Pasadena, Florida, and the associated removal of an underground utility which was owned and operated by the City of South Pasadena. The underground utility was a sanitary sewer force main. In the absence of the removal of this utility by efforts of the Petitioner, the Respondent had those utilities removed at a cost of $21,604.45, of which $14,666.95 was acknowledged by the City as representing a reasonable cost of removing the utilities in question, should removal be found to be necessary. The remaining $6,937.50 is contested by the City as being an unreasonable cost of removal, even if it is determined that it was necessary to remove the utilities in the first instance. The facts reveal that as early as 1975, the Department of Transportation was desirous of knowing of the existence and whereabouts of underground utilities in the City of South Pasadena along Pasadena Avenue from Corey Causeway to the south to Park Street in the north. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 26, dated October 18, 1975, is a letter from the district utility engineer of the Respondent addressed to an official in the City of South Pasadena indicating possible improvements from Corey Causeway to Park Street along Pasadena Avenue and requesting information about the possible necessity to relocate or adjust utilities in the area of the proposed highway construction. Again, on July 1, 1977, in anticipation of the improvements to Pasadena Avenue in the aforementioned area, subject to funding, the Respondent requested the City to identify its utilities which might require relocation or readjustment in view of possible highway construction. A copy of correspondence addressed from the district utility engineer of the Respondent to a City official which deals with this subject matter may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. The private consulting engineers and architects employed by the City responded to this request by correspondence of August 22, 1977, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence, and it had attached certain drawings indicating the location of utilities; however, those drawings did not depict the subject sanitary sewer force main between Huffman Way and Matthews Road. The drawings may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The sanitary sewer force main had been placed there sometime in the period of the years 1971 and 1972, and was to be found anywhere from ten (10) inches to three (3) feet underground. Both the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 18 and the Respondent's Exhibit No. 4 demonstrate that the sewer force main was within the "right-of-way" granted to the State of Florida, Department of Transportation. The two exhibits spoken to are site plans depicting the "right- of-way" limits. Although the parties entered into a relocation agreement for utilities along Pasadena Avenue above the disputed area (see Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17, admitted into evidence), they did not have an agreement to relocate the utility in dispute. By September 5, 1978, the Respondent had decided to undertake project No. 15590-3609 which was to construct a third lane from Huffman Way to Matthews Road along Pasadena Avenue, as a traffic aid. This is evidenced by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14, correspondence carrying the date September 5, 1980, from the resident engineer of the Department of Transportation to the district design engineer in the Department. Final plans on the overall Pasadena Avenue work referred to the construction of the third lane premised upon available construction funds, as shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. On October 24, 1978, Pinellas County, Florida, in the person of the Board of County Commissioners, by resolution, authorized the utilization of secondary gas tax funds to extend the Pasadena Avenue project to accomplish the lane construction. A copy of this resolution may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 admitted into evidence. This item's expansion of the lane was advertised for bid on March 28, 1979, and on September 15, 1980, construction was commenced. As stated before, at the time the construction began, there was no written agreement between the parties to remove the sanitary sewer force main and indeed the Department of Transportation was without knowledge of the existence of that utility, although employees of the Department of Transportation and their private contractor for the project had encountered a "valve box" associated with the sanitary sewer system prior to the commencement of construction and had concluded that the possibility existed that the "valve box" apparatus might be removed without hindering the road construction. There is some dispute between the parties on the question of the point in time at which the officials within the City of South Pasadena learned of the installation of the third lane. The Department of Transportation claims that a preconstruction conference dealing with the overall work to be done on Pasadena Avenue made mention of the disputed item as early as May 8, 1979, and that officials for the City were in attendance. Again at a meeting in March, 1980, the Department urges that the project at issue was discussed. The officials for the City dispute this, and after considering the testimony of both parties, it can not be concluded that the City specifically knew of the construction in March of 1980. Nonetheless, in late September, 1980, the City clearly became aware of the project and the Department of Transportation learned of the unpermitted sanitary sewer force main within the "right-of-way" between Huffman Way and Matthews Road in the third lane expansion of Pasadena Avenue. Sometime around September 23, 1980, the construction company's underdrain crew came in contact with the sanitary sewer line, and the line was found to be an interference with the road construction. At that point, the contractor removed the work crews and did not return until November 7, 1980, at a time when they worked through November 17, 