The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted a certificate authorizing it to continue operating a water and sewer utility in Flagler County; and Whether Petitioner's application to increase its water and sewer rates to its customers should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Utility The Utility, a subsidiary of ITT Community Development Corporation, owns and operates a central water and sewer system serving Palm Coast Community--a planned development of approximately 40 square miles located in Flagler County. Although the development has less than 3,000 occupied homesites, more than 40,000 homesites are planned. (Testimony of Potter; P-2, R-4.) The Water System The water system includes wells, a treatment plant, storage facilities, and distribution mains. There are 13 water supply wells with a flow capability of 3.40 MGD (million gallons per day); present peak flow is 2.00 MGD. The raw water is piped to a central water treatment plant which utilizes a lime- softening process. Present plant peak flows equal the maximum rated capacity: 2.00 MGD. There are two ground storage reservoirs (with a total capacity of 1,300,000 gallons) and two elevated storage tanks (with a total capacity of 850,000 gallons). The water distribution system consists of an extensive network of mains, valves, fire hydrants, and meters used to convey potable water from the treatment plant to customers throughout Palm Coast Community. Although during the test year ending June 28, 1980, the Utility supplied water to an average of 2,191 residential and 80 general service customers, water distribution mains have been constructed to 22,988 building sites. The total water system, as of June 28, 1980, has been constructed at a cost of $17,486,433. (Testimony of Potter; P-2, R-4.) The Sewer System The sewer system includes a collection system, 57 lift stations, a wastewater treatment plant, and effluent disposal facilities. The wastewater plant utilizes an extended aeration process and has a rated hydraulic capacity of 600,000 gallons per day. Effluent is disposed of by spray irrigation on a 65-acre disposal field. Although during the test year, the Utility supplied sewer service to an average of 1,502 residential and 39 general service customers, sewage collection mains have been constructed to 22,988 building sites. As of June 28, 1980, the sewer system has been constructed at a cost of $24,850,962. (Testimony of Potter; P-2, R-4). The Rate Increase Application By its application, the Utility seeks authorization to increase water operating revenues by $170,460 and sewer operating revenues by $106,924. If granted, annual gross water revenues would increase (by approximately 40 percent) to $422,211 and gross sewer revenues would increase (by approximately 40 percent) to $267,194. (Testimony of Deterding; 5-3 P-4, R-2.) As grounds, the Utility contends that during the test year ending June 28, 1980, it suffered an operating loss of $225,430 in its water operations, and a loss of $109,909 in its sewer operations; that it is entitled to a 13.08 percent rate of return on its rate base. (Application for Rate Increase, dated November 3, 1980). II. The Elements of Rate Making In issuing a certificate and setting rates, the Commission must determine: the rate base 2/ ; (2) the cost of providing the utility service, including debt interest, working capital, maintenance, depreciation, tax, and operating expenses; (3) a fair return on the rate base; and (4) the quality of service provided. At hearing, the Utility presented evidence on each of these rate-making elements. For the most part, the Commission did not oppose the Utility's evidence; those matters which were disputed are separately addressed below. Rate Base Rate base represents the Utility's property which provides the services for which rates are charged. There are three issues involving the establishment of rate base: (1) average or year-end rate base. (2) inclusion of cost of a 750,000 gallon water storage tank; and (3) deferral of depreciation on non-used- and-useful plant. Average or Year-End Rate Base At hearing, the Utility asserted that it had experienced extraordinary growth, justifying the utilization of year-end rate base. The Commission disputed this claim of extraordinary growth, and urged the use of a 13-month average. On June 22, 1981, the Utility filed a post-hearing "Notice of Change in the Position of the Applicant," by which it receded from its previous position and agreed that, for purposes of this proceeding, an average rate base should be used. The issue is, therefore, moot and utilization of a 13-month average rate base is accepted. However, the Utility continues to assert that a year-end rate base should be established for "purposes of certification." 3/ Such assertion is rejected as inconsistent with its June 22, 1981, acceptance of average rate base: the acceptance applied to this "proceeding," 4/ and was not limited to rate-making purposes. Moreover, the Utility has not shown why a second rate base, based on year-end figures, should be established. Year-end rate base constitutes a deviation from the standard and preferable method of using a 13-month average; it may only be used under circumstances of unusual or extraordinary growth-- circumstances which the Utility no longer claims exist. (Testimony of Deterding; R-2) Deferral of Depreciation and Amortization The Utility requests authority to defer depreciating non-used-and-useful plant and amortizing contributions-in-aid-of-construction ("CIAC") until such time as the plant or contributions become used and useful. The effect would be to preserve the original cost of the property so it may eventually be recovered from future customers benefitting from its use; because original cost would not have been reduced, rate base would be higher for those future customers. The Commission opposes the requested deferral. Both parties cite language in a previous Commission order (Order No. 7455, Docket No. 760034, In Re: Petition of North Orlando Water and Sewer Corporation) as evidence of existing Commission non-rule policy on deferral of depreciation expense on non-used-and-useful property. The Commission language in that order lends support to the opposing arguments of each party. Even if the policy was stated unequivocally it could not--without record support--establish Commission policy for purposes of this rate proceeding. The Utility's request is rejected because record evidence in this proceeding. The Utility executed a Revenue Agreement with ITT Community Development Corporation on June 27, 1980. Under that agreement, Community Development Corporation, the developer of Palm Coast Community, agreed to pay the Utility--through 1990--an amount sufficient to allow recovery of costs, including depreciation, attributable to utility property installed for unimproved lots. Such utility property is the same non-used-and-useful property for which the utility now seeks to defer depreciation and amortization. Since this revenue agreement allows the Utility to recover from the developer depreciation expenses attributable to non-used-and-useful property, deferral of depreciation--to allow recovery from future customers--is unnecessary. (Testimony of Gregg, Deterding; R2) 5/ Inclusion of Cost of Water Storage Tank The Utility proposes to include in rate base the use-and-useful portion of a 0.75 million gallon elevated storage tank. It was not completed and placed in service until after the test year. Neither was its construction explicitly ordered by government order. However, from an engineering standpoint, it was needed during this test period to maintain minimum water pressure during peak- flow periods and provide adequate flows for fire protection purposes. It now functions as an integral component of the Utility's water system. At hearing, the Commission's accountant testified that 100 percent of the cost of the water storage tank should be removed from the plant-in-service component of rate base because it was not in service during the test year. The parties agreed to his submittal of a post-hearing accounting exhibit showing adjustments resulting from his testimony. However, in his late-filed exhibit (R-2), the accountant took a position which contradicted his testimony at hearing: In this case we feel that consideration of this after test year plant must be given. The utility's used and useful portion of the other storage facilities will increase substantially. In addition this item appears to be an integral component of the plant which was operating during the test year and at present. (R-2.) (Emphasis supplied.) He included proposed schedules which: (1) include the tank as if placed in service during the last month of the test year; (2) include the total cost of the tank including interest capitalized net of the non-used-and-useful portion in calculating average rate base; and (3) show the effect of these adjustments in construction work in progress (CWIP) so that they can be easily identified and not confused with plant that was, in fact, in service by the end of the test year. Notwithstanding this significant change in its accountant's testimony, the Commission continues to advocate 6/ the accountant's earlier position at hearing--one which he has now abandoned. Thus, the Commission argues that: [T]he only correct position in calculating an average rate base is to exclude the after test year plant addition and adjust the used and useful percentage. . .as he [its accountant] originally proposed at the hearing. (Commission's Recommended Order, p. 5) This contention his rejected as inconsistent with the Commission's own accounting and engineering evidence. 