Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented, the following facts are determined: The UTILITY is owned by Florida Land Company, a Florida corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Continental Group, Inc., a New York corporation. In 1975, the UTILITY constructed a water and sewage treatment system to serve a residential and commercial development known as Greenwood Lakes. The UTILITY's water and sewer rates and charges have not changed since the COMMISSION's approval of initial tariffs in 1976. (Testimony of Crosby; P.E. 1.) I. Elements of Ratemaking In fixing the water and sewer rates to be charged by a public utility, the COMMISSION must consider: (1) the value and quality of the service, (2) the utility's rate base, (3) the cost of providing the service, and (4) a fair return on the utility's rate base. Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes (1979). Each element is addressed separately below. Quality of Service The UTILITY's water supply is provided by two deep wells with a total capacity, based on present pumps, of 2.376 million gallons per day. Treatment is provided by aeration and chlorination. The water system operates under an operating permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation. Water samples and reports are made monthly, and the water system presently meets all drinking water standards of the Department. (Testimony of Crosby, Heiker; R.E. 1.) The UTILITY's sewage treatment system consists of a .10 million gallon per day package plant; treatment consists of extended aeration followed by gravity flow to evapo-percolation ponds providing on-site disposal. It operates under an operation permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation, and complies with Department's sewage collection and treatment standards. (Testimony of Crosby.) Rate Base Rate base consists of the UTILITY property that is used and useful in providing the service for which rates are charged. In its application, the UTILITY proposed a rate base; after review, the COMMISSION suggested several adjustments, which are not opposed by the UTILITY. Use of a year-end test year is appropriate because of the extraordinary growth experienced by the UTILITY during 1979. For the test year ending December 3l, 1979, the UTILITY's adjusted water rate base is $135,977; the adjusted sewer rate base is $131,764. They are calculated as follows: RATE BASE Test Year Ending December 31, 1979 WATER SEWER Utility Plant in Service $190,969 $225,722 Construction Work in Progress 1,214 4,297 Accumulated Depreciation 18,920 2/ 14,801 2/ Contribution in Aid of Construction (CIAC)-Net of Amortization -48,831 -86,458 Working Capital Allowance 3,030 3,198 Income Tax Lag -0- - 194 RATE BASE $135,977 $131,764 (Testimony of Lowe; P.E. 1, 2, 3, R.E. 3.) Operating Statement The following Operating Statement reflects the UTILITY's revenue earned, costs of operation, and not-operating income during the test year. It shows that the UTILITY suffered a loss of $26,429 in its water operations and a loss of $19,101 in its sewer operations. OPERATING STATEMENT Test Year Ending December WATER 31 , 1979 SEWER Operating Revenues: $10,172 Operating Expenses: Operatic 25,314 $14,365 22,436 Maintenance -0- -0- Depreciation 18,199 10,132 Amortization -0- -0- Taxes Other Than Income 1,088 898 Other Expenses -0- -0- Income Taxes -0- -0- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $44,601 $33,466 Operating Income ($26,429) (Testimony of Lowe; P.E. 1, 2, 3, R.E. 3.) ($19,101) The UTILITY requests an annual water revenue increase of $36,154, and a sewer revenue increase of $31,715, which would produce gross annual revenue of $54,326, and $46,080, respectively. The adjusted Operating Statement, constructed to reflect this additional requested revenue, is as follows: CONSTRUCTED OPERATING STATEMENT Test Year Ending December 31, 1979 WATER SEWER Operating Revenues: Operating Expenses: $54,326 $46,080 Operation 30,634 25,580 Maintenance -0- -0- Depreciation 3,812 2/ 3,436 2/ Amortization -0- -0- Taxes Other Than Income 2,280 1,941 Other Expenses -0- -0- Income Taxes 1,424 968 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $38,150 $31,925 Operating Income $16,176 $14,155 Rate Base $135,977 $131,704 Rate of Return 11.90 percent 10.74 percent (Testimony of Lowe; P.E. 1, 2, 3, R.E. 3.) Rate of Return The capital structure of the UTILITY is as follows: AMOUNT PERCENT TO TOTAL Debt 4/ $1,450,000 60.90 Customer deposits 6,389 .27 Common Equity 924,550 30.83 TOTAL $2,380,947 100.00 The proposed annual gross water revenues of $54,326, and sewer revenues of $46,080 will allow the UTILITY to earn a rate of return of 11.90 percent on its water rate base, and 10.74 percent on its sewer rate base. With debt service costs now in excess of 12.50 percent, the return on equity will be nominal; however, there is no evidence that this will cause the UTILITY's service to suffer. (Testimony of Smith; P.E. 6.) II. Capitalization of Interest on Non-Used and Useful Equipment The UTILITY's plant is larger than necessary to serve its present customers. In its application, the UTILITY seeks COMMISSION approval to capitalize its interest costs on that portion of the UTILITY's plant which is non-used and useful, and excluded from rate base. Capitalization will allow the UTILITY to recover its interest expenses over the useful life of the property involved. The COMMISSION has previously allowed capitalization of interest under similar circumstances, Docket No. 760054-WS, Application of North Orlando Water and Sewer Corporation, Order No. 7455, dated October 4, 1976. Here, the UTILITY's request is reasonable, concurred in by the COMMISSION, and should be granted. (Testimony of NewIon, Cooke, Lowe; P.E. .) III. Rate Structure The UTILITY currently uses a conventional two-tier rate structure. A base facility charge (BFC) rate structure is a more equitable method of distributing costs associated with providing a utility service. Under a BFC structure, customers pay a base charge which covers their pro-rata share of the UTILITY's fixed costs, and a gallonage charge which covers the costs of pumping, treating, and distributing the actual water gallonage used. Such a structure would require the UTILITY to alter its current customer service policy to insure that the base charge is paid during temporary discontinuances of service. (Testimony of Washington.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the UTILITY's application for increased sewer rates and charges be granted and that it be authorized to file revised tariff pages containing rates designed in accordance with the base facility charge concept to produce gross annual water revenues of $54,326 and annual sewer revenues of $46,080; That the UTILITY be required to notify each customer of any rate increase authorized, explaining the reasons for such increase. A letter of explanation should be submitted to the COMMISSION for prior approval; That the UTILITY be allowed to retain all interim revenues collected pursuant to COMMISSION Order No. 9416 and cancel the rate refunding bond previously submitted; and That the UTILITY be allowed to capitalize interest on non-used and useful equipment which is excluded from rate base. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of Respondent's witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Sometime prior to May 7, 1980, Petitioner, Wyatt S. Odom, applied for a permit to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat on Drs Lake in Orange Park, Clay County Florida. By letter dated May 7, 1980, Ronald E. Bray, Sanitarian Supervisor for the Clay County Health Department, advised Petitioner that his permit application to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat was being denied since the area of Petitioner's property was approximately 26,250 square feet2 A survey of the subject property revealed that the area is 19,890 square feet, which is of course less than one-half acre. (Respondent's Exhibit 2) (0.60 acre) with three individual sewage disposal systems already existing on the property; the land was not suitable for the installation that would allow the proper and required drainfield absorption area and setback requirement could not be maintained due to the existence of buildings, waterlines, wells, a lake and existing sewage disposal facilities which, if permitted, would be in contravention of Chapters 10D-6.23(2) and 10D-6.24(2), (3), (4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. Supervisor Bray and Sanitarian Thomas Haley, observed the subject property and the survey, and concluded that based on the size of Petitioner's property and the existing wells and septic tanks thereon, it was unsuitable for and could not satisfy the setback requirements and the required drainfield absorption area. (Testimony of Ronald E. Bray.) As stated, Petitioner did not appear at the hearing to contest the Respondent's denial of his permit application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's denial of Petitioner's request for a permit to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat on Drs. Lake in Orange Park, Florida, be UPHELD. