Findings Of Fact Petitioner, D & H Oil and Gas Company, Inc., dba Oasis Food Store, owns and operates an Oasis Food Store located at 2521 Thomas Drive in Panama City Beach, Florida. As part of the operation of that store, Petitioner operates a gasoline station which sells regular unleaded, unleaded plus, and unleaded premium gasoline to the public. On September 14, 1990, James Wood, the Department's inspector, visited the station to conduct an inspection of the gasoline Petitioner was offering for sale to the consuming public from its tanks and related gasoline pumps. Mr. Wood took samples of all three types of gasoline offered for sale by Petitioner. The samples were forwarded to the Department's laboratory in Tallahassee and were tested to determine whether they met Departmental standards for each type of gasoline. The Departmental testing revealed that the unleaded plus gasoline contained 9.3% alcohol. The pump for the unleaded plus gasoline did not have a label or sticker on it indicating that it contained alcohol. Since the pump did not have such a sticker on it, the sale of any unleaded plus gasoline from that pump would be in violation of Departmental standards for such gasoline. 1/ The store placed the appropriate sticker on the unleaded plus pump as soon as it was possible. In light of the above facts, the Department elected to allow the Petitioner to post a $1,000 bored in lieu of confiscation of the gasoline. The bond was posted on September 17, 1990. No evidence of the amount of gasoline sold while the label was absent was submitted at the hearing. 2/ The Department assessed Petitioner $1000.00, which is equal to the amount of the posted bond. This amount was not based on any evidence of the amount of gasoline sold from the unleaded plus pump during the time the label was not on the pump. Such an assessment is clearly outside the Department's authority. See Section 525.06, Florida Statutes. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to a refund of its bond.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the request of D & H Oil and Gas Company, Inc., for refund of the bond posted be GRANTED. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On July 14, 1982, Jimmy Haywood Nixon, an employee of petitioner, took samples of gasoline offered for sale at respondent's Beacon Store No. 7 in Milton, Florida, including a sample of regular gasoline mixed with alcohol, known as "regularhol." Pat Flanagan, a chemist employed by petitioner, performed various tests on the sample of regularhol, including ASTM method 86, and determined that the 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the mix as a whole was 150 F. His testimony to this effect was uncontroverted. When he learned the test results, Mr. Nixon locked the regularhol pump at respondent's store in Milton, only unlocking the pump to release the mixture when a thousand dollar bond was posted on July 16, 1982. Respondent began mixing regular gasoline with ethanol and selling it as regularhol in 1978 at the same price as regular gasoline. Until recently, Mocar made less on regularhol sales than on sales of regular gasoline. It originally offered regularhol as its way of helping to reduce the national consumption of petroleum. The Phillips' terminal in Pensacola was respondent's source of the regular gasoline it mixed to make regularhol. This gasoline reached Pensacola by barge, and petitioner's employees sampled and tested each barge's cargo. The 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the regular gas Mocar bought from Phillips varied over a range of more than 30 degrees Fahrenheit upwards from 180 F. Mixing ethanol with the gasoline lowered its distillation temperature, but until the batch sampled on July 14, 1982, Mocar's regularhol had passed the testing petitioner has regularly conducted.
Recommendation Respondent has not been shown to be more blameworthy than any of the fuel owners involved in the cases cited above, each of whom regained part of the bond that had been posted. It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner retain four hundred dollars ($400.00) and return six hundred dollars ($600.00) to the respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Milton Wilson, Esquire 201 East Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32598 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a state agency whose primary purpose is to provide an adequate supply of potable water to the Florida Keys. To this end, it has acquired or constructed well fields, treatment plants, transmission pipelines, pumping stations, distribution pipelines, and other related facilities. Because of its exaggerated linear service area of 130 miles, it incurs high capital and operating costs. Chapter 76-441, Laws of Florida, Respondent's enabling act, confers upon Respondent the authority to impose the subject System Development Fee. Respondent imposed the subject System Development Fee, which is an impact fee, in December 1974. Respondent's Rule 48-3.002(1) expressed the purposes of the System Development Fee as follows: The System Development Fee is an impact fee charged to new and existing customers who modify, add or construct facilities which impose a potential increased demand on the water system. This fee is charged in order to equitably adjust the fiscal burden of a new pipeline and expanded or improved appurtenant facilities between existing customers and new water users. All system development fees are allocated to the direct and indirect costs of capital improvements made necessary by actual and expected increased demand on the water system. The term "unit" is a commonly accepted concept in the public utility industry, and impact fees are often assessed on a per "unit" basis. Respondent's Rule 48-3.002(5)(b) provides for the assessment of the System Development Fee on a per unit basis and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 5. (b) Where the premises served consists of single or multiple commercial units, the System Development Fee shall be assessed based on each individual unit. In those cases where the individual unit will require a meter size that exceeds a 5/8" meter to properly support the unit, the System Development Fee shall be based on the meter size required to serve that unit, whether individually metered or not. ... The term "unit", as used in Respondent's System Development Fee Rule is a technical term, but it is defined by Respondent's Rule 48-2.001(19) as follows: (19) "Unit" A unit is a commercial or residential module consisting of one or more rooms with either appurtenant or common bathroom facilities and used for a single commercial purpose or single residential use. The number of units existing in a multiple unit service operation are to be determined in accordance with Rule 48-2.007(1)(c), which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: ... The number of units, whether residential or commercial, will normally be determined according to applicable city or county occupational licenses, building permits, or plans of the subject structure. In cases of discrepancy or inconsistency in definition, or interpretation, the following Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority definition will control: A unit is a commercial or residential module consisting of one or more rooms with either appurtenant or common bathroom facilities and used for a single commercial purpose or single residential purpose. Respondent grandfathers in units that were in existence prior to December 1974 when the System Development Fee was first enacted. A System Development Fee is not imposed on any unit that was in existence prior to December 1974. Of the 376 improved campsites that presently exist at Petitioners' campground, 279 were improved prior to 1974. Consequently, only the 97 campsites improved after the enactment of the System Development Fee are at issue in this proceeding. Respondent is concerned with the potential use of a unit because it must be prepared to respond to that potential use. Once a customer has paid the System Development Fee for a unit, the owner of the unit can transfer the unit without the purchaser having to pay an additional System Development Fee regardless of the use the purchaser intends to make of the unit. Respondent has consistently applied the System Development Fee charges on a per unit basis for the purposes stated in its Rule 48-3.002(1). The per unit charge was $600 when first enacted in 1974, was increased to $1,500 in 1984, and was increased to its present level of $2,000 in 1986. A widely publicized