7/ It also overlooks the undisputed fact that the storage tank is now operating as an essential component of the water system, and that it will continue to be used during the period in which the new rates will be in effect. The Commission's alternative treatment--as proposed by its accountant's post-hearing exhibit (R-2), is accepted as persuasive. The cost of the storage tank is thus included as CWIP, and is calculated as if placed in service during the last month of the test year; the total cost of the tank, including interest capitalized net of the non-used-and-useful portion, is utilized (Testimony of Gregg, Deterding, Chastain; R-1.) The sewer system rate base proposed by the Utility is not disputed by the Commission and is accepted. The resulting average rate bases for the water and sewer systems are $2,736,279 and $1,044,165, respectively. They are depicted below. WATER RATE BASE (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Utility Plant in Service $12,397,249 Plant Held for Future Use (8,848,497) Construction Work in Progress 39,097 Accumulated Depreciation (216,405) Contribution-in-Aid-of-Construction (Net of Amortization) (687,787) Working Capital Allowance 35,837 Materials and Supplies 7,785 Income Tax Lag -0- RATE BASE $ 2,736,279 SEWER RATE BASE (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Utility Plant in Service $18,461,055 Plant Held for Future Use (15,787,481) Construction Work in Progress -0- Accumulated Depreciation (109,729) Contributions-in-Aid-of-Construction (Net of Amortization) (1,551,865) Working Capital Allowance 27,186 Materials and Supplies 4,999 Income Tax tag -0- RATE BASE $ 1,044,145 (Late-filed Exhibit, R-2.) B. Operating Income The parties agree that, during the test year, the Utility had a $130,243 operating loss from its water operations, and a sewer operations. The operating statements are $95,281 operating loss from it depicted below: WATER OPERATING STATEMENT (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Operating Revenues (Present Rates) $251,751 Operating Revenue Deductions Operation 286,694 Depreciation 75,314 Amortization 954 Taxes Other Than Income 19,032 Income Taxes -0- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $381,994 s Operating Income (Loss) $(130,243) SEWER OPERATING STATEMENT (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Operating Revenues (Present Rates) $160,270 Operating Revenue Deductions Operation 217,487 Depreciation 21,872 Amortization 767 Taxes Other Than Income 15,425 Income Taxes -0- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $255,551 Operating Income (Loss) $(95,281) Since during the test year, the Utility operated its water and sewer systems at a loss; it received a negative rate of return on its rate base. (Testimony of Gregg, Deterding; Late-Filed Exhibit R-2, P-3, P-4.) Cost of Capital and Fair Rate of Return The only issue between the parties concerning cost of capital to the Utility is whether deferred taxes should be included in its capital structure. At the end of the test year, the Utility's books showed no deferred taxes; however, during the later half of 1980, it changed its accounting treatment for deferred taxes. Applying its new method, deferred taxes at the end of the test year would be $3,137,000--assuming deferred depreciation on non-used-and-useful property is disallowed. The Utility failed to establish the impropriety of applying an accounting method which it will continue to follow in the foreseeable future; it is therefore concluded that the deferred taxes should be calculated as $3,137,000, at zero cost. 8/ The resulting overall cost of capital is 12.29 percent. A reasonable rate of return falls within a range of 11.87 percent to 12.72 percent. It is depicted below: COST OF CAPITAL Weighted Component Common Stock Equity Amount $22,224,497 Weight 42.23 Cost 15.0 percent Cost 6.33 Long Term Debt 27,163,003 51.62 11.5 5.94 Customer Deposits 99,653 .19 8.0 .02 Deferred Taxes 3,137,000 5.96 -0- -0- $52,624,153 100.00 12.29 (Testimony of Kelly, Potter; R-5.) proposed Revenue The Utility seeks increased water revenues of $170,460 and increased sewer revenues of $106,924. Although the parties agree on a base facility rate design, 9/ the Commission disputes proposed charges for fire hydrants and irrigation meters. 10/ Fire Hydrant Charges The Utility presently collects, under contract, a fire hydrant charge of $70 per year per hydrant from two fire districts which serve the area. This method is favored by customers and the fire districts; because the fire districts raise their funds through tax assessments, the customers payments are tax deductable. The Commission argues that the $70 charges do not cover all of the Utility's fire protection costs and that such costs should be recovered through regular service rates. While the $70 charge was shown to be insufficient to cover fire service costs, no reason was provided why the additional funds could not be recovered by increasing charges to the fire districts. This method of paying for fire protection costs is advantageous to the customers. It is likely that the fire service districts would cooperate with the Utility in negotiating fire service charges which are adequate to cover the costs of the service provided. Consequently, it is concluded that the present method of collecting fire service charges should be retained, although the charges should be increased sufficiently to cover the attendant costs to the Utility. (Testimony of Fabelo, Public Witnesses.) Irrigation Meter Charges The Utility proposes a $2.00 base facility charge for irrigation meters, with a $4.50 charge for regular service. The Commission prefers an irrigation meter base facility charge equal to one-half of the base charge of a corresponding regular service meter, assuming both meters are on the same tap to the water main. Since the demand for water that both meters can cumulatively place on the water system is 1.5 times that placed by a regular service meter, the Commission's position is persuasive. 11/ The parties also disputed the base facility customer accounting charges for irrigation meters--the Utility contending that the additional meters impose little additional costs and the Commission asserting that customer accounting charges should be given full weight. The Utility's position is accepted as persuasive. The two meters are usually close together and easily read. Both services are included on one account and one monthly bill covers both. Thus, while the irrigation meter imposes a slight additional accounting cost, it is minimal when compared to the cost imposed by a separate regular service meter. (Testimony of Gregg, Fabelo.) Rate of Return Allowed by Proposed Revenue Adding the requested water revenue increase of $165,633 to the adjusted test-year water operating revenues of $251,751 results in total recommended operating revenues of $417,384. Subtracting test-year operating expenses of $381,994 leaves a net operating income of $35,390--a 1.29 percent return on a water rate base of $2,736,279. Adding the requested sewer revenue increase of $111,751 to the adjusted test-year sewer operating revenues of $160,270 results in total recommended operating revenues of $272,021. Subtracting test-year operating expenses of $255,551 leaves a net operating income of $16,470--a 1.58 percent return on a sewer rate base of $1,044,165. (Testimony of Deterding; R-2) Quality of Service The quality of the water furnished the Utility's customers depends on their location. Customers residing in the area most heavily populated--north of Highway 100--receive satisfactory water service. Their water is treated by the Utility's central lime-softening plant. In contrast, the customers residing in the Seminole Woods area have not received water of