1980, achieving job items that did not conflict with the sanitary sewer line. This work could have been achieved at anytime after September 23, 1980. The Department of Transportation gave the contractor the premission to remove the underground utility line on December 5, 1980, and in between December 10, 1980, and December 17, 1980, the utility line was removed. On December 22, 1980, the contractor resumed the construction of the roadway known as the south bound extension between Huffman Way and Matthews Road. Around September 25, 1980, the City of South Pasadena was made aware of the conflict between the road construction and the sewer main, and the fact that the road construction could not be completed without the removal of that line. Having discovered the conflict between the main and the road construction and the fact of the road construction between Huffman Way and Matthews Road, the City Council held a meeting on September 29, 1980, at which time discussion was held on the removal of the subject sanitary sewer force main and the cost to be incurred by the City. An excerpt of the minutes of that meeting may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence, a copy. On September 30, 1980, the Mayor of the City of South Pasadena, by correspondence, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence, transmitted copies of resolutions Nos. 174 and 175 of the City of South Pasadena, copies of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5, respectively, and through these resolutions voiced the opposition of the City of South Pasadena to the road widening. On October 1, 1980, the consulting engineer for the City of South Pasadena wrote to the Department of Transportation indicating his opinion that the extension under construction was "an unnecessary extension of the present project." A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. There followed correspondence from the Deputy District Engineer for operations of the Department of Transportation by a letter dated October 10, 1980, addressed to the Mayor of the City of South Pasadena. That correspondence acknowledges the receipt of Resolutions Nos. 174 and 175, and states the Department of Transportation's intention to proceed with the construction. A meeting was held between the City and the Department of Transportation on October 14, 1980, at which meeting the City indicated that they did not intend to pay the cost of relocating the sewer force main. On October 22, 1980, the Deputy District Engineer for the Department of Transportation, by correspondence with attachments, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10, admitted into evidence, wrote to the Mayor of the City and referred to the attached Sections 338.17 through 338.20, Florida Statutes, on the subject of the responsibility of the utility owner to relocated or adjust utilities that conflict with road improvements within a public "right- of-way." That correspondence asked that the City adjust, at the earliest date possible, the utilities in conflict to allow the conclusion of the construction. The correspondence closed by indicating the availability of officials within the Department of Transportation to meet with City officials to clarify the adjustments to be made. On October 31, 1980, the Petitioner was informed by registered letter that it was directed to remove, relocate or adjust the subject utility and granted twenty (20) days to request a hearing on the question of that disposition of the utility, and by doing so alluding to the opportunity for hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Finally, the correspondence noted that failure to request a hearing would promote action by the Department of transportation. By correspondence dated October 31, 1980, a copy of which is admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, the Mayor of the City of South Pasadena wrote the Department of Transportation and stated that the City of South Pasadena would not take any action to remove the force main, for reason that there was no budgetary provision for that expense in the City's 1980-81 budget. This lead to the removal of the underground utilities by the contractor employed by the Department of Transportation to construct the road improvements. The underground utility was an unreasonable interference found in the "right-of-way" at the location where the additional lane was being constructed between Huffman Way and Matthews Road on Pasadena Avenue and the necessity to remove it was not discovered until the project was underway, and in that respect, its removal was coincidental and not incidental to the construction. It having been determined that it was necessary to remove the utility, there remains in contest the $6,937.50 charge for removal. These removal charges are reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, a copy of the statement of charges drawn by the contractor and forwarded to the Department of Transportation. On the second page of that document, which was admitted into evidence, are found Items 2, 3 and 4. Item 2 is a charge in the amount of $4,000.00 entered by the contractor due to the necessity to stop the paving operation when they encountered the sanitary line, and to remove the asphalt crew and, in turn, bring the asphalt crew back to conclude the work. Item 3, constitutes a charge of $937.50 for the rental of barricades from September 23, 1990, to November 6, 1980, and from November 17, 1980, to December 18, 1980. Item 4 speaks of setback charges caused by "long delay and waiting for the City of S. Pasadena and the DOT to resolve the force main matter-2 months field office expense and job overhead $1,000.00" and indicates cost of $2,000.00. Other than this summary explanation of the charge found in the document, no other indication was given as to the meaning of Item No. 4 and consequently, its true meaning is not understood.