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of September, 1980. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 19th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Odom P. O. Box 14735 Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Leo J. Stellwagen, Esquire Assistant District IV Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 Quality of Service During the test year Petitioner provided sewer service to an average of 533 multi-family customers, nine residential customers and two general service customers. Foxmoor Condominium Association, Inc., a customer of Petitioner, has indicated its willingness to cooperate with the utility in its attempt to obtain a copy of the water bill for the condominium from Lee County, which provides the water service. This information will enable the utility to utilize a base facility charge type of rate structure. Evidence of record indicates that Petitioner is in compliance with regulations of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, although the utility, through testimony, acknowledged the existence of a consent order between DER and the utility, whereby certain changes should take place regarding the utility operations. The evidence in the record, therefore, supports a finding that the utility's sewer service is presently satisfactory. Rate Base A rate base of $170,087 suggested by PSC staff was acceptable to the utility (see Tr. 84-87). In accepting the rate base figure, the utility did not abandon its request that certain overheads be capitalized and added to rate base. However, necessary information to accomplish this was not timely filed, and, rather than delay this proceeding for presentation and audit, it was agreed that this issue be left open for a future rate case proceeding (see Tr. 20, 21, 41). The complete rate base schedule is attached as Schedule No. 1. Net Operating Income After eliciting the testimony of the various witnesses and considering the various stipulations between the parties, the sole issue remaining in dispute in this proceeding was the appropriate level of compensation for the chief executive officer of the utility. The utility had requested a salary of $13,000 per year. However, based upon the fact that the chief executive officer was actually paid only $3,400 during the test year, that figure is determined to be the appropriate amount of compensation to be allowed in this proceeding. Upon reaching that conclusion the appropriate amount of gross annual revenues is $63,133 (see Schedule No. 2, attached) Cost of Capital The utility had 100 percent debt at a cost of 10.59 percent (see Exhibit R-4), a figure which the utility agreed to as the accepted cost of capital finding for the purposes of this rate case proceeding only (see Tr. 79). Revenue Requirement As indicated in Schedule No. 2, the revenue requirement for the sewer system is $63,133. The revenues produce an overall rate of return of 10.59 percent on sewer rate base. Accordingly, the utility should file revised tariff pages containing rates designed to produce the above-noted amount of gross revenues. Rate Structure The evidence in this proceeding establishes the utility has been improperly billing some customers, and that the utility should be required to make refunds (see Tr. 65). The utility has agreed to make the refunds requested (see Exhibit 3-R). Petitioner's master metered, multi-family customers should be billed on a base facility charge type rate structure. Residential customers should be billed on a flat rate basis because of the relatively small number of these customers during the test period, and because of the difficulty of obtaining information concerning the water consumption due to the fact that water service is provided by the county.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Old Bridge Utilities, Inc. be granted and the utility be authorized to file revised tariff pages, containing rates designed to produce gross annual sewer revenues of $63,133; That the utility be required to utilize the rate structure described in the body of this Recommended Order; That the issue of capitalization of overhead be left open for resolution in a future proceeding; That the rate refunding-bond, filed by the utility, be returned for cancellation, and That the refunds reflected in the attached schedules discussed herein be made. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS 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 7th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Harrold, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William E. Sundstrom, Esquire Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin & Richards 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karl L. Johnson, Esquire Nuckolls, Parsons, Johnson and Fernandez 2701 Cleveland Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33902 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Application of OLD BRIDGE DOAH CASE NO. 80-1577 UTILITIES, INC. for a rate DOCKET NO. 790677-S increase to its sewer customers ORDER NO. 1-10152 in Lee County, Florida. ISSUED: 7-21-81 / The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter: JOSEPH P. CRESSE, CHAIRMAN JOHN R. MARKS, III SUSAN W. LEISNER Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS, held a public hearing on January 15, 1981, in Fort Myers, Florida, on the application of Old Bridge Utilities, Inc. for a rate increase to its sewer customers in Lee County, Florida. The Division of Administrative Hearings assigned Case No. 80-1577 to the above-noted docket. APPEARANCES: WILLIAM E. SUNDSTROM Attorney at Law Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin & Richards 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 On behalf of Petitioner, Old Bridge Utilities, Inc. KARL L. JOHNSON Attorney at Law Nuckolls, Parsons, Johnson and Fernandez 2701 Cleveland Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33902 On behalf of Intervenor, Foxmoor Condominium Association. WILLIAM H. HARROLD Attorney at Law 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 On behalf of the staff of the Florida Public Service Commission and the public generally. The Hearing Officer's Recommended Order was entered on April 7, 1981. The time for filing exceptions thereto has expired and no exceptions have been filed. After considering all of the evidence in the record, we now enter our order.
The Issue Whether the application of Petitioner Florida Cities Water Company, to increase the ratios it charges customers for water service in Lee County should be granted. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATION Conclusions: Factors pertinent to ratemaking and enumerated in Section 367.081, Florida Statutes, have been considered in this pro- ceeding. The Petitioner utility has not justified use of "year-end" rate base; those adjustments which it has supported with a preponderance of evidence have been accepted, those lacking sufficient eviden- tiary support have been rejected. Peti- tioner's application for rate increase should be granted to the extent provided in this Recommended Order; the resulting rates are just, reasonable, compensatory, and not unjustly discriminatory. Recommendation: That the Commission recalculate adjusted rate base, operating income, and the result- ing additional and total gross revenues in a manner consistent with this Recommended Order, and that Petitioner be authorized to file new rates structured on the Base facility charge concept designed to generate the addi- tional and total annual gross revenues so specified.