comparable quality. Seminole Woods lies in the south extremity of the service area; it consists of approximately eight single-family residences and one duplex. Due to the remote location and slow rate of growth of Seminole Woods, the Utility has not found it practical to interconnect with the central lime-softening plant or build a separate lime-softening plant to serve the area. Instead, the Utility pumps raw water from a nearby well to a temporary facility where it is chlorinated and then conveyed to the residences where it is treated by separate zeolite or "Culligan" water-softening devices. These devices are furnished customers by the Utility without additional charge. The residents of Seminole Woods have frequently received water with excessive chlorine or hydrogen sulfide. The Utility's efforts to monitor the chlorine levels and regularly flush the system have not solved the problems. Seminole Woods customers have repeatedly complained about the quality of their water--its excessive chlorine taste, offensive odor (similar to the smell of rotten eggs), and high sodium content. The water quality is so poor that at least three of the residents have found it undrinkable; they buy bottled water at an additional cost of approximately $20 per month. The Utility's current solution to the problem is to extend mains from the northern area to Seminole Woods. The lines are now under construction and completion is expected "within a year or so." (Tr. 253.) With the exception of the Seminole Woods area, the quality of sewer and water service provided by the Utility is acceptable and has rarely been the subject of complaints. Occasional problems of power outages have been corrected. Neither the water nor the sewer system has been or is now under any governmental citation for non-sewage or water treatment standards. Upon completion of the connecting water mains, it is likely that the residents of Seminole Woods will receive water equal in quality to that enjoyed by other residents of Palm Coast Community. (Testimony of Thomas, Sannartano, Creolino, Potter, Likins.) III. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity The Utility has filed with the Commission a map of its existing utility systems, a description of the area served, and all information requested by the Commission concerning its rates and charges. Neither the Commission nor the public objected to the granting of a certificate authorizing it to continue providing water and sewer services in the affected area. (Testimony of Chastain, Members of the Public; Prehearing Statement.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Utility be granted a certificate to continue operating its water and sewer systems in the areas described, and That it be authorized to file tariffs, consistent with the provisions of this Recommended Order, designed to generate annual gross water revenues of $417,384 and annual gross sewer revenues of $272,021. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 13th day of August, 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 13th day of August, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts relevant to the issue presented for determination are found: Customers who testified at the hearing and those who adopted the testimony of others had three major complaints as to the quality of water and sewer service received from the petitioner. These included the inconsistency of the quality of the water, billing procedures and practices, and plant and system management. The quality of the water which petitioner provides to its customers has not been consistent. While quality has greatly improved since November of 1980, the water does, on occasion, appear rusty, muddy or yellowish and does, on occasion, discolor laundry and ice cubes. No evidence was offered as to the frequency of such occasions. Some customers have received a bill for a vacant lot upon which there was no sewer connection or water meter. Another customer was billed at the wrong address after notifying the petitioner of a change in address. A customer who spent some eighteen months in Michigan continued to receive bills in full service amounts after he had requested that his water be disconnected. His correspondence on this problem was not responded to by Petitioner. Petitioner's main office is located in Orlando, approximately one hour away from Inverness. When major breakdowns in the water and sewer system occur, a crew can be dispatched from the Orlando area. Petitioner purchased the subject water and sewer operation in June of 1978. At that time the condition of the mechanical and electrical aspects of the operation was poor and the water was high in iron content, thus causing the water to have an almost constant rusty appearance. Petitioner installed a chemical called "aquamag" to hold the iron in suspension. Aquamag does not, however, remove the iron from the water, and petitioner is presently engaged in research concerning the possibility of a new water supply. It is possible that petitioner could have a new well in operation by June of 1981. Neither the water system nor the sewer system of petitioner are currently under any citations from local or state officials or agencies. Prior to November of 1980, petitioner employed three or four operators who were not able to provide the customers with the best quality of water possible. A new operator was employed in November of 1980 and service and the quality of water has greatly improved since that time. This operator is capable of handling routine operations. If major breakdowns occur, petitioner's mechanics and electricians in Orlando can be radio dispatched to the system for any type of repairs. Petitioner's Orlando office has had a toll-free 800 number for the convenience of customers for the past eight months to one year. The number is displayed at some of petitioner's plants, but is not presently printed on the bills which the customers receive. At the time of the hearing, the customer bills were being restructured to include the petitioner's toll-free number. Prior to the acquisition of the water and sewer system by the petitioner, the former owners had approval in their tariffs filed with the Public Service Commission to charge fees for vacant lots. Such charges were dropped in May of 1979, and the bills which the customers are presently receiving containing such a charge are actually past due bills from a time prior to May of 1979. During the 1979 test year, the annual average of customers served by petitioner was 166 for water service and 130 for sewer service. At the time of the hearing, petitioner estimates approximately 235 lots for water service and 159 or 160 active sewer service customers.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the quality of service provided by petitioner to its customers in Citrus County be found to be satisfactory and that no adverse consequences be imposed upon the petitioner as a result of the quality of its service. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April. COPIES FURNISHED: R.M.C. Rose Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin and Richards Suite 103, 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 M. Robert Christ Legal Department Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve Public Counsel Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Florida public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe Cresse, Chairman Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is the amount of attorney's fees and costs Petitioner, Florida Cities Water Company, should be awarded pursuant to Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Florida Cities Water Company (hereinafter referred to as "Florida Cities"), is a utility providing water and wastewater service to two communities in Florida. Respondent, the Florida Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "PSC"), has exclusive jurisdiction over water and wastewater service utility providers in Florida, including the determination of rates that utility providers may charge for their services. Section 367.011, Florida Statutes (1995). Florida Cities' 1992 Approved Rate. In arriving at an allowable rate which a water and wastewater service utility may charge, the PSC must determine, among other things, the amount of a utility's plant that is considered "used and useful." Section 367.081(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). In determining the amount of Florida Cities' plant that was considered "used and useful" in 1992, the PSC determined the amount of investment costs in its North Fort Myers, Florida, plant which was potentially recoverable. Recoverable costs are limited to those expenditures which are considered to be for the public