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein and in keeping with the terms and conditions of Sections 338.19 and 338.20, Florida Statutes, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges as set out in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order, which have been allowed, be upheld as an assessment against the City of South Pasadena, Florida, occasioned by the necessity to remove a sanitary sewer force main along Pasadena Avenue between Huffman Way and Matthews Road. 3/ DONE and ENTERED this 31st of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 31st day of March, 1981.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a utility regulated by the Commission that is in the business of acquiring and operating water and sewer systems in Florida, principally in Central Florida. It now operates 39 systems, of which at least 30 water systems and 5 sewer systems are located in Orange, Lake and Seminole counties. In this case, the Central Florida Division has one water system in Lake County (Picciola Island) , two water systems in Orange County (Daetwyler Shores and Lake Conway), three water systems and one sewer system in Seminole County (Bretton Woods/Druid Hills, Dol Ray Manor, and both water and sewer in Chuluota; these systems serve 949 water customers and 98 sewer customers. Southern commenced operating these systems in the spring of 1978, purchased them from Central Florida Utilities, Inc. in October, 1978 and applied to the Commission for a transfer, which application is still pending. (Docket 780278- WS; Hearing Examiner's Recommended Order approving the transfer was filed January 29, 1979) Notwithstanding customer complaints of the quality of the water service (low or fluctuating pressure, excess chlorine, sediment, no noticed interruptions and lack of fire protection capabilities) and Southern's admission of the general disrepair of the systems at the time of the purchase, the systems are in compliance with governmental standards. The utility has spent $52,000 since the test year on repair and upgrading with another $87,000 necessary to complete the required projects, of which $25,000 is for governmentally mandated improvements to the Chuluota wastewater system. The Petitioner's use of the purchase price of $215,800 for the facilities involved in the seven systems as the amount of plant in service as of June 30, 1978, rather than Respondent's use of the 1977 annual reports of the prior owner, is appropriate because: it follows past FPSC decisions on this subject with respect to this utility; the purchase price was considerably less than FPSC's estimated replacement cost of over $800,000; the purchase was an arms-length transaction; the books of the prior owner were considered unreliable; and, following complete integration of operations with Petitioner's other systems in Lake, Orange and Seminole counties, the customers should obtain the best possible service at the lowest rates obtainable. Alternatively, the Utility is entitled to an acquisition adjustment that achieves the same rate base as using the purchase price. Petitioner's rate bases using a 12-month average, rather than the preferred 13-month average, are as follows: Water Sewer Average test year plant $178,305 $ 62,242 Mandated additions 25,000 Accumulated depreciation (1,833) (623) CIAC (net of amortization) (6,703) Working Capital 11,241 1,801 Income tax lag (776) (370) $180,234 $ 89,050 The capital structure and rate of return is as stipulated by the parties as follows: WEIGHTED TYPE AMOUNT RATIO COST COST Common Stock $1,882,055 60.44 14.0 percent 8.46 Long Term Debt 1,037,372 33.31 8.89 2.96 Cost Free 194,768 6.25 0 0 TOTAL $3,114,195 100.00 11.42 perc. Rate of Return The above rate bases and rate of return provide an authorized constructed net operating income from water service of $20,583 and from sewer service of $10,170. This results in the following constructed statement of operations for year ended June 30, 1979: Water Sewer Operating Revenue $122,993 $29,085 Operating Expense Operation 84,760 12,346 Maintenance 4,103 2,065 Depreciation 3,531 1,245 Taxes, other than income 6,138 1,409 Income taxes 3,878 1,850 Total $102,410 $18,915 Net Operating Income $ 20,583 $10,170 It is noted that the above revenue requirement is more than the interim authorized revenue of $97,184 for water and $17,640 for sewer. The staff proposed that the rate structure should be changed from the present block structure far water and flat rate for sewer to a base facility charge for both water and sewer. This concept is appropriate since it serves to conserve water and insures that each customer pays his fair share of the costs of providing service. No evidence opposing this type rate structure was presented.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Southern States Utilities, Inc., Central Florida Division, be granted and that the utility be authorized to file new tariffs to be approved by the Florida Public Service Commission that would have provided for the test year ending June 30, 1979 annual gross revenues of $122,993 for water service and $29,085 far sewer service. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to implement rates for fire protection service in Belle Isle and a base facility charge in structuring water and sewer rates. It is further RECOMMENDED that the refund bond be returned to utility. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. H. E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth H. Myers, Esquire 1428 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 William H. Harrold, Esquire 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Owens, Esquire 101 E. Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Steve Tribble, Clerk Florida Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert T. Mann, Chairman Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact V.M.P. Corporation operates a facility known as Stud's Pub in Jacksonville, Florida. Vincent M. Paul owns the facility and the corporation. The facility is on lots that were platted prior to 1972. Respondent is the statutory entity with authority for granting variances for onsite sewage disposal systems regulated by Respondent pursuant to provisions of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. Section 381.