amnesty program was in effect from August 1, 1984 through October 1, 1984, during which customers who had added units to their property without reporting same to Respondent could report the units during the amnesty program and pay the System Development Fee on an installment basis. Customers were advised that after the amnesty program closed, the System Development Fee would be based on rates in effect at the time an unreported unit was discovered, not at the rate the unreported unit was constructed. This policy serves to encourage Respondent's customers to promptly report newly added "units", and the policy produces fees commensurate with the expenses to be incurred by Respondent after it learns of the new units. Petitioner George W. Eager is the owner of approximately 30 acres of real property located west of U.S. 1 at Key Largo, Florida. Mr. Eager purchased the subject property in 1969, sold it in 1974, and reacquired it in 1975 by a deed given in lieu of foreclosure. This property is located within the area served by Respondent. Petitioner Calusa Camp Resort, Inc., a closely held Florida corporation whose stock is owned by Mr. Eager and his two children, operates a campground on this real property. In addition to the 376 campsites, the campground contains a grocery store, a marina, laundry facilities, bathrooms and showers, a swimming pool, a sewage treatment plant, and a sewage pumping station. The marina was not in operation at the time of the formal hearing. Petitioners hold the two business licenses they are required to have by Monroe County. One business license is for the operation of the campground while the other one is for the operation of the grocery store. Petitioners secured all pertinent building permits during the course of the improvement of the campground. Mr. Eager opened the campground in 1969, at which time he entered into a contract for services with Respondent. Mr. Eager constructed a private water system as part of the improvements to his real property. This private water system was connected to Respondent's water transmission system in 1969, and a one inch master meter was installed at that point of delivery. This one inch master meter has served Petitioners' property at all times pertinent to this proceeding. Mr. Eager entered into a new contract for services with Respondent in 1975. This contract did not indicate that Mr. Eager's property was considered a multiple unit operation and it did not indicate in the space available the number of units to be served. By a provision in this contract, Respondent reserved the right to change its rules and regulations and the rates for use of water from time to time. In 1976, Mr. Eager entered into another contract for services with Respondent for the provision of water to a swimming pool that he had constructed. This contract did not indicate that Mr. Eager's property was considered a multiple unit operation and it did not indicate in the space available the number of units to be served. Of the thirty acres owned by Mr. Eager, approximately twenty acres are west of the access road that divides the property and approximately ten acres are east of the road. Prior to 1974, Mr. Eager developed 279 individual campsites on eighteen of the acres west of the access road. These campsites had water, electrical, and sewer hookups for recreational vehicles and could accommodate all types of camping. A grocery store, bathrooms and showers, laundry facilities, and recreational facilities were also located on these eighteen acres. The remaining two acres west of the access road were reserved as the site for the marina. Prior to 1974, the ten acres east of the access road was used for open camping, but individual campsites were not designated. Water was made available to the campers who used this area through approximately 32 spigots spaced throughout the area and the other campground facilities were available to them. The ten-acre open area would accommodate up to 125 campsites. Since the enactment of the Systems Development Fee, Petitioners converted the ten-acre open camping area into 97 campsites with each campsite having water, electrical, and sewer hookups. This development, completed in 1983, organized the camping in the ten-acre area, but it did not increase the number of potential campers in the ten-acre area over the 1974 level. This development did, however, change the type camping that could be accommodated in this area. Prior to the development, the area could not accommodate camping in large vehicles such as motorhomes and recreational vehicles. After the development, the campsites were improved to accommodate all types of camping. None of the campsites are permanently improved with any structures or rooms and Petitioner does not rent campsites with accommodations on them. Persons renting the campsites provide their own method of camping, whether it be by car, truck, motorhome, travel trailer, tent, or otherwise. In 1983, Petitioners requested that the size of the water meter serving his property be increased from one inch to two inches. At that time, Respondent's staff suspected that Petitioners may have modified the campgrounds so as to have triggered the System Development Fee. Consequently, Mary Castellano, Respondent's Policy & Procedure Coordinator wrote a letter of inquiry to Petitioners' attorney. This letter, dated May 2, 1983, provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The material submitted by you last March 2, 1983, has been reviewed. Although a planned layout of the campground was provided from 1969 showing a plan to develop 279 camp and trailer spaces, what is required, prior to approval of a change to a larger meter, is some type of proof showing the number of camp and trailer spaces in existence and actually served prior to June 13, 1974, and certification regarding the actual number of camp and trailer spaces in existence today. If those two numbers are the same, no system development fee will be assessed and Mr. Eager's request for a 2" meter will be honored upon payment of additional deposit, new service charge and tapping fee. However, if there were less camp and trailer spaces in 1974 actually in existence then than there are at the present time, then additional system development fees will be assessed on a per space basis for the difference. Ms. Castellano's letter of May 2, 1983, accurately stated Respondent's interpretation of its rule imposing the System Development Fee. The information requested by this letter was not forthcoming, and Petitioners did not pursue the request to change the master meter from one inch to two inch again until 1989. Respondent's staff did not pursue whether Petitioners owed a System Development Fee until the issue was again raised in 1989. The water bills sent by Respondent to Petitioners up until April 1989 reflected that Petitioners had been classified as a "single unit commercial" account. In April 1989, the billing reflected that Petitioners were classified as a "multiple unit commercial" account. Because Petitioners' private water system is located on private property, Respondent's staff could not discover any undeclared units except by conducting an appropriate inspection. In 1989 Respondent's staff conducted such an inspection of Petitioners' campground and determined that Petitioners had added 97 campsites, that each campsite was a "unit" within the meaning of Respondent's rules, and that a system development fee of $2,000 was due for each site. This was the first time that Respondent had inspected the property and was the first time that Respondent knew that Petitioners had improved the 97 campsites. Respondent does not routinely inspect all private water systems or keep an up-to-date count of all units within its service area because of the costs of gathering such information. On April 26, 1989, Mary Castellano, who was still employed by Respondent, but whose title had been changed to Director of Policy Administration, wrote Petitioners a letter which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Of the 376 spaces/units currently existing, the Authority accepts the documentation submitted to establish that 279 spaces/units existed prior to June 1974, for which no System Development Fees are due. However, the following fees are assessed and due for the remaining 97 spaces/units: System Development Fee ($2,000 x 97 Units) $194,000.00 Deposit ($75 x 97 Units) 7,275.00 Service Charge ($15 x 97 Units) 1,455.00 $202,730.00* *Plus Tapping Fee * * * 4. The Authority will require the execution of a Restrictive Covenant since a potential for future expansion exists. Petitioners thereafter filed a timely request for formal hearing after Respondent's Board of Directors upheld the assessment of the System Development Fee at a duly called meeting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order which upholds the assessment against Petitioners of the System Development Fee based on the improvement of the 97 campsites since 1974. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Gus H. Crowell, Esquire Tittle & Tittle, P.A. P. O. Drawer 535 Tavernier, Florida 33070 Floyd A. Hennen, Esquire Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Post Office Box 1239 Key West, Florida 33040 Patty Woodworth, Director Planning & Budgeting Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5620 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 as being subordinate to the findings made or as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 2-10, 12, 14, and 18-21 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. While it was established that one corporation operated the campground, it was not established that no additional business purpose exists at the property. The property contains, in addition to the subject campsites, a grocery store, a marina, laundry facilities, and a sewage pumping station that is available to non-campers. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are rejected as being conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 15 and 16 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 17 and 23 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The findings of fact contained in the first three sentences of paragraph 23 are adopted in material part. The findings of fact contained in the final sentence of paragraph 23 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent. The paragraphs contained in the findings of fact section of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order have been numbered 1-13 for convenience. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, and 13 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The examples given by Respondent were not incorporated as a finding of fact because the examples used are not analogous to the facts of this case. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in part by of the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are rejected as being recitation of testimony or as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being recitation of testimony or as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order with the exception of the findings of fact contained in the final sentence of the paragraph, which are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached.
Findings Of Fact Although numerous customers were present, four of them testified at the hearing. No service quality problems were described with regard to either water or sewer service. Indeed, several of the customers described water quality as being good or excellent. The primary concern of the customers was the magnitude of the proposed rate increase, although a number of then opined that some increase in rates may he necessary. Expert engineering witnesses presented by both the Comission and the Petitioner established that the Utility has not been cited by any local, state or federal agency for health or environmentally related violations. No corrective orders are in force either by the Department of Environmental Regulation, the Lee County Health Department, or the Public Service Commission. The water and sewer treatment exceeds all governmental quality standards extant. In order to enhance service quality, the company has constructed a one million gallon ground storage tank and has installed an additional high-service pump. All parties agree that the cost of these improvements should be added to the Utility's rate base for purposes of this proceeding. Rate Base The Utility propounded evidence alleging its proper water rate base to be $1,872,470.00 and the appropriate sewer rate base to be $1,917,931.00. In arriving at the Utility's net investment in property used in the public service (rate base), it is necessary to calculate the amount of contributions-in-aid-of-construction, which serve to decrease the Utility's investment. Normally, where there has been a previous rate case for a utility in which the utility's net investment would have been determined by the Commission, the calculation of the utility investment in a current rate case is generally competed by adding additions to plant-in-service and subtracting additional contributions-in-aid-of construction in order to arrive at the current net "return yielding" investment. In the instant proceeding, however, Lehigh has elected to take issue with the amount of contributions-in-aid-of-construction (CIAC) previously determined by the Commission in the last rate case. In that last case (Docket No. R-73384-WS), the amount of CIAC was determined by multiplying water connections by $350.00 and sewer connections by $400.00. (See Exhibits 10, 19 and 20) The Utility in the prior proceeding agreed with that method of calculation and, further, two land sales contracts in evidence show that a charge of $750.00 for "sales price of water and sewer" to purchasers of houses in the service area has been imposed by the Utility or its predecessor, Lehigh Corporation (development company), when the Utility was merely a division of the development company. Notwithstanding that prior position, the Utility in this proceeding has elected to attempt to prove its level of CIAC ab initio and has conducted a "Special CIAC Study" in an attempt to show that the amount of contributions is now substantially less than the amount it and the Commission agreed to be applicable in the last rate proceeding and that which the Commission maintains is germane to this proceeding. The Utility thus is alleging that the appropriate charge per connection for CIAC is $650.00 for a water and sewer connection as opposed to the Commission's contention that the figure should be $750.00 per connection. Although a developer's agreement with an affiliated company shows a water and sewer connection charge of $650.00, the testimony of a senior officer of the Utility establishes that there were a total of 1,308 such contracts indicating a sales price for water and sewer service of $750.00. The Utility contends that only $650.00 of the $750.00 charge in question was actually transferred to the utility company and that, therefore, the $650.00 is the appropriate amount to attribute to CIAC. There is no question, however, that with regard to these 1,308 land sales contracts, that $750.00 was actually collected from the lot purchasers involved as the sales price of water and sewer service. Thus, the actual amount of CIAC paid by those 1,308 customers was $750.00 each, for a total of $981,000.00 for water and sever service and that figure represents in its entirety contributions-in-aid-of-construction. The contracts for which the customers involved paid $750.00 for water and sewer service, were entered into in the latter 1960's and early 1970's. Prior to that time, the same type of contracts carried an amount of $650.00 for water and sewer and following the period of time when the fee was $750.00, the line item in the contract was changed so that there was no longer any separate item providing for "sales price of water and sewer." The water and sewer charge was thereafter included in the amount charged for "sales price of improvements." Thus, contrary to the position of Lehigh, because of the segregation of the items in the purchase price shown in these land sales contracts into separate figures for price and for the sales price of water and sewer service, there have been shown to be definite, proven amounts of contributions-in-aid-of-construction supported by company records. The remaining portion of the contributions attributable to the Utility and not represented by these contracts were contributed in the sum of $650.00 per connection, with which figure both parties agree. An additional issue regarding contributions and the "Special CIAC Study" concerns contributions recorded as income from the inception of the Utility operation until November 30, 1964. As demonstrated by Exhibit 12, the amount of contributions recorded as income equals $756,656.00. The Utility's own "Special CIAC Study" refers to contributions recorded as income and Lehigh received sums of money for the availability of water and sewer service in the early 1960's which it treated as income. During the early 1960's when the Utility was