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: I. The Application By its application, the UTILITY seeks authority to increase its rates sufficiently to generate additional annual gross revenues of $1,483,300. It attributes the need for increased revenues to extensive additions recently made to its water plant pursuant to COMMISSION Order No. 6209 entered in Docket 74176-W. The UTILITY claims that the increased investment and higher operating expenses associated with such plant additions effectively reduce its rate of return to 4.2 percent; it asserts that the requested additional revenues are necessary to allow it to earn a fair and reasonable rate of return of 12 percent. (Testimony of Reeves, Cardey; P-2, P-8.) II. Rate Base There are three issues involving the proper determination of rate base in this case: (1) whether "year-end", rather than "average" rate base should be used, (2) whether an Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) for post-test period additions allowed in rate base is proper, and (3) whether connection fees collected from 1969 to 1973 should be recorded as Contributions in Aid of Construction (CIAC) "Year-end" v. "Average Rate Base In determining rate base, absent extraordinary or emergency conditions or situations, "average" rather than "year- end" investment during the test period should be used. City of Miami v. Florida Public Service Commission, 208 So.2d (Fla. 1968). The Florida Supreme Court has suggested that average investment "should not be departed from except in the most unusual and extraordinary situations where not to do so would result in rates too low as to be confiscatory to the utility." Id. at 258. Year-end investment may be used only when a utility is experiencing extraordinary growth. Citizens v. Hawkins, 356 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1978). The UTILITY has not established that it meets the standard for utilization of "year-end" rate base, i.e. , that it has experienced unusual and extraordinary growth. Its customer growth rate averaged 8.2 percent for the last seven years, with a 10.56 percent gain during the test year. This growth rate has been experienced by many other Florida utilities of similar size and is neither extraordinary nor unusual. Neither is the UTILITY's growth extraordinary when measured in terms of water sold. Between 1975 and 1979, its growth in water sales averaged approximately 11 per- cent, in 1980--6 percent. In terms of plant growth, the UTILITY averaged 19.37 percent over the last seven years; the growth rate for 1979 was 12.03 percent. However, in 3980, its investment in gross plant grew at a 33 percent rate. The UTILITY's growth rate was repeatedly described as "substantial" by its consultant, K. R. Cardey, but substantial growth does not equate to extraordinary or unusual growth as defined by the Florida Supreme Court. Furthermore, the UTILITY did not establish that failure to use "year-end" rate base would reduce its rates to a confiscatory level. See, City of Miami, supra. It follows that "average" investment during the test period is the proper method to utilize in determining rates in this case. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding.) Appropriateness of Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) After the test period, the UTILITY completed five major additions to its plant, all of which were required by previous order of the COMMISSION. (Order No. 6209, Docket 74176-W.) The COMMISSION agrees that, since it required these post-test period additions, they should be included in rate base at full weight. Since these additions, which total $5,966,569, were under construction during the test period, the COMMISSION contends they should be recorded as Construction Work in Progress (CWIP). The UTILITY agrees that these additions should be included in rate base but seeks to include, as well , an AFUDC allowance in the amount of $326,422.2 AFUDC represents interest that was capitalized on each of these additions while they were under construction during and after the test period. Since these additions are already included in rate base at full weight, the inclusion of AFUDC in rate base would allow the UTILITY to duplicate earnings on its investment. Such a result would be unreasonable, improper, and should not be allowed. (Testimony of Reeves, Deterding; P-1, P-3, P-10, R-2.) Connection Fees: CIAC or Revenue From 1969 through 1973, the UTILITY operated under the regulatory jurisdiction of Lee County, not the COMMISSION. During those years, it was the UTILITY's practice and policy to record connection fees, which totaled $226,582, as revenue, not CIAC. Since connection fees are ordinarily considered CIAC, the COMMISSION proposes to adjust CIAC by $226,582. (Testimony of Deterding, Cardey; P-8, R-2.) Contributions in Aid of Construction are defined as monies used to offset the acquisition, improvement, or construction cost of utility property used to provide service to the public. Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes (1980). The UTILITY's consultant testified that connection fees collected and credited to revenue by the UTILITY during 1971, 1972, and 1973, totaling $176,773, were "not used to offset the improvements or construction costs of the [UTILITY's] property. (P-8, p. 6.) The COMMISSION, on cross-examination, did not question the accuracy or impeach the credibility of this statement; neither did it present any evidence to controvert or rebut the UTILITY's assertion as to how the connection fees were used. The only evidence on the question presented by the COMMISSION consisted of its accountant's conclusion: "During the years from 1969 to 1973, Florida Cities Water Company recorded many tap-in fees collected as revenue. These should properly be recorded as contributions in aid to construction. This adjustment [of $226,582] adds these contributions." p. 5.)(Testimony of Deterding, Cardey; P-8, R-2.) In its Proposed Recommended Order, the COMMISSION asserts that the UTILITY has the burden of showing: (1) the correctness of collecting funds normally authorized for service availability and using them for another purpose, and (2) the exact manner in which the funds were used. (Proposed Recommended Order, p. 6.) However, there was no evidence in the record to show that the UTILITY's treatment of connection fees during 1971 through 1973, was incorrect or violative of Lee County's regulatory standards. Neither is there any evidence to show that the connection fees collected in those years were used as contributions in aid of construction, i.e., to offset acquisition, improvement, or construction costs. The only evidence presented as to how those fees were actually used was that of the UTILITY's consultant; he testified that those funds were used only to defray operation and other expenses associated with the new customers. This evidence was sufficient to shift to the COMMISSION the burden of presenting evidence on the question or discrediting the evidence presented by the UTILITY. The COMMISSION did neither. It is found, therefore, that the $176,773, representing connection fees collected between 1971 and 1973, do not constitute CIAC, the UTILITY's testimony in this regard being persuasive. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-8, R-2.) However, as to the years 1969 through 1970, the UTILITY presented no evidence that the $48,809 in connection fees collected during that time were used only for operating and maintenance expenses and not to offset acquisition, improvement, or construction costs. In the absence of such evidence, the COMMISSION testimony that connection fees should ordinarily be treated as CIAC is persuasive. The connection fees collected during 1969 and 1970, calculated to be $49,809, are therefore properly included as CIAC. (Testimony of Deterding, Cardey; P-8, R-2.) In light of the above findings and the absence of disagreement concerning other adjustments proposed by the COMMISSION, the elements of the UTILITY's adjusted rate base are: RATE BASE Test Year Ended March 31, 1980 Utility Plat in Service $ 11,178,094 Construction Work in Progress 5,966,569 3/ Accumulated Appreciation (626, 160) CIAC,(Net of Amortization) (3,041,747) 4/ Advances for Construction (111,567) AFUDC (326,422) 5/ Working Capital Allowance 146,911 Materials and Supplies 117,450 Income Tax Lay [To be calculated based on additional gross revenues rec- opmended herein.] RATE BASE [To be determined upon recalculation.] In order to determine the adjusted rate base which should be utilized, Income Tax Lag requires recalculation in a manner consistent with the above findings and Section III below. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-3, P-8, P-10, R- 2.) III. Operating Income Operating Expense: Water Royalty Charge In calculating operating income for the test year, the UTILITY included $18,577 as an operating expense attributed to a $.03 per gallon royalty charge it paid an affiliate for water pumped from the Green Meadows well field. The UTILITY operates this water field on a 21-acre site and has easements to locate 26 wells. It pays no other cost for the water. The COMMISSION disputes the reasonableness of this charge because it is not an arms-length transaction, and the UTILITY has not explained the basis of the $.03 charge, the cost to the affiliate of the land involved and its subsequent sales price (the affiliate reserving the water use rights) , and the identity of the present owner. The COMMISSION's accountant testified that reasonableness of the charge could be determined by analyzing the costs of the rental of the land based on the original cost of the property to the affiliate. In response, the UTILITY established that the $18,577 expense is less than it would cost tide UTILITY, in terms of annual revenue requirements, to purchase the land involved. But the UTILITY failed to address the cost of renting the property, based on the affiliate's acquisition costs, or furnish information necessary to make such a determination. The COMMISSION is entitled to clearly scrutinize the expenses claimed by a utility and require that their reasonableness be shown. Tide UTILITY did not adequately explain or support the reasonableness of its claimed royalty expense, and it should therefore be disallowed. (Testimony of Reeves, Deterding; P-6, R-2.) Depreciation and Taxes: Adjustments Attributable to Post-Test Period Plant Additions The parties disagree on whether adjustments should be made to test year operating expenses to reflect increases in depreciation and taxes due to the five post-test year plant additions completed subsequent to the test period. The evidence is uncontroverted that these plant additions, including the Green Meadows water treatment plant and related facilities, were required by prior COMMISSION order and that they were necessary to provide service to existing customers of the UTILITY. The parties have also agreed that the full cost of these additions should be included in rate base, at full weight. The operating expenses of the UTILITY during the test year should be adjusted as was rate base, for known and no net changes in order to reflect conditions which will prevail when the rates become effective. The UTILITY's 2.1 percent composite depreciation rate should thus be applied against the new plant additions, and tide resulting depreciation expense included in the cost of providing service. Similarly, taxes (other than income) on the $5,960,569 worth of plant additions are known and eminent, are a cost of providing service, and should be included as an adjustment to test year taxes. The COMMISSION presented no policy or factual justification or explanation for its opposition to these adjustments to test year operating expenses. It does not contend that these expenses are other than known and eminent, attributable to the government-ordered plant additions, and will be part of the cost of providing service during the period the new rates will be in effect. The UTILITY's evidence in support of these adjustments is therefore persuasive. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-8, P-10, R-2.) Similarly, the UTILITY contended that test year income tax should be adjusted to reflect changes in revenue, operating expenses, depreciation, taxes, and interest expenses attributed to operation of the new plant addition. The COMMISSION offered no reason or explanation why such an income tax adjustment should not be made; changes in income tax due to the operation of the plant additions are known and eminent, and should be allowed as adjustments to test year expenses in order to adequately represent the UTILITY's future costs of service. However, due to the findings herein relating to use of "average rate base, the AFUDC allowance, treatment of connection fees previously collected, the water royalty charge, depreciation, and taxes, the income tax adjustment proposed by the UTILITY requires recalculation. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-0, P-10, R-2.) In light of the above findings, and the UTILITY's lack of opposition to other adjustments proposed by the COMMISSION, the known elements of adjusted operating income are: operating revenues of $2,419,437 and operating expense (operation) of $1,175,291. In order to determine adjusted operating income which should be used in this case, depreciation, taxes other than income, and income taxes require recalculation consistent with the findings contained in Sections II and III, infra. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-8, P-10, R- 2.) IV. Capital Structure, Cost of Capital, and Rate of Return The parties agree that UTILITY's capital structure and cost of capital are as follows: CAPITALIZATION COMPOSITE WEIGHT Rate 15 pct. 16 pct. Long-Term Debt 49.33 pct. 10.68 pct. 5.27 pct. 5.27 pct. Equity Capital 41.25 15-18 6.19 6.60 Subtotal 90.58 pct. 11.46 pct. 11.87 Deferred Federal Income Taxes 4.74 pct. -0- -0- -0- Customer Deposits .90 8.00 .07 .07 subtotal 96.22 Investment Tax Credit 3.79 pct. Average 11.53 .45 pct. 11.94 pct. .45 TOTAL 100.00 pct. 11.98 pct. 12.39 pct. They are also in agreement that a 12 percent return on the UTILITY's rate base, including a 15-16 percent return on equity, is a fair and reasonable rate of return. (COMMISSION's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 7; P-8, P-5.) V. Additional Required Revenues In order to determine the additional gross revenues which the UTILITY should file rates designed to generate, the authorized operating income should be computed by multiplying 12 percent times the adjusted rate base computed pursuant to Paragraph 10 above. The UTILITY should then be authorized to earn additional gross revenues equivalent to thee difference between the authorized operating income and the adjusted test year operating income computed pursuant to Paragraph 14 above. VI. Rate Structure and Rates The UTILITY proposes, with the COMMISSION's concurrence, that its new rates be structured in accordance with the Base Facility Charge Rate Design (BFC) and that the 25 percent surcharge currently imposed on general service customers be eliminated. The new BFC rate structure design contains a customer charge and a gallonage charge, both of which are directly related to the cost of providing the service. The customer charge assures that all customers pay their pro rata share of certain fixed and operating costs of the UTILITY which are not related to the amount of water used by the customer. The gallonage charge is based on the actual amounts of water used. With implementation of the base facility charge system, the UTILITY should lower its current $20 charge for reconnections during working hours to $10; similarly, its current $25 charge for reconnection after working hours should be reduced to $15. These lower charges are sufficient to cover the costs associated with the service rendered. The UTILITY also proposes various increases in its service availability, or connection charges. These increases, based on increased construction costs, will be used to finance additional facilities and stabilize rates to existing customers. The BFC rate design system proposed by the UTILITY is fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory. In light of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider the "alternative" rate structure which was presented to the COMMISSION staff on the day of hearing. With such time constraints, meaningful review of the "alternative" rate structure proposal was not possible. (Testimony of Byrd, Collier; R-1, R-3.) VII. Adequacy of Service Customer testimony criticized the 25 percent surcharge currently Imposed on general service customers, and the magnitude of the requested rate increase. Several customers complained of the quality of the water supplied. Under the proposed rate structure, tide surcharge on general service customers will be eliminated. While several customers complained of sediment in their drinking water, testimony established that the new Green Meadows softening plant should help alleviate that problem. The water supplied by the UTILITY meets all regulatory and health standards of the Health Department and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The UTILITY is currently under no citation for violation of any regulatory standards. It is found that the quality of the water service offered by the UTILITY is adequate. (Testimony of Collier, Reeves, Customers; P-7.) VIII. Franchise Fees The UTILITY has collected $395,000 in "franchise fees" for Lee County, but has not paid them to the county due to questions surrounding the legality of the franchise fee. Neither have the funds been placed in a special escrow account pending resolution of this controversy. The UTILITY should ensure that such franchise fees are deposited in a special interest-bearing escrow account, and take steps to ensure that this controversy is resolved without further delay. (Testimony of Cardey; Late-filed Exhibit P-12.