benefit. Florida Cities' recoverable costs as of 1992 were determined to total $6,343,868.00. The amount of Florida Cities' recoverable costs was then multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which was the average daily flow of the plant (calculated on a peak month basis) and the denominator of which was the capacity of the plant (this fraction is hereinafter referred to as the "Capacity Ratio"). In 1992, the average daily flow of the plant on a peak month basis was determined to be in excess of 1.0 million gallons per day (hereinafter referred to as "MGD"), and the capacity of the plant was determined to be 1.0 MGD. Therefore, the Capacity Ratio was determined to be 100 percent and Florida Cities' recoverable costs of $6,343,868.00 was determined to be 100 percent "used and useful." Florida Cities' "rate base" for 1992 was, therefore, determined to be $6,343,868.00. Florida Cities' 1995 Application for Rate Increase and the PSC's Reduction of Rate Base. Subsequent to the determination of Florida Cities' rate base and its approved utility rates in 1992, Florida Cities was required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (then known as the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation)(hereinafter referred to as "DEP"), to expand its North Fort Myers plant. As a result of DEP's action, Florida Cities incurred additional plant costs of approximately 1.6 million dollars. As a consequence of having incurred additional plant costs, Florida Cities requested that the PSC treat the additional costs, plus other costs incurred by Florida Cities since 1992, as recoverable costs and as an addition to its rate base. Florida Cities' application was filed in 1995. After consideration of Florida Cities' application for rate increase, the PSC issued a Notice of Proposed Agency Action Order Granting Final Rates and Charges on November 2, 1995. In this order the PSC essentially determined that all additional plant expansion costs incurred by Florida Cities constituted recoverable costs. The PSC also determined that Florida Cities' Capacity Ratio was 100 percent and, therefore, all of its recoverable costs was treated as "used and useful." The decision of the PSC resulted in an increase of Florida Cities' utility rate of approximately 17.89 percent. The proposed decision of the PSC was, however, challenged and proceeded to hearing before the PSC. On September 10, 1996, the PSC entered a Final Order Denying Application for Increased Wastewater Rates, Reducing Rates, Requiring Refund and Requiring Reports (hereinafter referred to as the "PSC Final Order"). In the PSC Final Order, the PSC treated all of the 1.6 million dollars in costs associated with the expansion of the plant required by the DEP as recoverable costs. The PSC, however, reduced the Capacity Formula to 65.9 percent. This resulted in a reduction in Florida Cities' rate base of approximately 2.4 million dollars. The reduction in the Capacity Formula to 65.9 percent was caused, in part, by the manner in which the PSC determined the numerator of the Capacity Formula. The PSC modified the manner in which it calculated the numerator of the Capacity Formula: Instead of using the average daily flow calculated on a peak month basis, it used the average daily flow calculted on an annual basis (to which it added a "reserve" of 4.58 percent) . . . . The reduction in the Capacity Formula from 1992 to 1995 was also caused by the plant capacity figure used by the PSC. The PSC used a permitted capacity of 1.5 MGD instead of the actually designed and built capacity of 1.25 MGD. Florida Cities had urged use of the 1.25 MGD actual capacity figure. As a result of the PSC's conclusion that only 65.9 percent of the amount of recoverable costs was used and useful, Florida Cities' rate base was reduced to $5,525,915.00, a decrease of Florida Cities' used and useful plant as determined in 1992 of over $800,000.00. Although the PSC included the additional costs incurred by Florida Cities in order to comply with DEP regulations, the PSC's use of a Capacity Ratio of 65.9 percent to determine the amount of the recoverable costs considered used and useful had a net effect of disallowing approximately 2.4 million dollars in proposed rate base (1.6 million dollars incurred to meet DEP regulations plus the $800,000.00 reduction of 1992 rate base). Florida Cities' Appeal of the PSC's Final Order. Florida Cities appealed the PSC Final Order to the District Court of Appeal, First District (hereinafter referred to as the "First District Court"). Florida Cities Water Company v. Florida Public Service Commission, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D238 (Fla. 1st DCA January 12, 1998). On appeal, Florida Cities raised two grounds for reversal of the PSC's Final Order: The Capacity Ratio used by the PSC to determine the amount of its recoverable costs which was considered used and useful was flawed. Florida Cities urged the First District Court to increase its Capacity Ratio to 100 percent; and The PSC should have included all costs Florida Cities had incurred in order to comply with DEP regulations as part of its rate base without regard to the Capacity Ratio. Florida Cities argued that the 1.6 million dollars it had incurred to comply with DEP regulations should be included as part of its rate base without regard to what the Capacity Ratio was determined to be. Florida Cities' challenge to the Capacity Ratio used by the PSC was based upon two alleged errors: The PSC's use of permitted capacity of 1.5 MGD was improper. Florida Cities argued that the PSC should have used actual plant capacity of 1.25 MGD; and The method elected by the PSC to determine the average daily flow of the plant was a novel and unexplained deviation from past PSC policies. Florida Cities argued that the PSC should have continued to determine average daily flows based upon a peak month basis rather than an annual basis. As to the 1.6 million dollars in costs Florida Cities sought to have included in its rate base, Florida Cities' two arguments were alternative theories advanced to support the same end: 100 percent inclusion of the 1.6 million dollars it had incurred as a result of meeting DEP regulations. While the two arguments were interrelated with regard to the starting point (it had spent 1.6 million dollars on plant) and the result Florida Cities was attempting to achieve (inclusion of 1.6 million dollars in rate base), the two arguments involved different methods of reaching the desired result: (a) direct inclusion; or (b) inclusion through an increase in the Capacity Ratio. As to the remaining $800,000.00 reduction in Florida Cities' rate base, only one of the arguments raised by Florida Cities applied to this amount: the argument that the Capacity Ratio utilized by the PSC was flawed. The First District Court's Decision. The First District Court agreed with Florida Cities' contention that the Capacity Ratio used by the PSC was flawed. The First District Court found that both the calculation of the numerator and the denominator of the Capacity Ratio by the PSC was in error. With regard to the numerator, the First District Court concluded that the PSC's determination of average daily flows by using annual flows constituted a shift in agency policy which was "'unsupported by expert testimony, documentary opinion, or other evidence appropriate to the nature of the issue involved.'" The First District Court remanded the matter to the PSC to "give a reasonable explanation, if it can, supported by record evidence (which all parties must have an opportunity to address) as to why average daily flow in the peak month was ignored." With regard to the denominator, the First District Court opined that "no competent evidence of any substance supports the PSC's determination" of plant capacity. The First District Court concluded that the denominator should be 1.25 MGD. The First District Court rejected Florida Cities' contention that amounts it had expended to comply with DEP regulations should be included in its rate base without regard to the Capacity Ratio. The First District Court concluded that the 1.6 million dollars spent to comply with DEP regulations could be included in rate base "only to the extent the improvements they effect or the facilities to which they relate are 'used and useful in the public service.'" The ultimate impact of the First District Court's decision depends upon what action the PSC takes on remand with regard to determine the appropriate numerator for the Capacity Formula. The PSC issued an Order of Remand on April 14, 1998. In the Order of Remand, the PSC indicated its position that the decision of the First District Court regarding flows was "an invitation" to