regulated by Lee County, the Lee County regulatory board allowed it and other water and sewer utilities to receive and record service availability fees as revenue. This was done in order to enhance the apparent financial posture of the utilities and therefore improve their credit status as an aid to financing improvements. There is no question that those fees during this time period were paid into the Utility or its predecessor for water and sewer service availability and hence should properly be accounted for as CIAC. It might be argued, as the Utility does, that if Lehigh declared the contributions it received to be revenues with the Internal Revenue Service, then the benefit of those contributions or the amount of revenue they represent to the Utility would be reduced by the amount of the resulting income tax, and that if they are now determined to be contributions instead of revenue that an additional detriment to the Utility would occur by the reduction by that amount of its rate base and, therefore, its dollar return. It should be pointed out, however, that because of the tax advantages of the Utility's demonstrated operating loss carry-overs and investment tax credits, as well as accelerated depreciation, all of which tax advantages this Utility has been able to employ, no actual income tax has been paid on such "revenue." Further, Lehigh is depreciating this $756,655.00 in assets in its returns to the Internal Revenue Service and is thereby recovering the costs of the assets. If the Utility is permitted to treat them for regulatory rate-making purposes as revenue instead of CIAC, then the effect would be to maintain rate base and return at a correspondingly higher level than if these amounts are determined to be CIAC, which would reduce rate base and thereby the net investment upon which a return could be earned for regulatory purposes. Thus, the appropriate amount of contributions-in-aid-of-construction for the water system as of the closing date of March 31, 1979, equals $1,057,000.00. The amount of contributions-in-aid-of-construction attributable to the sewer system as of that date equals $1,389,977.00. (Net of amortization). The detailed calculations and adjustments supportive of the above findings with regard to rate base are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Schedules I, II and II. The first issue to be concerned with in calculating the operating expense basis for the revenue requirement is the cost of the above-referenced CIAC study. The Utility prepared this special CIAC study because of its fear that, in view of the Commission's decision in Tamarac Utilities, Inc. v. Hawkins, 354 So.2d 437, that it would not otherwise be able to meet its burden of proof on the issue of contributions and therefore would suffer a dismissal of the petition. In the Tamarac case, the Public Service Commission auditors encountered numerous problems resulting from a lack of primary data supporting the amount of contributions and the Commission issued an order allowing the Utility to provide clarifying evidence. When the Utility failed to satisfactorily perform this task, it ultimately suffered a dismissal of its petition and a refund of monies collected under interim rates. In this case, however, it has been demonstrated that there is no dearth of primary data or books and record supportive of the level of CIAC; nor has an order been issued requiring this Utility to provide such clarification or a "study" of its CIAC. Moreover, in the case of this utility, a previous rate case has been finalized wherein it was found by the Commission that there was a definite, specific level of contributions which were also consistent with those alleged by the petitioner in that proceeding. Thus, there is adequate primary data upon which a determination of CIAC can be computed in this proceeding without resort to a "Special CIAC Study" and the additional increment of rate case expense it represents. It should be further noted that even if the instant case involved a "Tamarac situation" where financial books and records were not adequate to properly document contributions-in-aid-of-construction that, in that event, if a CIAC study were made, then the proper rate-making treatment would be to amortize tile cost of that study over several years, since it is a large, nonrecurring expense in the Utility's operation, as opposed to allowing the entire expense to be written off (and charged to the customers through rates) based upon one year. The Utility has alleged that certain additional pro-forma adjustments to various expense items should be accomplished in order to arrive at the appropriate revenue which will support an adequate rate of return. Thus, the increased costs alleged for purchases of lime, chlorine and gasoline, depicted in the attached schedules incorporated herein, were undisputed, agreed to, are reasonable and therefore should be accepted. The alleged pro-forma cost for payroll is a mere estimate and not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Additionally, it was established by the Commission's accounting witness that certain rate case expenses arose from a prior rate case and therefore should be removed from consideration in arriving at revenue requirements for purposes of this proceeding. This adjustment was not contested, nor were similar adjustments to remove depreciation expense on construction work in progress, to remove depreciation expense on the contributed property, to remove unsupported property taxes, and to remove property tax as an expense and depreciation expense attributable to non-used and useful portions of the Utility's invested plant. None of these adjustments were disputed by the Utility. They are appropriate and reasonable and should be adopted. The Utility has also requested allowance of a $55.00 annual fire hydrant charge and a $10.00 charge for the initial commencement of service. The Utility submitted evidence (Exhibits 6 and 7) supportive of the actual number of water and sewer connections made during the test years as well as the costs upon which the initial commencement of service charge requested is based. The Commission did not dispute, therefore, the requested $10.00 charge for initial commencement of service and, inasmuch as the current $25.00 annual fire hydrant charge was established in the late 1960's and was shown to be no longer sufficient to cover costs, the Commission also did not dispute the increase in the annual fire hydrant charge from $25.00 to $55.00, which accordingly should be increased. Cost of Capital The Utility has requested a rate of return of 11.76 percent which includes an attrition allowance of .78 percent. There is no dispute as to the debt-equity ratios in the capital structure of the Utility. The common stock equity represents approximately 49.57 percent of the total capitalization. Long-term debt makes up 35.96 percent of capital and cost-free capital items make up 14.47 percent. The cost rate of the equity in the capital structure was established by the Commission's financial expert witness to be 14.5 percent or the midpoint in a range for companies and utility companies possessing a similar degree of risk to equity investors of 13.5 percent to 15.5 percent. The 14.5 percent cost of equity figure represents an accurate assessment of the opportunity costs of equity capital for such a company. The imbedded cost of long-term debt is 8.3 percent, which is a very advantageous rate to be enjoyed by such a company in today's money market and reflects a high degree of management efficiency on the part of the operation and management personnel of the petitioner. These two items, when combined with a zero cost factor shown to be appropriate for the cost-free capital items, results in a calculated rate of return of 10.35 percent, which does not take into account an attrition allowance due to inflation. The Utility advocated an attrition allowance equal to 10 percent of the weighted cost of equity capital to help offset the erosion in earnings caused by inflation. There can be little doubt that attrition of earnings due to significant inflation in costs of operation experienced by such companies is a very real factor. However, this record contains no substantial and competent evidence to demonstrate whether the utility wants coverage of capital attrition or attrition of its ability to cover operation and maintenance expenses nor which could justify the alleged 10 percent factor or any other quantification of attrition of earnings which may be experienced. Thus in the absence of a definitive establishment of the appropriate attrition factor, a cost of equity and a corresponding return on rate base in the midpoint of the range found above is appropriate. Thus, the proper return on rate base for this Utility has been shown to be 10.35 percent, which is within the range 9.85 percent to 10.84 percent. A summary of the cost of capital structure and weighted cost of capital calculation is depicted as follows: CALENDAR YEAR 1979 COMMON STOCK EQUITY RATIO 49.57 COST RATE 14.5 WEIGHTED COST 7.19 LONG TERM DEBT 35.96 8.8 3.16 COST FREE 14.47 -0- -0- 10.35 Floor CSE at 13.5 9.85 Ceiling CSE at 15.5 10.34 In summary, the required operating revenue for the Utility's water system should be $658,451.00 which results in an operating income of $211,407.00. The sewer system requires an annual, gross operating revenue of $475,629.00 in order to obtain a return or operating income of $130,017.00. The operating expenses and adjustments supportive of these figures are depicted in more detail in Schedules IV, V and VI attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The sewer revenue requirement found herein is less than the interim revenues authorized for sewer service, thus a refund is in order.