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the COMMISSION recalculate adjusted rate base, operating income, and the resulting additional and total gross revenues in a manner consistent with this Recommended Orders and that Petitioner be authorized to file new rates structured on the base facility charge concept designed to generate the additional and total annual gross revenues so specified. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Cooper City Utilities, Inc. provides water and sewer service to its customers in Broward County, Florida, under the jurisdiction of the Commission pursuant to Chapter 367, Florida Statutes. The company was incorporated in 1973. All of the outstanding stock of the utility was owned by Moses Hornstein until his death on October 28, 1979, when ownership thereof became vested in the estate of Moses Hornstein, deceased. The personal representatives of this estate are Gertrude Hornstein, S. Lawrence Hornstein, and Judith A. Goldman. Gertrude Hornstein serves as president of Cooper City Utilities, Paul B. Anton as vice president, and Lawrence Lukin as secretary. Quality of Service At the hearing, a representative of the Broward County Health Department testified concerning the quality of service. Although some customer complaints had been received, there are no outstanding citations against Cooper City Utilities, Inc., and the quality of the utility's service will be improved when its new lime-softening plant, under construction, is completed in approximately August, 1980. The investigation by the Commission's staff engineer did not reveal any outstanding citations against either the water or sewer treatment facilities. Accordingly, on the basis of the entire record, the evidence supports a finding that the utility is in compliance with all state standards, and that the quality of its water and sewer service is satisfactory. Rate Base and Operating Statement Between the time in July when public hearings commenced, and September 24 when the hearings concluded, the utility abandoned its position on several matters which had been in dispute, leaving only two controverted subjects for resolution. These two remaining areas of disagreement are, (1) the cost of money [because of a pending petition for approval of additional financing (Docket No. 800562-WS)], and (2) the expense for an additional field laborer hired subsequent to the test year, which the utility seeks to have included as a pro forma expense. Based on the stipulation of the parties, the following schedule sets forth the rate base of Cooker City Utilities (Exhibit 15): Water Sewer Utility plant in service $2,331,137 $3,723,347 Plant held for future use (47,989) (166,375) Accumulated depreciation (286,651) (460,297) CIAC (net of amortization) (1,322,487) (2,302,707) Working capital allowance 51,083 37,680 Rate Base $ 725,093 831,648 Based on the stipulation of parties, prior to any consideration of the allowance of any expense for the laborer hired subsequent to the test year, the following schedule sets forth the utility's operating statement (Exhibit 15): Water Sewer Operating Revenues $ 368,562 $ 489,886 Operating Expenses: Operation 346,916 232,406 Maintenance 61,750 69,030 Depreciation 22,447 25,543 Amortization -0- -0- Taxes other than income 55,853 75,043 Other expenses -0- -0- Income taxes -0- -0- Total Operating Expenses $ 486,566 $ 402,022 Operating Income (Loss) $ (118,404) 87,864 5. On the matter of allowance of sufficient revenue to cover the cost of one additional laborer hired after the test year, the estimated annual expense is approximately $7,240. However, to the extent that this employee was hired due to an increase in the number of customers subsequent to the test year, or due to plant capacity not used and useful, it is not a proper pro forma adjustment. Without an affirmative showing that the laborer was necessary during the test year for existing customers, the adjustment should be disallowed, and there is insufficient evidence in this record to support such a finding. On the issue of cost of money, during the test year the utility's capital structure was composed of one hundred percent debt at a stated cost of ten percent. In Docket No. 800562-WS the company seeks Commission authority to borrow an additional sum of $450,000, and it plans to amend this application to include authority to borrow $400,000 more in order to make refunds to customers in compliance with a Commission order which was upheld in Cooper City Utilities, Inc. v. Mann (Fla. Sup. Ct. Case No. 58,047, September 12, 1980). However, the utility's proposed debt has not yet been approved by the Commission, and will not be incurred until some time in the future, if approved. In these circumstances, it is not appropriate to take the cost of new debt into consideration in determining cost of capital in this rate case. The evidence in the record supports a ten percent cost of capital. The earned rate of return for the water system is a negative 16.33 percent. The earned rate of return for the sewer system is 10.57 percent. Therefore, the utility's water rates should be increased, and its sewer rates should be decreased, to achieve an overall ten percent rate of return. Accordingly, the annual revenue requirement for the water system is $564,370, which amounts to an annual revenue increase of $195,808. The annual revenue requirement for the sewer system is $485,067, which amounts to an annual revenue decrease of $4,819. Rate Structure The present rates of Cooper City Utilities are structured in the conventional manner, consisting of a minimum gallonage charge and a one-step excess rate over the minimum. The utility proposes. rates with the same basic structure, but with changes in the minimum charge and the minimum gallonage allowance. However, the Commission has consistently taken the position that any rate that requires customers to pay for a minimum number of gallons, whether used or not, is discriminatory. Invariably, a base facilities type of rate structure has been required to be implemented in these circumstances. Under the base facilities charge, each customer pays a pro-rata share of the related facilities cost necessary to provide service, and in addition, pays only the cost of providing the service actually consumed under the gallonage charge. The evidence in this record supports the implementation of the base facilities charge form of rate structure. Under its tariff, Cooper City Utilities is authorized to charge guaranteed revenues in an amount equal to the minimum rate for water service and the applicable rate for sewer service for each equivalent residential connection to be served for a period of one calendar year in advance. Under the base facilities charge type of rate structure, the utility should be authorized to collect guaranteed revenues solely in the amount of the base facilities charge.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Cooper City Utilities, Inc., 3201 Griffin Road, Suite 106, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33312, be granted for the water system and denied for the sewer system, and that the utility be authorized to file revised tariff pages, containing rates designed to produce annual gross revenues of $564,370 for its water system and $485,067 for its sewer system. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to implement a base facility charge type of rate structure. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to make appropriate refunds to its sewer customers in amounts to be approved by the Commission. It is further RECOMMENDED that the rate-refunding bond filed in this docket be maintained until the utility has accomplished the refunds indicated above. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 18th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 18th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew T. Lavin, Esquire Post Office Box 650 Hollywood, Florida 33022 Sam Spector, Esquire Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James L. Ade and William A. Van Nortwick, Esquires Post Office Box 59 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 John W. McWhirter, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 2150 Tampa, Florida 33601 Alan F. Ruf, Esquire 2801 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 William H. Harrold, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Application of Cooper City DOCKET NO. 800415-WS (CR) Utilities, Inc. for a rate increase ORDER NO. 9699 to its water and sewer customers in DOAH CASE NO. 80-1188 Broward County, Florida. ISSUED: 12-16-80 / The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter: WILLIAM T. MAYO GERALD L. GUNTER JOSEPH P. CRESSE JOHN R. MARKS, III Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William B. Thomas, held public hearings in this matter on July 16 and 17, and on September 23 and 24, 1980, in Cooper City, Florida. The Division of Administrative Hearings assigned Case No. 80-1188 to the above-noted docket. APPEARANCES: Andrew T. Lavin, Esquire Post Office Box 650 Hollywood, Florida 33022 and Sam Spector, Esquire Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 for the Petitioner, Cooper City Utilities, Inc. James L. Ade and William A. Van Nortwick, Esquires Post Office Box 59 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 for PCH Corporation Intervenor in opposition. John W. McWhirter, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 2150 Tampa, Florida 33601 and Alan F. Ruf, Esquire 2801 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 for the City of Cooper City, Florida, Intervenor in opposition. William H. Harrold, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 for the Respondent, Florida Public Service Commission and the public generally. The Hearing Officer's Recommended Order was entered on November 18, 1980. The time for filing exceptions thereto has expired and no exceptions have been filed. After considering all the evidence in the record, we now enter our order.
The Issue Whether the objections of the City of Pembroke Pines and the Green Meadows Civic Association to South Broward Utility, Inc.'s, proposal to extend its water and sewer service area should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact South Broward Utility, Inc. (South Broward), is a corporation engaged in the business of providing water and wastewater service to the public in Broward County, Florida. That business is subject to regulation by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC). South Broward's water and wastewater treatment facilities are located in the Town of Davie, and it currently provides water and sewer services to residents of that municipality. Included within the area of the Town of Davie currently served by South Broward are the lands bordered on the north by Sterling Road, the south by Sheridan Street, and the west by Dykes Road (S.W. 160th Avenue). On February 4, 11, and 18, 1989, South Broward published a notice of extension in the Florida Lauderdale News/Sun-Sentinel, a daily newspaper of general circulation published in Broward County, Florida, in accordance with Rule 25-30.030(2), Florida Administrative Code. The notice provided that South Broward would file an application with the PSC pursuant to Section 367.061, Florida Statutes, to amend its certificates of public convenience and necessity to allow South Broward to provide water and sewer service to the east half of Section 5, Township 51 South, Range 40 East, Broward County, Florida. Such area may commonly be described as those lands lying immediately west of Dykes Road to S.W. 166th Avenue, and from Stirling Road on the north to Sheridan Street on the south. On February 24, 1989, South Broward mailed a copy of the aforementioned notice to all local, county and state governmental agencies and all other persons required by Section 367.041(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 25-30.030(2), Florida Administrative Code. Objections to the notice were filed with the PSC by the City of Pembroke Pines (Pembroke Pines) and the Green Meadows Civic Association (Green Meadows). In its objection, Pembroke Pines contended that it had invested over 30 million dollars to expand its municipal water and sewer service west to the Conversation Area from Sheridan Street on the north to Pembroke Road on the south, that this expansion project was anticipated to provide water and sewer service for its existing municipal boundaries as well as the area proposed to be served by South Broward, that it was preparing an annexation report for the proposed area, and that if South Broward's application were approved it would be precluded from servicing its own residents should annexation occur. At hearing, the proof demonstrated that Pembroke Pines had expanded its municipal water and sewer service such that its water and wastewater treatment plants and related facilities have adequate present capacity to meet the current and anticipated future water and wastewater needs in the disputed service area. The Pembroke Pines water lines are currently located on the south side of Sheridan Street, which street forms the southerly boundary of the disputed service area. Its wastewater treatment lines are, however, located approximately one and one-half miles south of Sheridan Street and would require several months and considerable expense to extend them to the disputed service area. Notably, however, no proof was offered that Pembroke Pines had any current intention to annex the disputed service area, or that it had otherwise evidenced any intent to, or taken any action to, provide service to the area. Green Meadows is an association of residents of this area of unincorporated Broward County, some of whom reside within the service area in dispute. The gravamen of Green Meadows' objection is its concern that sewer lines for a centralized sewer system would leak into its member's ground water supply, and that the increase in population density caused by a centralized water and sewer system would adversely affect the area's ecosystem. Neither Green Meadows nor Pembroke Pines contended, however, that the subject extension of service would violate any land use plan, zoning ordinance or other state or local law, and no credible proof was offered that, if built consistent with existent law, the sewer lines would adversely impact the ground water supply or ecosystem. Until recently, all of the lands lying in the disputed service area were located in unincorporated Broward County. However, in September 1988 a parcel of approximately 15 acres which abutted Dykes Road was annexed into the Town of Davie, and in May 1989 a parcel of approximately 80 acres, which abutted the previously annexed parcel on the east, Sterling Road on the north, and S.W. 166th Avenue on the west, was annexed into the Town of Davie. These lands comprise approximately 30 percent of the lands within the disputed service area, and it is the desire of the Town of Davie that water and sewer service to such lands be provided by South Broward. To date, South Broward has entered into a developer's agreement with the owner of the 80-acre parcel to provide such services, and is in the process of executing such an agreement with the owner of the 15-acre parcel. Pembroke Pines does not object to South Broward's expansion into these areas. As to the remaining acreage within the proposed service area, the owners of the vast majority of those lands have expressed a preference for South Broward to provide water and sewer service to their properties, and South Broward has expressed its desire and ability to provide such services. South Broward's water plant has an existing capacity of 500,000 gallons per day (GPD), and has sufficient capacity to address the current need for water service in the proposed area. Upon completion of its current expansion, which is anticipated in October 1989, South Broward's water plant will have a capacity of 1,250,000 GPD, and adequate capacity to address any future demand for water service in the proposed area. South Broward's wastewater treatment plant, with a capacity of 500,000 GPD, currently has sufficient capacity to satisfy the present and future demand for such services in the proposed area. An expansion of that plant is expected to be in service by 1991, which will double the plant's capacity and provide additional capacity. Currently, South Broward has water and sewer lines adequate to serve the proposed area in place, and located under Dykes Road at the eastern edge of the service area. Such lines are adequate to meet all present and anticipated future needs for such service in the area, and the water lines are adequate to provide fire protection to the area. South Broward has the present financial, managerial, operational, and technical ability to provide the present and anticipated needs for water and wastewater service in the proposed area, and the public interest will be best served by the extension of South Broward's water and wastewater systems to that area. Such expansion will not be in competition with or a duplication of any other system in the area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the objections filed by Pembroke Pines and Green Meadows be denied. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of August 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1988. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact filed by South Broward are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 5. 5-10. Addressed in paragraph 9. 11-14. Addressed in paragraphs 10-13. 15 & 16. Addressed in paragraphs 6 and 7. Addressed in paragraph 13. To the extent pertinent, addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 8. 20 & 21. Addressed in paragraph 13. The proposed findings of fact filed by the PSC are addressed as follows: 1 & 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 3, and paragraphs 2 and 3 of the conclusions of law. Addressed in paragraph 8. 6-12. Addressed in paragraphs 9-13. Addressed in paragraph 7. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Mitchell S. Kraft, Esquire Josias & Goren, P.A. 3099 East Commercial Boulevard Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 32308 Deborah Simone, President Green Meadows Civic Association 5831 S.W. 162nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33331 James L. Ade, Esquire Martin, Ade, Birchfiled & Mickler, P.A. 3000 Independent Square Post Office Box 59 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Randy Frier, Esquire Public Service Commission Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 Mr. Steve Tribble, Director Records and Reporting Public Service Commission Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 David Swafford, Executive Director Public Service Commission Room 116 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 Susan Clark General Counsel Public Service Commission Room 116 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870
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
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted a water pollution operation permit for the Bennett Road Sewage Treatment Facility under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a sewage treatment plant known as the Bennett Road Sewage Treatment Facility in Orlando, Florida. The plant was originally built in the 1950's and its method of treatment has been modified and improved over the years. At the present time, the plant serves about 60 percent of the sewage treatment needs of the city. The sewage is first treated for the removal of biological compounds by means of trickling filters, followed by chemical treatment for removal of BOD, suspended solids, and phosphorus. In the latter process, aluminum sulfate is used, together with a polymer to assist in forming larger particles for more rapid settlement. These processes are followed by final settling, clorination and discharge through an outfall pipe approximately five miles to the Crane Strand Creek and thence to the Little Econlockhatchee River (Little Econ) which meets the Big Econlockhatchee River approximately twelve miles downstream and flows into the St. Johns River twenty- seven miles downstream. About 60 percent of the flow from Crane Strand Creek into the Little Econ is derived from the Bennett Road plant and there is no other significant source of pollutants from the remainder of the discharge. (Testimony of Jewett, Matthes, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 1,2) In 1973, Respondent's predecessor, the State Department of Air and Water Pollution Control, issued a temporary operation permit to Petitioner, subject to certain conditions, for the Bennett Road plant. The permit was effective until June 1, 1976, "or sooner pursuant to the permittee upgrading his facility to provide 90 percent treatment and obtaining an operation permit in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department Of Pollution Control." On May 7, 1976, Petitioner submitted an application for an operation permit wherein it was stated that the facility would be abandoned as soon as the Orlando Easterly Regional Facilities were constructed with a new treatment plant to be located in the vicinity of Iron Bridge Road. Respondent's manager of the St. Johns River District advised Petitioner by letter of July 21, 1976, of the Department's intent to deny the application for an operating permit. The reasons given were that (1) available data was insufficient to show sustained secondary treatment as defined in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17- 3, Florida Administrative Code; and (2) the facility's discharge caused violation of Section 17-3.09(3), F.A.C. The latter provision establishes one of the criteria for classification of Class III waters and provides generally that the concentration of dissolved oxygen in all such surface waters shall not average less than 5 mg/l in a twenty-four hour period and never less than 4 mg/l. Class III waters are designated in Rule 17-3.09 as "Recreation - propagation and management of fish and wildlife." In its above-mentioned letter, Respondent suggested that the Petitioner apply for a temporary operation permit. Petitioner chose to request an administrative hearing on the proposed denial and did so by petition filed herein on August 5, 1976. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties orally stipulated that Petitioner has been meeting the statutory and regulatory requirements as to secondary treatment so as to warrant withdrawal of Respondent's objection to granting the permit on that ground. The parties also agreed that the only matter remaining in issue is the question of whether Petitioner's discharge violates water quality criteria. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6,7) Petitioner began consideration of the need to replace or expand the Bennett Road plant about 1968. These plans have reached a stage where the Petitioner is now in the process of purchasing land and concluding a planning study required under federal law to construct a regional facility to service the eastern part of Orlando and a few of the northerly communities, including some in Seminole County. Such regionalization of sewage treatment facilities is encouraged by the federal government which provides 75 percent of the funding necessary for construction under Public Law 92-500 . It is anticipated that the proposed facility will be completed in 1980 at which time the Bennett Road plant will cease operations. The regional facility is to be located at Iron Bridge Road and its discharge would flow into the Little Econ several miles downstream of the present Bennett Road discharge. (Testimony of Matthes, Schneider, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2) Operation permits have been granted from 1971 to 1976 to a number of sewage treatment plants that will tie-in to the proposed regional facility. These permits were issued even though the discharge of most of the plants did not meet water quality standards. However, practically no secondary treatment plant can meet water quality standards in Central Florida without an extensive mathematical "modeling." These calculations made by Respondent are formulated from surveys of the body of water in question and result in what is termed "a waste load allocation." This term deals with a treatment standard that is computed to ascertain the assimilative capacity of a receiving body of water to take in pollutants from a particular source in order that water quality standards in terms of dissolved oxygen levels may be maintained. The waste load allocation is the standard which the treatment from the source must perform before it can be discharged. None of the above-mentioned plants nor the Bennett Road plant had been provided an assigned waste load allocation at the time of Respondent's adverse action on Petitioner's application. Neither had it been a past requirement of Respondent to require information concerning dissolved oxygen from an applicant in order to issue an operation permit. However, a