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1991) specifically provides: The department may grant variances in hardship cases which may be less restrictive than the provisions specified in this section. A variance may not be granted pursuant to this section until the department is satisfied that: The hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant; No reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage; and The discharge from the individual sewage disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or other members of the public or significantly degrade the ground or surface waters. Where soil conditions, water table elevation, and setback provisions are determined by the department to be satisfactory, special consideration shall be given to those lots platted prior to 1972. Rule 10D-6.045(3), Florida Administrative Code, is the portion of the rule which is the subject of this proceeding and, in pertinent part, reads as follows: Upon consideration of the merits of each application and the recommendations of the review board, the Deputy Secretary for Health or his designee has discretionary authority to either grant a variance as requested, grant a provisional variance or deny the variance request. A variance may be granted to relieve or prevent excessive hardship only in cases involving minor deviation from established standards when it is clearly shown that the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant, where no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of sewage and where proper use of the onsite sewage disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant, any persons using or living on the property, or other members of the public. An applicant must also show that the granting of a variance will not significantly degrade ground or surface waters. Variances shall only be granted to the permit applicant and are not transferable to other persons unless specifically authorized by the department as a stipulation of the variance approval. . . . (emphasis added). The rule also tracks the language of Section 381.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), and requires that "special consideration" be given to those lots platted prior to 1972 in those instances where soil conditions, water table elevation and setback provisions are deemed by Respondent to be "satisfactory." While minor amendments to the rule were made March 17, 1992, the substantive content of Rule 10D-6.045(3), Florida Administrative Code, has remained virtually unchanged since February 5, 1985. Two adjective modifiers in the rule, the terms "minor" and "excessive" which respectively modify the terms "deviation" and "hardship", have not been formally defined by Respondent in the rule. Respondent's rationale for this failure, as professed in the testimony of Respondent's policy representative at the final hearing, was to permit Respondent's review board maximum freedom to evaluate and consider the merit of each application for variance on an individual basis within the statutory authority of Section 385.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes, i.e., variances may be recommended by the board 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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner provides electric, gas and water utility service at various Florida locations. During the 1979 test year, its Fernandina Beach Water Division served an average of 2,500 residential customers, 523 general service customers and nine private fire line customers. In addition, it maintained 210 fire hydrants for the City of Fernandina Beach. Service The Utility is providing satisfactory water service. There were no service complaints presented at the public hearing, nor were there any citations or corrective orders outstanding. Rate Base The Utility seeks recognition of a $1,332,178 rate base. This amount includes $82,128 for an office building completed in the last month of the test year, a $7,600 chlorinator building completed after the test year (March, 1980) , and a pumphouse still under construction at an estimated completed cost of $106,000. Neither the amounts nor their completion dates are in dispute. However, the Commission seeks to utilize a 13-month average year rate base which would result in the exclusion of all the above facilities except for the office building investment during the final month of the test year. Both parties cite Citizens of Florida v. Hawkins, 356 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1978) in support of their positions. Although the Court discusses the various methods of computing a utility rate base, it concludes that unusual or extraordinary growth is a prerequisite to use of a year end rate base. The Utility did not demonstrate unusual or extraordinary growth. Rather, customer growth during the test year was only about two percent, mandating use of an average rate base. The Utility suggests that construction of the chlorinator was required by the federal government under the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. If so, the Utility would be permitted to include this Investment in its rate base. 1/ However, the Utility was in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act prior to construction of the pumphouse and made no showing that it was required to undertake this project by government authority. Capitalization of interest on the funds used in construction of new facilities should be authorized. However, this amount will not be subject to inclusion in the rate base until the facility itself is included. The Utility plant was shown to be 100 percent used and useful in the public service. In view of this, and the adjustments discussed above, the Utility's average rate base for the test year is $1,103,201. See Schedule 1 for detail. Operating Revenues The Utility seeks a test year revenue authorization of $581,037 based on expenses of $456,184 and a 9.39 percent return on its proposed rate base. It seeks to include an expense item of $2,400 for tank maintenance, basing this amount on the five-year