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Lehigh Utilities, Inc. be granted in part, and that the Utility be authorized to receive a gross annual water revenue of $658,451.00 and gross annual sewer revenue of $475,629.00 to be achieved by rates filed with and approved by the Public Service Commission. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Utility be required to file revised tariff pages containing rates designed to produce annual revenues in the above amounts. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Utility be required to refund the interim sewer revenues previously authorized in this proceeding which exceed those sewer revenues determined to be appropriate herein. It is further RECOMMENDED that the above refunds be accomplished within ninety (90) days. This Recommended Order entered this 13th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: R. M. C. Rose, Esquire 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William H. Harrold, Esquire 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact 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 On October 7, 1982, petitioner's employee took samples of gasoline offered for sale at respondent's Beacon Store No. 7 in Milton, Florida, including a sample of regular gasoline mixed with alcohol, known as "regularhol." The regularhol sample reached petitioner's laboratory in Tallahassee on October 11, 1982, and tests done the following day revealed that the 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the mix as a whole was 151 degrees Fahrenheit. Otherwise the tests revealed no problem with any of the gasolines sampled. A stop sale notice issued on October 13, 1982, and, after bond in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) was posted, in lieu of confiscation of 3,865 gallons, the "regularhol" was released on November 8, 1982. Respondent began mixing regular gasoline with ethanol and selling it as regularhol in 1978 at the same price as regular gasoline. Until recently, Mocar made less on regularhol sales than on sales of regular gasoline. It originally offered regularhol as its way of helping to reduce the national consumption of petroleum. It has now discontinued sales of regularhol. The Phillips' terminal in Pensacola was respondent's source of the regular gasoline it mixed to make regularhol. This gasoline reached Pensacola by barge, and petitioner's employees sampled and tested each barge's cargo. The 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the regular gas Mocar bought from Phillips varied over a range of more than 30 degrees Fahrenheit upwards from 181 degrees Fahrenheit. Mixing ethanol with the gasoline lowered its distillation temperature, but with the single exception of the batch sampled on July 14, 1982, Mocar's regularhol had passed the testing petitioner has regularly (once every three or four months) conducted. There had also been a problem with gasohol once before.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner retain five hundred dollars ($500.00) and return five hundred dollars ($500.00) to the respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 2nd day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Milton Wilson, Esquire 201 E. Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32598 Doyle Conner, Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.161 of the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Parties DEP is the state agency granted regulatory and enforcement powers in chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to control air and water pollution. Associated Industries of Florida, Inc., is a non-profit corporation. It is the largest association of business, trade, commercial, and professional organizations, partnerships, and proprietorships in Florida. Florida Farm Bureau Federation is a not-for-profit agricultural organization. It is the State’s largest general- interest agricultural association with about 145,000 members. Florida Retail Federation, Inc., is a non-profit corporation with over 4,000 members, which are retail companies operating in Florida. The Florida Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association is a division of the Federation. Florida Trucking Association, Inc., is a non-profit corporation whose members include about 26,000 trucking companies. National Federation of Independent Business, Inc., is the Nation’s leading small business association. It has about 10,500 members operating in Florida. A principal purpose of each Petitioner is to represent the interests of its members before elected and appointed officials of state government. For each Petitioner, a substantial number of its members are owners and operators of installations or otherwise engaged in activities capable of having “reportable releases” as that term is defined in the proposed rule. The Proposed Rule Proposed rule 62-4.161, entitled “Public Notice of Pollution,” is lengthy and does not need to be set out here in its entirety to understand the objections raised by Petitioners or the defenses advanced by DEP. In summary, the proposed rule requires a person who has a reportable release of a regulated substance to inform DEP, the general public (via television and newspaper), and the local government within 24 hours after the release occurs. Within 48 hours of the release, additional information must be provided to the same entities. If the release goes beyond the property of the owner/operator, the adjacent property owner must be notified within 24 hours, as well as DEP and the local government. The proposed rule describes the information that must be included in the notices and the penalty for non-compliance with the rule’s requirements. Rulemaking Authority The proposed rule identifies seven statutes as authority for the rule. Section 377.22(2). This provision grants authority to DEP to adopt rules to implement and enforce the provisions of chapter 377, which regulates oil and gas resources. Section 403.061(7). This provision grants authority to DEP to adopt rules to implement the provisions of the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act, which is a part of chapter 403. Section 403.061(8). This provision grants authority to DEP to issue orders “necessary to effectuate the control of air and water pollution.” Section 403.061(28). This provision authorizes DEP to “Perform any other act necessary to control and prohibit air and water pollution.” Section 403.062. This provision grants DEP general control over surface and ground waters under the jurisdiction of the state insofar as their pollution may affect public health or the public interest. Section 403.855(1). This provision authorizes DEP to adopt emergency rules to protect the public health when DEP has information that a contaminant may present an imminent hazard or substantial danger to public or private water supplies. Section 403.861(9). This provision authorizes DEP to adopt rules to implement the provisions of the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act, which is a part of chapter 403. Law Implemented The proposed rule identifies eight statutes as the law implemented by the rule. Two of these statutes, sections 403.62 and 403.861(9), have already been described above. The other six statutes are described below. Section 377.21. This provision, in pertinent part, authorizes DEP to collect data, make inspections, and “[p]rovide for the keeping of records and making of reports” related to oil, gas, and other petroleum products. Section 403.061(16). This provision requires DEP to encourage voluntary cooperation to achieve the purposes of the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act. Section 403.061(17). This provision requires DEP to encourage local governments to handle pollution problems on a cooperative basis. Section 403.061(18). This provision requires DEP to conduct investigations and research related to pollution and its causes, prevention, abatement, and control. Section 403.061(28). This provision empowers DEP to perform any act necessary to control and prohibit air and water pollution. 