take additional testimony and evidence on the issue. The PSC, therefore, reopened the record and scheduled a second evidentiary hearing to determine how average daily flows should be calculated. Florida Cities filed a Motion to Stay the PSC's second evidentiary hearing, pending resolution of an appeal of the PSC Order of Remand. Until a final determination is made concerning the intent of the First District Court in remanding the matter to the PSC, it cannot be absolutely concluded what the "result obtained" in this case will be. The parties have, however, assumed for purposes of the matter that the Capacity Ratio should be approximately 98.6 percent. That is the best "result" which can be obtained by Florida Cities in this matter. Florida Cities' Motion for Attorney's Fees. As part of its appeal, Florida Cities also filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees. Florida Cities sought an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). In particular, Florida Cities requested that the First District Court: Grant attorneys [sic] fees to Appellant for this appeal; Remand this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings to determine attorneys fees; and Grant such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The First District Court entered the following order on Florida Cities' Motion for Attorney's Fees: The motion by appellant for attorney's fee is granted. If the parties are unable to agree on an amount of attorney's fees, the question should be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Parties' Effort to Agree. Florida Cities submitted copies of invoices to the PSC documenting the attorney's fees and costs incurred by it in connection with the appeal of the PSC's Final Order. Florida Cities proposed several findings of fact, which are hereby accepted by reference, relating to the manner in which it determined attorney's fees and costs. Those findings of fact include paragraphs 27 through and including 32. The PSC reviewed the invoice copies submitted by Florida Cities and stipulated and agreed that the number of hours and the hourly rates attributable to the appeal of the PSC Final Order were reasonable. The parties stipulated that the total amount of attorney's fees and costs incurred by Florida Cities on the appeal of the PSC Final Order amounted to $74,648.14. On March 18, 1998, the PSC and Florida Cities filed a Joint Petition for Resolution of Attorney's Fees with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties stipulated in the joint petition that they had negotiated in good faith but were unable to agree on the amount of attorney's fees which should be paid to Florida Cities. The parties stipulated and agreed that $74,648.14 is the appropriate lodestar figure. The parties were unable to agree, however, whether the lodestar figure should be adjusted in light of the "results obtained" by Florida Cities on appeal. Therefore, consistent with the order of remand from the First District Court, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the limited purpose of determining whether the agreed upon lodestar figure of $74,648.14 should be reduced based upon the "results obtained" by Florida Cities on appeal. The "Result Obtained" on Appeal. On appeal, Florida Cities argued that it was entitled to a total increase in its rate base of approximately 2.4 million dollars: (a) the 1.6 million dollars it expended to comply with DEP regulations; and (b) the $800,000.00 reduction in rate base which resulted from the PSC's modification of the Capacity Ratio. In effect, Florida Cities argued that it should be allowed to treat 100 percent of its recoverable costs as its rate base. As a result of the First District Court's decision and assuming a Capacity Ratio of 98.6 percent will be achieved, Florida Cities was successful on appeal in increasing its rate base by approximately 2.2 million dollars. Of this amount, approximately $879,000.00 was attributable to the First District Court's conclusion that the PSC had used the incorrect plant capacity. The remaining 1.3 million dollars was attributable to the First District Court's conclusion that the methodology used by the PSC to determine average annual daily flows was a policy change which was unsupported by the record. Had Florida Cities succeeded on both issues it raised on appeal, it would not have resulted in any appreciable increase in Florida Cities' rate base over the increase in rate base allowed by the First District Court. A utility plant cannot be treated as used and useful in excess of 100 percent of its costs. The two issues Florida Cities raised on appeal, at least as to the 1.6 million dollars it was required to expend to meet DEP regulations, were alternative theories for achieving the same result: total inclusion of the 1.6 million dollars in its rate base. Florida Cities contended that the 1.6 million dollars should have been included directly in its rate base because it was required to make the expenditure by a government agency. In the alternative, it argued that the Capacity Ratio used to determine the amount of recoverable costs considered used and useful should have been increased to 100 percent. This alternative argument would also have resulted in inclusion of the 1.6 million dollars in its rate base. Regardless of which argument was accepted by the First District Court or whether the First District Court had accepted both arguments, Florida Cities could not have achieved any substantially greater result than it did. As to the remaining $800,000.00 reduction in 1992 rate base, Florida Cities' argument concerning the direct inclusion of amounts required to be expended to comply with DEP regulations did not relate to this amount. Only Florida Cities' two-pronged argument concerning the Capacity Ratio supported Florida Cities' argument that its rate base should be increased by this amount. Florida Cities' arguments concerning this amount was successful. I. The Consequences of Florida Cities' Failure to Prevail on All Issues. Had Florida Cities prevailed in its contention that costs incurred as the result of meeting government requirements should be included directly in rate base, such a decision would have had significant consequences to most, if not all, utilities in Florida. Such a decision would also have probably had an impact on future rates approved for Florida Cities. Having failed to prevail on this issue, however, prevented the application of this theory by other utilities in Florida to the determination of their rate bases and to the determination of the appropriate rate base for Florida Cities in the future. The loss of the benefit to other utilities and Florida Cities in future rate cases, which would have occurred had Florida Cities prevailed, did not have any impact on the "results obtained" by Florida Cities in the immediate proceedings. While the failure of the argument and the avoidance of the impact on rate-making, which would have resulted had Florida Cities prevailed, was of great consequence to the PSC, the rejection of the argument by the First District Court did not reduce the result Florida Cities hoped to have obtained on appeal. J. Attorney's Fees and Costs of Proceedings Before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Florida Cities incurred attorney's fees and costs in the instant proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Florida Cities has sought recovery of those fees and costs. The parties have not agreed upon the appropriateness of the inclusion of such fees and costs. Mr. Schiefelbein acted as lead counsel during the attorney's fees phase of this matter. As of April 23, 1998, four days before the hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Cities had incurred the following attorney's fees during the attorney's fees phase of this matter: Attorney Hourly Rate Total Fees Mr. Schiefelbein $150.00 $6,135.00 Mr. Gatlin $175.00 490.00 Ms. Cowdery $150.00 37.50 Total $6,662.50 It was estimated that an additional 22 hours of Mr. Shiefelbein's time would result in an additional $3,300.00 of fees attributable to completion of the attorney's fees phase of this proceeding "through a Final Order of the Administrative Law Judge." This estimate was based upon 4 hours for witness preparation, 4 hours for other hearing preparation, 4 hours to attend the hearing, and 10 hours for review of the hearing transcript and submittal of a proposed order. The hourly rate charged by counsel for Florida Cities for the attorney's fees phase of this proceeding was reasonable and a combined total of 66 hours to complete this phase of the proceeding was a reasonable number of hours to pursue this matter. Mr. Melson, an expert witness for Florida Cities in this proceeding, charged $220.00 per hour for his preparation for and attendance at the hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Mr. Melson spent 2.6 hours preparing for the hearing and 2.5 hours attending the hearing. Mr. Melson's fee amounted to $1,122.00. Mr. Seidman, another expert witness for Florida Cities, charged an hourly rate of $90.00 and spent 20.75 hours in preparing for and attending the hearing. It was stipulated that Mr. Seidman's total fee of $1,867.50 was reasonable. Although Florida Cities did not argue that all fees and costs incurred by it during the attorney's fees phase of this proceeding should be recovered, it did seek recovery of the foregoing fees and costs. Those fees and costs totaled $12,952.00.