amortization of a projected $12,000 expenditure. Although this procedure is proper, since tank maintenance is periodically required, the $12,000 is the anticipated cost of future maintenance rather than an actual cost. Therefore, this figure must be adjusted to one-fifth of the last actual maintenance cost, or $1,105. Prior to December, 1979, when its office building was completed, the Utility rented the required space. Since the new building was not recognized for rate making purposes until the final month of the test year, it is proper to include the rent expense actually involved during the preceding 11 months. Therefore, an upward adjustment in expenses of $1,524 is required. Authorized expenses should also include $45,281 proposed by the Utility to meet known increases in the cost of purchased electrical power. The limitation on test year expenses is not the same as that on test year investment. Rather, Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, specifically provides for recognition of outside test year increases in electrical power costs. See Section 367.081(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1980). The Utility supported its proposed rate case expense of $5,100 by late filed exhibit. Neither the amount nor the proposed three-year amortization period were opposed by the Commission and are appropriately included herein. In view of the above findings and a 9.10 percent return on investment (discussed below) , the Utility is entitled to revise its rates to produce annual revenue of $536,970. See Schedule 2 for detail. Cost of Capital The parties agreed that 15 percent is an appropriate return on equity investment. This amount, when weighed against the current cost of debt, supports an overall 9.10 percent rate of return. Rate Structure The parties propose adoption of a base facility charge rate structure. This rate design includes a fixed charge to each customer served based on that customer's share of fixed operating costs. The second element of the base facility charge represents -- the variable cost of water actually used. This rate structure provides an equitable method of allocating service costs and is consistent with statutory requirements that rates be just and nondiscriminatory. See Section 307.081(2), Florida Statutes (1980). The Utility proposes to increase its fire hydrant charge from $8 to $12 monthly and to include this amount in its regular service rates to all customers rather than as a separate charge to the City of Fernandina Beach. The amount of the increase is consistent with overall revenue needs and was not opposed by the Commission. The procedure to include fire hydrant charges in customer charges was requested by the City Commission of Fernandina Beach and would not discriminate against any customer or group of customers, since all benefit from the fire protection represented by these charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions A, of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Public Utilities Company be authorized to file revised rates structured on the base facility charge concept, designed to generate annual gross revenue of $536,970 based on the average number of customers served during the test year. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's request for variance should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns a parcel of land in Palm Beach, County on which is housed Petitioner's paving and landscapping business and which is zoned for industrial use. Petitioner intends to install a manufactured building for use as an office. To provide sewage treatment for the bathroom of the office, Petitioner had a septic tank designed and applied for a septic tank permit which was denied as was its variance request. As a result of a complaint, Petitioner was inspected in August, 1988, by the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management and by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Both inspections yielded citiations for soil contamination by oil and other hazardous waste. Petitioner represented that most of the infractions had been rectified by the date of the hearing in this matter and pledged full cooperation with the County and State rules. To oversee the operation of the business and assure that no further problems arose, Petitioner decided to establish its office on site. The closest sewage treatment plant is at full capacity and does not intend to provide service to the parcel in the near future. The adjoining properties are serviced by septic tanks. As such, the proof did not demonstrate that alternative methods of waste disposal were available to the site However, as part of its business operation, Petitioner does minor repair of its equipment on site and may include oil changes and other such services. Although Petitioner does not intend to pollute the groundwater and intends to use the proposed septic tank for office use only, the proof demonstrated that waste disposal into a septic tank from the maintenance and repair of its equipment could result in the disposition of prohibited hazardous waste into the groundwater. Further, the proof failed to demonstrate that the septic tank would be protected from use by those who handled the hazardous waste. Although the hardship, if any, caused by the denial of the variance was not caused by Petitioner and the proof failed to demonstrate reasonable alternatives of waste disposal, the potential for an adverse affect of the operation to the groundwater is great. Additionally, the proof failed to establish the ameliorating conditions of soil, water table or setback conditions or whether the property was platted prior to 1972. Accordingly, the denial of the variance was proper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the variance. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of July 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 6th day of July 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Hattie Parker 160 Toneypenna Drive Jupiter, Florida 33468 Peggy G. Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