403.855(3). This provision authorizes DEP to establish a program designed to prevent contamination or to minimize the danger of contamination to potable water supplies. Within chapters 377 and 403, the only provisions that specifically address reporting of spills or contamination require that the report be made to DEP only. For example, section 377.371(2), Florida Statutes, requires that a spill or leak of oil, gas, other petroleum product, or waste material be reported to the Division of Resource Management within DEP. Upon review of the proposed rule by the staff of the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (“JAPC”), DEP was asked why the proposed rule was not an unlawful modification or enlargement of section 377.371(2), which only requires notice to DEP in the event of a spill or leak. Section 376.30702, entitled “Contamination notification,” requires notice only to DEP for several scenarios where contamination is discovered: The Legislature finds and declares that when contamination is discovered by any person as a result of site rehabilitation activities [pursuant to statutes dealing with dry- cleaning, petroleum storage, brownfields, and other contamination], it is in the public’s best interest that potentially affected persons be notified of the existence of such contamination. Therefore, persons discovering such contamination shall notify the department . . . and the department shall be responsible for notifying the general public. § 376.30702(1), Fla. Stat. There are two other statutes that require notice to DEP for actions which are somewhat analogous to a release of pollution. Section 403.862(1)(b) provides that county health departments must notify DEP of potential violations of standards at any public water system. Section 403.93345(5) requires a vessel owner or operator to notify DEP within 24 hours if the vessel has struck or damaged a coral reef. For comparison, section 376.707(11) requires an applicant for a DEP solid waste facility permit to notify the local government and the general public by newspaper that it has applied for the permit. This statute shows the Legislature has required broader notice when it wanted. Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative DEP prepared a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (“SERC”) for the proposed rule and published notice of its availability as required by section 120.541. In the SERC, it is estimated that the total increased regulatory costs are $182,000 per year. On October 19, 2016, 27 regulated entities, including Petitioners, submitted a Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative (“LCRA”) to DEP. Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc., also submitted a LCRA. Both LCRAs proposed that DEP be responsible for notice to the general public, local governments and adjacent property owners, which would result in lower costs to the regulated community. In the SERC made available to the public in November 2016, DEP stated that it rejected the LCRA because the party who caused an unauthorized release of contaminants is the more appropriate party to incur the reporting costs imposed by the proposed rule, and (2) the party who releases contaminants is in a better position to know details about the substances that were released which must be included in the report.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to pay tax surcharges, penalties, and interest owed on the sale of cigarettes, and, if so, the amount that is currently due and owing.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for monitoring the sale of tobacco products and for assuring that all businesses selling such products pay the requisite surcharges on each pack of cigarettes sold. Respondent is a convenience store which is licensed to sell tobacco products. The store also sells alcoholic beverages, food items, and miscellaneous other products. The sales tax associated with the sale of tobacco products (only) is at issue in this proceeding. The 2009 Florida Legislature enacted legislation imposing a $1.00 per pack surcharge on each pack of cigarettes sold in this state beginning July 1, 2009. Retailers having a cigarette inventory and, as of that date, would be required to pay a "floor tax" of $1.00 per pack in their inventory. In February 2010, the Department received a letter from an anonymous source (who identified himself as "A Good Civilian (Business Owner) (Who always pays tax)[sic]." The letter had a flyer attached to it which had been distributed by Respondent. The flyer identified a number of products for which buyers could realize "[t]he lowest prices in Polk County." Included in the list of products were various tobacco items, including cigarettes. The anonymous source's letter suggested that anyone who could sell the tobacco products at those prices must be doing something illegal. Based on the allegations in the anonymous letter, the Department decided to investigate. A team was sent to one of Respondent's stores (hereinafter referred to as "Store 1") on February 18, 2010. The team did an inventory of tobacco products at Store 1. There were 2,855 packs of cigarettes at Store 1. Some of the cigarettes were in individual packs; some were still in cartons (which contain ten packs each). The cigarette packs had the requisite state stamp on them. However, most of the packs had a stamp which had been in existence prior to the change in law on July 1, 2009. The fact that most of Store 1's cigarette packs had the old stamp meant that the cigarettes had been around for a while. The inventory eventually formed the basis for an audit performed on Respondent's other store ("Store 2"). Store 2 had just recently opened and was stocked with cigarettes brought over from Store 1. There were, therefore, no invoices available at Store 2 as to the purchase of the cigarettes it had on hand. The audit process involved a determination of distributors from which Respondent purchased its cigarettes. The two primary distributors were Sam's Club and Dosal. The Department ascertained from those distributors how many packs of cigarettes Respondent had purchased over a given span of time. Sam's Club provided records seeming to indicate the purchase of 37,770 packs between February 1 and June 29, 2009; another 9,090 packs were purchased between July 4, 2009, and January 29, 2010. Dosal said 65,490 packs had been purchased between March 3 and June 23, 2009; another 17,800 were purchased between July and December 2009. An audit investigation was commenced at Store 2 on March 17, 2010. The auditors did not ascertain the actual number of packs of cigarettes on hand at the store on that date. The auditors talked with the owners of the stores (Salah Rabi and his brother, Mohammed Rabi) about their sales history. Pursuant to requests of the auditors, the owners also sent in some additional records reflecting their sale of cigarettes. In order to calculate the number of cigarette packs sold by Store 2 during a four-month period, the auditors determined how much business the store had done in all products (including non-tobacco products) for that period. Respondent gave the Department a list of daily sales on all products sold and the taxes paid on those products for the period February 2009 through January 2010. The average monthly sales amount for the store during the audit period was $25,000. However, the Department found the information provided by Respondent to be incomplete and, thus, unreliable. The auditors then assumed that 80 percent of the store's sales were for cigarettes1/ and that the average price per pack was $4.50. Using this formula, the auditors found that approximately 4,444 packs of cigarettes were sold each month, which the auditors rounded up to 4,500. Thus, for the audit period, the auditors estimated that 18,000 packs of cigarettes were sold. Neither of the auditors testified at final hearing