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(c) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA09-GM-231 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned designated Agency Clerk, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this ay of June, 2009. U.S. Mail: The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Robert Quintin Williams Williams, Smith & Summers 380 West Alfred Street Tavares, Florida 32778-3206 Hand Delivery Matthew Davis, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Agency Clerk LOB ge Viren Ford
The Issue Whether accounting fees charged in connection with petitioner's rate increase application should be included as rate case expense; and Whether anticipated accounting fees for "pass-through" rate increase requests should be included in annual operating expenses.
Findings Of Fact Accounting Fees as Part of Rate Case Expense At issue was whether Atlantis had substantiated the accounting fees it sought to include as rate case expense. Without objection, Atlantis agreed to submit a late-filed exhibit (P-2) itemizing the accounting tasks performed, the time required, and the fees charged. After reviewing that exhibit, the Commission agreed that the accounting fees were justified and should be included in rate case expenses. Consequently, operating expenses included in the Commission's proposed agency decision 2/ should be increased $2,659 for both water and sewer systems; this represents actual rate case expenses of $15,954 amortized over three years, allocated equally to each system. ($15,954/3 = $5,318/2 = $2,659.) (Testimony of Mitchell, Deterding; Commission's Recommended Order; P-2, R-1.) II. Accounting Fees for Projected "Pass-Through" Rate Increase Requests Atlantis is a small private utility providing water and sewer service to customers located in the City of Atlantis, Palm Beach County, Florida. On December 31, 1980, it had 893 residential- and 65 general-service water customers; 877 residential- and 28 general-service sewer customers. (Commission Order No. 10445.) The City of Lake Worth pumps Atlantis sewage effluent to the West Palm Beach regional sewer plant for treatment and disposal. The regional plant imposes a treatment charge which Lake Worth passes on to Atlantis. Twice a year the regional plant has increased its treatment charge to Lake Worth which, in turn, has passed on the increased costs to Atlantis. Such increases may be recovered by filing a "pass-through" rate increase request with the Commission. (Testimony of Mitchell, Deterding.) In the past, Atlantis employed a certified public accountant to assist in preparing "pass-through" rate increase requests. The accountant charged approximately $900 per "pass-through" request. He worked 25-30 hours per request at $36 per hour. Much of his time was spent preparing a billing analysis-- showing the number of bills rendered, cumulative gallons consumed, cumulative bills, and a consolidated factor. (Testimony of Mitchell, Neville.) Atlantis wishes to continue retaining the accountant for this purpose in the future by including $1,800 in operating expenses in anticipation of biannual "pass-through" rate increase requests. It contends that such an accounting expense is reasonable and necessary because of its limited staff: one full-time bookkeeper who handles billing and one part-time accountant who supervises daily office procedures and bookkeeping routines. The Commission contends that this anticipated accounting expense is unnecessary--that a "pass- through" rate increase request and the necessary documentation could easily be prepared by the staff bookkeeper. (Testimony of Mitchell, Neville, Deterding.) There is conflicting expert testimony on whether the preparation of such "pass-through" rate increase requests require the supervision and assistance of a certified public accountant. Phillip Mitchell, the accountant who performed this service for Atlantis in the past, testified that it is necessary; Floyd Deterding, the Commission's accountant, testified that it was not. Mr. Deterding's opinion is accepted as persuasive. Don Neville, the accountant who manages the daily affairs of Atlantis, testified that it would be much "easier" having Mr. Mitchell assist in preparing the "pass-through" requests; but he admitted that he thought the bookkeeper was competent enough to perform the work if Mr. Mitchell was unavailable. (Tr. 30.) Furthermore, a billing analysis (containing a consolidated factor and consumption by customer groups) is not a requirement for filing a "pass-through" request. The only items required are: A schedule of monthly charges for sewage treatment from governmental authority. A schedule of monthly gallons of purchased sewage treatment. A schedule of sewage treatment sold (billings to customers in gallons) by month. A schedule of the proposed rates which will pass the increased costs through, showing calculations thereof. A[n] affirmation from an officer that the increase will not cause the util- ity to overearn. A copy of the notice of the increase to customers. A certified copy of the letter, Order or Ordinance setting out the increased charges from the governmental authority. Finally, Mr. Mitchell was not a disinterested witness since--as the outside accountant--he stood to gain from including the $1,800 accounting fee in annual operating expenses. (Testimony of Neville, Deterding, Mitchell.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Atlantis to increase its water and sewer rates be granted, consistent with the Commission's proposed agency action dated December 9, 1981, and this recommended order. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of July, 1982, 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 2nd day of July, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a special taxing district providing fire protection and rescue services to the residents of the Estero area of Lee County. The fire station is located at 20241 Tamiami Trail, Estero, Florida. Petitioner employs 14 employees, including administrative staff and firefighters. The firefighters work 24 hours straight and then are off-duty for 48 hours. Two to four employees work each shift. Firefighting requires a fast response. Thus, Petitioner requires that on-duty firefighters remain at the station for their entire 24-hour shift, unless they are out fighting fires or performing rescue duties. The fire station contains an 8' x 13' bedroom with six mattresses located on three bunk beds. On-duty firefighters are allowed to bring pillows and sheets so they can sleep at the station while on duty. There are no dressers in the room, which contains small lockers that the firefighters may use to store a change of clothes. Petitioner provides kitchen facilities at the fire station and well water. The well water is used for washing equipment, taking showers, and flushing the toilet. The well water is not used for any other purposes, nor is it used by any other persons. Petitioner provides bottled water for drinking and cooking. All of the firefighters have residences apart from the fire station and within a reasonable commuting distance from the fire station. No firefighter has ever lived at the station. Petitioner does not charge, or reduce the pay of, the firefighters for their use of the limited sleeping facilities. Petitioner lawfully does not treat the use of the limited sleeping facilities by firefighters as gross income for the purposes of withholding federal income tax or making social security contributions. By letter dated July 18, 1995, Respondent informed Petitioner that the fire station's water system is a limited use community water system because the sleeping facilities constituted rental residences, as defined by Rule 10D- 4.024(21), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent advised Petitioner that it was therefore required to obtain a permit. As noted in the following section, the statute authorizes Respondent to regulate as limited use community public water