preliminary survey of the Little Econ had been completed by Respondent by February 1976, and from this, a mathematical model was later computed based on chemical analysis of water samples taken from designated areas in that body of water. In the aforesaid permits that were granted, a clause provided that the plants would have to work with the City of Orlando in resolving discharge problems and cooperate in the achievement of a regional system. Although water quality criteria had not changed in recent years, they had not been enforced because Respondent had had insufficient background water data. At the time Petitioner's permit application was recommended for denial, the primary basis therefor was the fact that the Bennett Road plant had not then reached 90 percent treatment capability over a sustained period. The question of water quality was incidental in view of the fact that that office did not then have the final determination of water quality as evidenced by the intensive survey of the Little Econ and the final math modeling. (Testimony of Jewett, Davenport; Petitioner's Exhibit 4) By interoffice memorandums from the Respondent's Director of the Division of Environmental Permitting to district and subdistrict managers, dated January 28 and April 13, 1976, Subject: Temporary Operating Permits, the said managers were instructed that no operating permits should be issued for any source not achieving secondary treatment of its wastes or not meeting water quality standards. In such cases, only temporary operating permits were to be issued. Further, it was stated in the April 13 memorandum that enforcement action would be initiated against municipal facilities if they were either not achieving 90 percent removal Of BOD and suspended solids or not meeting water quality requirements, and had either (1) not applied for a federal grant, (2) was not following up to ensure receipt of the grant, or (3) had received a federal grant but was not expeditiously accomplishing the grant requirements. It was stipulated at the hearing that the memorandums had not been promulgated as rules by Respondent under Chapter 120, F.S. (Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, Stipulation) Although the Little Econ is a highly degraded body of water, upstream of the Bennett Road discharge point it has a dissolved oxygen level of over 6 mg/l. After mixture with the Bennett Road discharge, the level drops to about 2 1/2 mg/l. Based upon the intensive survey taken by the Respondent in 1976, it was determined that water quality violations existed below the Bennett Road plant's discharge point but not above that point. It was further determined that the Bennett Road facility was contributing about 89 percent of the oxygen demanding substances in the system. In fact, the dissolved oxygen levels downstream from the Bennett Road discharge reached as low as one milligram per liter at several points. They ranged from that level up to approximately four and one-half milligrams per liter throughout the entire 27 miles of the system. The foregoing was the conclusion of Respondent's environmental specialist based on field data taken on August 30, 1976, at a time of the day when the dissolved oxygen levels would be at their highest. However, the drop in dissolved oxygen level to an even greater extent at certain points occurs in Respondent's mathematical model prediction that does not take into account any discharge from the Bennett Road plant. In fact, in such a "no discharge" situation, Respondent's prediction is that the dissolved oxygen level at points immediately following several control structures in the waters will produce an even greater drop than with the Bennett Road discharge taken into consideration. Although the control structures do not affect the actual oxygen demand on the system, they do increase the residence time of the water and permit substances to settle out. However, when the water flows over the dam, it creates reaeration that increases the oxygen level again. Therefore, although the control structures aggravate the problem, the Bennett Road discharge is in turn further aggravating the situation because some of the pollutants continue downstream. Part of the problem is due to the effect of deposits already on the bottom of the system and it is unknown to what extent they would be eliminated if the Bennett Road facility were taken out of the system. Although it is not anticipated that there would be a great rise in dissolved oxygen levels if the Bennett Road plant discharge were to be discontinued, Respondent's experts are of the opinion that there would be a definite increase in dissolved oxygen levels overall. Further, the field data and model predictions were based on high flow conditions but the 89 percent figure for pollutants from the Bennett Road facility was based on a low flow condition where it would be of more significance. Although the field data showed that at no point in the 27 mile course did the dissolved oxygen level of the water reach state standards of 5.0 milligrams per liter dissolved oxygen for Class III waters, the model prediction with no discharge from the Bennett Road facility shows that the dissolved oxygen level still would not meet state standards under high flow conditions. Under low flow conditions, though, the dissolved oxygen level without discharge from the Bennett Road plant would reach the state standards roughly halfway down the system. High flow conditions are more representative of an average of dissolved oxygen level during the year than under low flow conditions. The Bennett Road plant contributes approximately 60 percent of the total water flow reaching the St. Johns River. Even if the plant were to achieve advanced waste treatment standards, it still would not meet water quality standards. No evidence was presented as to the possibility of Petitioner using alternative methods of waste disposal, such as deep well injection, land irrigation, or the use of lakes and ponds. In fact, no discharge from the Bennett Road plant could be such as to raise the entire stream to meet the state requirement of 5.0 milligram per liter dissolved oxygen. (Testimony of Sawicki, Davenport, Armstrong, Horvath, Brown, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibit 3) An interoffice memorandum of Respondent's Grants section, dated October 28, 1976, pointed out that enforcement action had been shown to be a "great motivator in the area of bringing awareness to governmental agencies of their responsibilities in the field of pollution abatement." The memorandum sought compliance investigations of the various governmental entities within the area where the proposed regional sewage treatment system for East Orlando was to be undertaken, with recommendations that enforcement action be taken in the case of any violations of state standards. The memorandum further stated that enforcement action was already underway against the City of Orlando. The author of the memorandum denied that it was an attempt to force Respondent to proceed more vigorously with the regional system. (Testimony of Schneider, Petitioner's Exhibit 5) The Orange County Pollution Control Board requires variances from its rule that no treated effluent shall be discharged into the surface waters of the county. The Bennett Road plant operates under such a variance and at the present time is meeting county standards for sewage treatment. On May 19, 1976, the Orange County Assistant Pollution Control Director advised Respondent that the Bennett Road plant was meeting current state performance requirements and recommended approval of the operation permit. Although the county maintains records of the Little Econ River at various points, it has not used a mathematical model to determine whether the Bennett Road plant causes water quality violations. (Testimony of Sawicki, Petitioner's Exhibit 3)
Recommendation That the application of Petitioner City of Orlando, Florida for a water pollution operation permit for the Bennett Road sewage treatment facility be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Vance W. Kidder, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Circle East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida Gretchen R. H. Vose, Esquire Assistant City Attorney 16 South Magnolia Avenue Post Office Box 793 Orlando, Florida 32802 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION CITY OF ORLANDO, FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1573 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