as to the reasonableness of the formula or as to their alleged conversations with the owners. Based on their findings, the auditors concluded that Respondents owe a balance of $77,798.23. That figure was derived as follows: Total packs purchased 3/09 - 6/09 from Dosal 65,490 from Sam's 37,770 Total purchases prior to 7/1/09 103,260 Estimated monthly sales at 4,500 packs per month for four months 18,000 Total estimated inventory on 7/1/09 85,260 Floor tax due on estimated inventory $85,260 Floor tax paid $ 4,963,09 Unpaid floor tax $80,296.91 Overpayment on other tobacco product $(2,498.54) Total cigarette floor tax due $77,798.37 Missing from the evidence presented was any statement by the Department as to whether, on March 17, 2010, or any other date, there were 80,000-plus packs of cigarettes visible at the store. It seems plausible that so many packs, even if in cartons of 10 packs apiece, would be easy to identify. Respondent refutes the basic premise of the auditor's findings. Using cash register receipts (called Z Tapes) from March and May 2009 (two of the four months at issue), Respondent was able to establish a more accurate percentage of cigarette sales versus all products sold. The Z Tapes are printed out each day by way of turning a key on the cash register. The tapes print out a receipt showing the date, the number of packs of cigarettes sold, the number of food items sold, and the number of taxable items sold. According to the Z Tapes, close to 90 percent2/ of Store 2's total sales for those months were cigarette sales, i.e., a much higher percentage than used by the auditors. The evidence presented by the owners is credible and persuasive. Respondent also provided a calculation of its price per pack of cigarettes. The price depends, in part, on how much they pay the distributors for each pack or carton of cigarettes. Of its four best selling cigarettes, the following costs were determined for the period March through June 2009: Brand Cost Markup Markup% Price 305's 2.93 .06 2 2.99 Marlboro 4.66 .08 1.7 4.74 Romy 2.75 .21 7.0 2.96 Newport 4.45 .34 7.6 4.79 Then, using the inventory of products on hand, a weighted average markup percentage was calculated as follows: Brand Weighted Number Weighted Cost Weighted Price Markup 305's 5,900 17,287 $17,641 Marlboro 1,957 9,394 9,276 Romy 1,611 4,430 4,769 Newport 108 454 517 TOTAL 31,565 $32,203 2.02% Based on the foregoing calculation, the owners estimated an average price per pack of $3.00, i.e., much less than the $4.50 per pack figure utilized by the auditors. The unrefuted testimony of the owners is credible and seems reasonable based upon the facts. Inasmuch as neither of the auditors was available to provide further justification for their price-per-pack estimation, the owners' calculation is accepted for use in this proceeding. Respondent purchased 91,520 packs of cigarettes during the period of March 2009 through June 2009. Respondent sold 55,634 packs of cigarettes during that same period. The average price per pack sold was $3.00 (three dollars). Based on the foregoing, Respondent had a floor inventory of 35,886 packs of cigarettes on July 1, 2009. Respondent paid a cigarette surcharge floor tax of $4,963.09 on July 15, 2009. Respondent also overpaid its floor tax for other tobacco products by $2,948.54 for a total of $7,815.83 in payments to the Department. That amount should be credited against any tax liability determined in this proceeding. The Department provided bank statements for Store 1 and Store 2 showing much larger monthly transactions than evidenced by the stores' sale of products. That fact raised a red flag justifying further investigation into Respondent's business. However, the discrepancy was explained by the fact that Respondent does a large amount of check-cashing business at its stores. The large bank transactions are not relevant to the issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, imposing a cigarette surcharge in the amount of $35,886 (thirty-five thousand, eight hundred and eighty-six dollars) against Respondent, Discount Zone, Inc., d/b/a Lakeland Discount Beverage, Inc., minus $7,815.83 already paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Quality of Service: Twelve customers testified at the hearing in opposition to the proposed rate increase. The major customer objection is the size of the increase sought. Other objections are directed at the utility's rate structure, and the required tie-in to the PWA pipeline. Some customers desire to have separate rates set for the two areas served by J. C. Utilities, Inc., (Timber Oaks and San Clemente East), and one customer objected to the taste and smell of the water being provided. Nevertheless, an engineer from the Florida Public Service Commission presented evidence that the utility is meeting all state standards and is not under citation by the Department of Environmental Regulation. On the basis of the entire record, the evidence supports a finding that the utility's water and sewer service is satisfactory. Used and Useful Plant in Service. The utility contends that 33.72 percent of its sewer plant is not used and useful in the public service, and has deleted this amount from its sewer rate base. The Florida Public Service Commission engineer agrees, based on the actual recorded flows of the sewer plant and the growth of the system. The water plant in service is 100 percent used and useful in the public service. Acquisition Adjustment: The utility calculated an addition to rate base of $17,370 for San Clemente East (net of 1978 amortization) for acquisition costs, and presented evidence to demonstrate that this acquisition is in the public interest. Based on the entire record, the evidence supports a finding that this acquisition benefits the customers of J. C. Utilities, Inc., and is in the public interest. Thus, the adjustment is warranted. Income tax expense: Several questions are raised in the area of income tax expense. These deal with whether to treat the utility as a separate entity or part of a group filing consolidated tax returns, the appropriate computation of state income taxes, and the effect the capital structure of the utility has on taxable income for ratemaking purposes. All of these questions except one address the ultimate dollar amount of tax expense. The exception addresses the appropriateness of the expense. Only if income taxes are determined to be appropriate can the dollar amount of such taxes be considered. When net operating income is equal to or less than interest expense, there is no taxable income. This is generally true whenever a company's capital structure consists largely of debt or of debt only. The capital structure of J. C. Utilities, Inc., is comprised entirely of debt, according to the company's financial statements. The annual report shows capital stock of $10, a deficit in retained earnings of $68,834, and additional paid-in capital of $490. The utility's financial witness verified that J. C. Utilities, Inc. has no externally financed debt and relies for funds on its parent, U.S. Homes Corporation. The application reflects that the company's capital structure consists of customer deposits (debt), and loans and advances from the parent company (debt). This evidence supports a finding that the utility's capital structure is 100 percent debt. Accordingly, there can be no allowance for either state or federal income taxes in making a determination of revenue requirements for this utility. (See Order No. 9256 in Docket No. 790027-W) and all questions relating to the dollar amount of income tax expense are irrelevant. Cost of capital: J. C. Utilities, Inc., is financed totally by its parent company, U.S. Homes Corporation. The application originally requested a rate of return of 11.5 percent. At the hearing, various witnesses for the utility suggested rates ranging from 13.2 percent to 25 percent. However, since the utility has no equity, no return on equity can be provided. In calculating an appropriate rate of return to be granted to the utility, the original cost of debt rate of 11 percent and the recently revised rate of 8 percent on customer deposits can be used. These cost of capital components and rates thereon yield a weighted average cost of capital of 11.32 percent. This rate is supported by the evidence, and should be granted. Depreciation on Contributed Property: Appropriate adjustments have been made to the utility's water rate base and sewer rate base, and operating statements, to reflect the practice of the Florida Public Service Commission to add back accumulated