systems those systems serving a certain number of "rental residences." The statute does not define "rental residence." In Rule 10D-4.024(21), Respondent defines a "rental residence" as follows: a dwelling unit, a structure or part of a structure that is rented for use, or furnished with or without rent as an incident of employ- ment, for use as a home, residence, sleeping place by one or more persons, a mobile home rented by a tenant. This term does not apply to facilities offering transient residency such as public lodging establishments. This term includes other facilities where residency or detention is incidental to the provision of medical, geriatric, educational, counseling, religious, or similar services. Respondent equated a "rental residence" with a "dwelling unit" when it based its definition of "rental residence" on the statutory definition of "dwelling unit" in Chapter 83, Part II, Florida Statutes, which is the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. A "dwelling unit" is a "residence." The American Heritage dictionary defines a "dwelling" as "a place to live in; residence; abode." Similarly, the same dictionary's first definition of "residence" is "the place in which one lives; a dwelling; an abode." But the statutory definition qualifies "residential" with "rental." The word "rental" requires consideration of the nature of the relationship of the occupant to the dwelling and its owner. Obviously, the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act addresses rental transactions, but it does not do so in the definition of "dwelling unit." Other provisions of the Act describe the kind of activity that must take place for a person to be considered a tenant renting a dwelling unit. Most importantly, Section 83.43(6) defines "rent" as "periodic payments due the landlord from the tenant for occupancy under a rental agreement " The facts of this case present a revealing illustration of the distinction between a "residence" or "dwelling unit," on the one hand, and a "rental residence," on the other hand. There is no rental relationship between the occupants of the sleeping quarters at the fire station and the residence or dwelling itself. The firefighters do not pay, directly or indirectly, for these beds or the rooms in which the beds are located. Their employer legitimately does not include the value of the use of these sleeping quarters in the compensation paid to the firefighters. The firefighters have residences within commuting distance of the fire station and use the meager sleeping quarters and kitchen facilities only because they are required to spend long hours continuously at the fire station.
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 The City has brought this action pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, challenging Rules 17-50.015(2)(f) and 17-50.016(2)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Section 120.56(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes any person substantially affected by a rule to seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The Department has stipulated to the City's standing to maintain this action. 4. Rules 17-50.015(2)(f) and 17-50.016(2)(f) were adopted by the Department pursuant to Sections 403.061, 403.101, 403.1823, 403.1832, 403.1838 and 403.804, Florida Statutes. No disputed issues of material fact exist between the parties.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a state agency whose primary purpose is to provide an adequate supply of potable water to the Florida Keys. To this end, it has acquired or constructed well fields, treatment plants, transmission pipelines, pumping stations, distribution pipelines, and other related facilities. Because of its exaggerated linear service area of 130 miles, it incurs high capital and operating costs. Chapter 76-441, Laws of Florida, Respondent's enabling act, confers upon Respondent the authority to impose the subject System Development Fee. Respondent imposed the subject System Development Fee, which is an impact fee, in December 1974. Respondent's Rule 48-3.002(1) expressed the purposes of the System Development Fee as follows: The System Development Fee is an impact fee charged to new and existing customers who modify, add or construct facilities which impose a potential increased demand on the water system. This fee is charged in order to equitably adjust the fiscal burden of a new pipeline and expanded or improved appurtenant facilities between existing customers and new water users. All system development fees are allocated to the direct and indirect costs of capital improvements made necessary by actual and expected increased demand on the water system. The term "unit" is a commonly accepted concept in the public utility industry, and impact fees are often assessed on a per "unit" basis. Respondent's Rule 48-3.002(5)(b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 5.(b) Where the premises served consists of single or multiple commercial units, the System Development Fee shall be assessed based on each individual unit. ... The term "unit", as used by Respondent is a technical term that is defined by Respondent's Rule 48-2.001(19) as follows: (19) "Unit" A unit is a commercial or residential module consisting of one or more rooms with either appurtenant or common bathroom facilities and used for a single commercial purpose or single residential use. The number of units existing in a structure containing multiple units should be determined in accordance with Rule 48-2.007(1)(c), which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: ... The number of units, whether residential or commercial, will normally be determined according to applicable city or county occupational licenses, building permits, or plans of the subject structure. In cases of discrepancy or inconsistency in definition, or interpretation, the following Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority definition will control: A unit is a commercial or residential module consisting of one or more rooms with either appurtenant or common bathroom facilities and used for a single commercial purpose or single residential purpose. Respondent is concerned with the potential use of a unit because its system must be designed by its engineers and constructed to respond to that potential use. The actual water consumption of any particular unit is not a primary consideration in determining the engineering requirements of Respondent's water system. Respondent has consistently applied the System Development Fee charges on a per unit basis for the purposes stated in its Rule 48-3.002(1). The "unit", as used by Respondent, provides a reasonable basis for Respondent to impose its System Development Fees. The per unit charge was $600 when first enacted in 1974, was increased to $1,500 in 1984, and was increased to its present level of $2,000 in 1986. A widely publicized amnesty program was in effect from August 1, 1984 through October 1, 1984, during which customers who had added units to their property without reporting same to Respondent could report the units and pay the System Development Fee on an installment basis. Customers were advised that after the amnesty program closed, the System Development Fee would be based on rates in effect at the time an unreported unit was discovered, not at the rate the unreported unit was constructed. This policy serves to encourage Respondent's customers to promptly report newly added "units", and the policy produces fees commensurate with the expenses to be incurred by Respondent after it learns of the new units. On April 11, 1978, Robert Ford, as owner, submitted an application for water services with Respondent for residential premises located at 1024 Eaton Street, Key West, Florida. The application, which was accepted by Respondent on April 11, 1978, contained the following provision: "Where System Development Charges are applied, all conditions apply as authorized in the Customer Service Policy Booklet". Petitioner changed the use of this property from residential to commercial during the time he owned the property. At the time he bought the property in 1975, it was a large, single family residence containing eight bedrooms. Mr. Ford changed the use of the property from a residence that housed a single family to a guest house that rented its rooms on a daily or weekly basis to tourists or other members of the public. He added four bedrooms to the eight bedrooms that existed when he purchased the premises so that a total of twelve guest rooms were available to rent. There were no substantial changes made to the plumbing system; no bathrooms were added and no water pipes were enlarged. No structural changes, other than the changing of the locks on the doors, were made by Mr. Ford to the eight bedrooms that existed when he purchased the property. There was no evidence that actual water consumption for the premises had increased because of the change in usage. Respondent first learned in the changes Mr. Ford made to the premises at 1024 Eaton Street in 1989. Thereafter, Respondent issued the subject System Development Charge based on its determination that Petitioner had added 11 units to the one existing unit, for a total of 12 units. The assessment was based on the rate of $2,000 per unit, the rate in effect at the time the changes were discovered. Petitioner agreed to pay the System Development Fee for the four bedrooms that he added to the residence. Petitioner did not contest the reasonableness of the fee currently being charged by Respondent ($2,000 per unit), but he did challenge the imposition of the current rate to the changes he made to the premises located at 1024 Eaton Street because those changes predated 1986, when the $2,000 per unit rate went into effect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order which upholds the assessment against Petitioner of the System Development Fee based on 11 additional units at the rate of $2,000 per unit. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1-4 and 7-10 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence since four bedrooms were added to the premises. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact relating to occupancy levels are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12-14 and 16-17 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence and because of the failure to provide pertinent citations to the record as required by Rule 22I-6.031(3), Florida Administrative Code. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached, but are treated as a preliminary matter. The respective paragraphs in the Findings of Fact section of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order were not numbered. For ease of reference, these paragraphs have been numbered 1-10 sequentially. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 7 and 10 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the fifth and sixth sentences of paragraph 2 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 4 and 9 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 5 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected as being an incomplete statement. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Galetti, Esquire 616 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Robert T. Feldman, Esquire Feldman and Koenig, P.A. 417 Eaton Street Key West, Florida 33040 Floyd A. Hennen, Esquire General Counsel Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 1100 Kennedy Drive Key West, Florida 33041-1239 Douglas M. Cook, Director Planning & Budgeting Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue Whether Petitioner North Fort Myers Homeowners Association, Inc. (Homeowners) participated in DOAH Case No. 91-6436 for an improper purpose.
Findings Of Fact On September 11, 1991, Homeowners filed its Petition for Administrative Hearing and Request to Consolidate with Administrative Hearing set for November 7, 1991. The Petition alleged that Homeowners' interests would be adversely affected by Bradley's request for a permit for construction of a wastewater collection system that it planned to connect to Florida Cities Water Company's Sewage Treatment Plant. It was further alleged that Florida Cities current violations of federal water quality standards would increase as a result of such a connection. Bradley responded to the Petition by filing a Motion to Dismiss for failure to State a Claim/Or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. On October 31, 1991, Hearing Officer Quattlebaum granted Bradley's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Hearing Officer found that the Petition did not allege that the application for a wastewater collection system permit failed to comply with the agency's relevant rules and criteria. The Hearing Officer also ruled that the Petition did not identify when such criteria would be unmet by the project. Homeowners was given leave of ten days to file an Amended Petition. Homeowners timely filed its Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing on November 13, 1991. This Amended Petition continued to focus upon whether Bradley's wastewater collection system should connect to Florida Cities Water Company's Sewage Treatment Plant and the federal water quality issue as it relates to discharge after treatment. After Bradley filed its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Petition and Homeowners replied, Hearing Officer Quattlebaum entered a Recommended Order of Dismissal on December 12, 1991. The basis for the recommendation was that Homeowners had "failed to allege that the application for permit failed to comply with the relevant criteria as set forth in statute and rule which govern issuance of the permit." The Temporary Operating Permit under which Florida Cities was operating expressly allowed Bradley's wastewater collection system to connect to the sewage treatment plant upon satisfaction of the Department's permitting requirements for such a collection system. Homeowners lost its opportunity to address whether such a connection was proper when it failed to timely challenge this Temporary Operating Permit. The only agency action subject to challenge in this case was whether Bradley's application to construct the wastewater collection system complied with the Department's permitting requirements for the system. Florida Cities anticipated actions were irrelevant to this particular proceeding because final agency action had already been taken on the question of whether the connection could take place. Throughout this proceeding, Homeowners failed to comprehend that it had waived its opportunity to pursue a challenge to the connection of Bradley's wastewater collection system to the sewage treatment plant when it did not timely challenge Florida Cities' Temporary Operating Permit. The Order granting Bradley's Motion to Dismiss dated October 31, 1991, did not affirmatively set forth that the connection issue could not be pursued in DOAH Case No. 91-6436. Homeowners' lack of comprehension on this issue remains evident in the Amended Petition, the Motion for Reconsideration filed after the Recommended Order of Dismissal, the Response to the Motion for Attorney's Fees and the testimony presented at hearing. Lack of comprehension is a neutral condition which neither proves nor disproves that the Petition and Amended Petition were filed for improper purposes, as defined by Subsection 120.59(6)(e), Florida Statutes. No direct evidence of Homeowners' participation in the proceeding for an improper purpose was established at hearing. The attorney for Homeowners at the time the Petition and Amended Petition were filed denied that Homeowners was motivated by an improper purpose. It was seeking to protect water quality in its locale and to assure the local sewer treatment system is adequate. There was no evidence presented as to whether Homeowners has participated in other such proceedings involving Bradley and the same project for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Supplemental Final Order denying Bradley's request for attorney's fees and costs as Homeowners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose as defined by Subsection 120.59(6)(e), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-6436 Homeowners' proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See separate order on that issue. Rejected. Pleading amended accordingly. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See Preliminary Statement. The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO #1. 3. Accepted. See HO #2. 4. Accepted. See HO #3. 5. Accepted. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted. See HO #4. 8. Accepted. See HO #4. 9. Accepted. See HO #5. 10. Accepted. See HO #6. 11. Accepted. 12. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #7 - HO #13. Bradley's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #7 and HO #8. Accept that Homeowners failed to present any justifiable issue of law or fact that could be heard in relation to this permit. See HO #7 - HO #9. COPIES FURNISHED: HAROLD M STEVENS ESQ PO DRAWER 1440 FT MYERS FL 33902 FRANCINE FFOLKES ESQ ASST GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 GERI L WAKSLER ESQ PEPER MARTIN JENSEN MAICHEL & HETLAGE 2000 MAIN ST - STE 600 FT MYERS FL 33901 DANIEL H THOMPSON ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 CAROL BROWNER, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400