depreciation on contributed property in rate base, and remove these items from operating expense. These adjustments appear on the attached schedules. Rate Base and Operating Statements: The attached schedules 1 through 6 detail the utility's rate base for water, rate base for sewer, and the water and sewer operating statements. Appropriate explanations for the various adjustments also appear in these schedules. Construction water: During the test year, the utility did not bill for construction water in the months of January, February, and March. Starting in April construction water ,and line flushing was metered and billed to the various construction companies connected with the Timber Oaks development. During the final nine months of the year when the construction water was accounted for a total of 28,626,903 gallons were sold which generated $17,590 in water revenue. In order to estimate the unaccounted for construction water, the nine months billing can be annualized. This amounts to an additional 9,542,301 gallons, which increases test year revenue by $5,725. Rate Structure: In order to structure rates that will be fair to all customers, they must not only generate the approved revenue, but should also assure that all classes of customers share in the cost to provide service. The base facility type of rate structure establishes a monthly minimum service charge, which covers fixed costs such as depreciation, property taxes, and allocated portions of billing, collecting, and customer accounting expenses. Meter size is still used to determine the demand factor. After the base charge is established, a charge per 1,000 gallons is determined. This charge recovers costs related to transmission and treatment, and allocated portions of billing, collections, accounting expense, plant labor, etc. Customers then pay a gallonage charge based on use. This allows each customer some control over the amount paid for service. This form of rate structure should be used in setting rates for J. C. Utilities, Inc. Separate rate structures: J. C. Utilities, Inc. provides water service to the separate, unconnected systems serving San Clemente East and Timber Oaks. An appropriate rate structure should be established to provide separate water rates for San Clemente and Timber Oaks, so that the customers of each system pay rates to cover only the costs associated with these systems. P.W.A. surcharge: Because permanent rates are to be established, the utility should no longer be permitted to make a separate surcharge for PWA water purchased. This expense should be incorporated into the other costs of J. C. Utilities, Inc. Connection charges: In its application, the utility requested an increase in water and sewer connection charges. The company used the current number of customers served by the water system to arrive at the customer hydraulic share. The correct way to establish the hydraulic share is to divide the number of customers that can be served by the system into the cost of the water plant. However, there is other information needed in order to accurately and fairly set connection charges, which was not presented by the utility. Rather than deny the request for an increase in water and sewer connection fees, an investigation docket should be opened for the purpose of determining whether increases are warranted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of J. C. Utilities, Inc., 2001 Ponderosa Avenue, Port Richey, Florida 33568, be granted in part, and that the utility be authorized to receive gross annual water revenues of $28,731 for San Clemente East, and $203,725 for Timber Oaks, and gross annual sewer revenue of $99,473, by rates to be approved by the Florida Public Service Commission. It is further RECOMMENDED that an acquisition adjustment of $17,370 be allowed for San Clemente East. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to implement a base facility charge in structuring its rates, in the manner set forth above. It is further RECOMMENDED that a separate investigation docket be opened for the purpose of resolving the matter of the utility's request for increased water and sewer connection charges. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 8th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Application of J. C. DOCKET NO. 790399-WS (CR) Utilities, Inc. to amend its ORDER NO. 9808 rates and charges. ISSUED: 2-23-81 / DOAH CASE NO. 80-1184 The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter: JOSEPH P. CRESSE, CHAIRMAN GERALD L. GUNTER JOHN R. MARKS, III KATIE NICHOLS Pursuant to Notice, an administrative hearing was held before William B. Thomas, Hearing Examiner with the Florida Public Service Commission, on May 6, 1980, in Port Richey, Florida, on the application of J. C. Utilities, Inc., for increased rates and charges for water and sewer service provided to its customers in Pasco County, pursuant to Section 367.081, Florida Statutes. On July 1, 1980, the matter was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, but continues to be assigned to William B. Thomas, as DOAH Hearing Officer, for a recommended order. APPEARANCES: Jack H. Geller, Esquire, Suite 200, Clearwater professional Center, 600 Bypass Drive, Clearwater, Florida 33156, for J. C. Utilities, Inc., Petitioner. Samuel H Lewis, Esquire, 101 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, for the Florida public Service Commission and the public generally. The Hearing Officer's Recommended Order was filed on July 8, 1980. Timely exceptions to the Hearing Officer's recommended order were filed by the petitioner. Now after consideration of all of the evidence in the record, we enter our order.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner holds a valid special fuel dealer's license issued by the Respondent. The license was issued during approximately March, 1972. The Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner's sales operations, and assessed special fuel taxes, plus penalty, on approximately 264,973 gallons of special fuel for which the Respondent contended inadequate account was given. 29,166 gallons of the special fuel involved in the assessment was sold to local oil field drillers. These sales are reflected in invoices which were received in evidence as Joint Exhibit 1. This fuel was used for industrial and commercial purposes, and not for the propulsion of motor vehicles on the public highways of the State of Florida. 161,900 gallons of the special fuel involved in this assessment was sold to Ard Oil Company, Summerdale, Alabama. Petitioner had every reason to believe that Ard Oil Company held a valid license as a dealer of special fuels in the State of Florida. Petitioner took reasonable steps to insure himself as to Ard's status, and received no instructions from the Respondent as to steps that could be taken to identify persons who were not properly licensed as special fuel dealers. 11,700 gallons of the special fuel involved in this assessment was sold to Hagler Grocery. All subsequent sales made by Hagler Grocery were for off- road, agricultural uses. During July, 1973, 5,000 gallons of the Petitioner's special fuel was mistakenly mixed with gasoline. The mixing rendered the special fuel unusable, and it was emptied onto Petitioner's property. This 5,000 gallons of fuel was never sold by the Petitioner, and was never used. On one occasion during the period of the audit, 5,000 gallons of special fuel leaked from one of the Petitioner's storage tanks due to a valve being left open erroneously. This fuel was never sold by the Petitioner, and was never used. During the period covered by the audit involved in this case, the Petitioner sold more than 5,000,000 gallons of special fuel. The Petitioner donates approximately 2,000 - 3,000 gallons of fuel yearly to the local fire department for training purposes. The Petitioner rinses his tanks periodically to keep down the lead content, and this results in some loss in special fuel. The Petitioner loses approximately 5 gallons of special fuel in each loading operation. The Petitioner made effort to account for all special fuel which came into his possession. Less than one percent of the fuel that came into his possession during the audit period has not been accounted for. It is reasonable to conclude, that 52,207 gallons of the Petitioner's special fuel was lost due to spillage, flushing operations, and donations to the local fire department. There was no evidence offered at the hearing from which it could be determined that any unaccounted fuel was used for a taxable purpose, or for any purpose.
