The Issue Whether Petitioner's application to increaseits water and sewer rates to its customers in Seminole County should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, including consideration of the demeanor and credibility of witnesses, the following facts are determined: I. Application and Retroactive Implementation of Interim Rate Increase By its application, the UTILITY, seeks to increase its water revenue to $158,890, and its sewer revenue to $83,830, by increasing service rates to its customers in Winter Springs, Seminole County, Florida. During the test year ending September 30, 1979, the UTILITY suffered combined losses from its water and sewer operation of $420,692. This is the first rate increase requested by the UTILITY since its inception in 1973. On April 24, 1980, the COMMISSION issued Order No. 9344 which suspended the UTILITY's proposed rate increases but granted it an interim increase under bond. The UTILITY was directed to file revised tariff pages containing residential and general service rates which would allow it to earn total annual gross revenue for water service of $139,277 and total annual gross revenues for sewer service of $83,830. The Order also stated: ". . .that the rate increase contained herein shall become effective for all bills on or after thirty (30) days after the date of this order. . . (Testimony of Blair, Fabelo; P.E. 1, 2, R.E. 3.) The UTILITY implemented the interim rate increase, within its normal billing cycle, on the June 2, 1980, water and sewer service bills. However, these bills were based on meter readings taken on May 10, 1980, for service provided from April 10 to May 10, 1980. Thus, the UTILITY increased its rates to its customers fourteen (14) days prior to April 24, 1980, the effective date of the COMMISSION's order authorizing such increase. The UTILITY's action was, however, taken in good faith, and based on a COMMISSION staff member's representation that the interim rates could properly be included in the June billing. The amount of revenues received from the interim rate increase and collected prior to the effective date of Order No. 9344 is approximately $8,700. (Testimony of Fabelo, Blair; P.E. 1, R.E. 3.) However innocently imposed, the UTILITY's action constitutes improper retroactive ratemaking. The UTILITY should refund to customers of record during the period in question their pro-rata share of revenues collected by the retroactive rate increase. The amount of each refund will depend on the amount of water consumed and paid for during the period of retroactive rates-- approximately April 10 through April 24, 1980. The UTILITY may minimize costs by distributing the refunds as separately itemized credits on its regular service bills. (Testimony of Fabelo; R.E. 3.) II. Factors Relevant to Ratemaking In determining whether a rate increase is justified, the COMMISSION must consider several factors, including (1) quality of service, (2) rate base, (3) a fair rate of return on the utility's investment, and (4) operation and maintenance expenses; each is separately addressed below. (Testimony of Asmus, Lowe.) III. Quality of Service During 1979, several customers of the UTILITY experienced occasional low water pressure in their homes. It is likely that these water pressure problems were caused by fluctuating amounts of electricity supplied the UTILITY by Florida Power Corporation. The UTILITY has recently installed an electronic control panel and Florida Power has installed a direct transmission line to the UTILITY in order to prevent this from reoccurring in the future. Several times during 1980, the UTILITY had its water service interrupted due to a cable-TV company cutting its water lines while laying cable; repairs, however, were quickly made. Few customer complaints have been made to regulatory agencies concerning the quality of the water and sewer service provided by the UTILITY: one complaint on water service was made to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation in 1979, and subsequently determined to he unfounded; no complaints were made to the Department concerning sewer service. Although several customers testified that the water sometimes caused irritation, tests show that the water meets Florida and federal safe drinking water standards. The sewage treatment provided by the UTILITY also complies with state and federal requirements. The water and sewer service is, therefore, determined to he of satisfactory quality. (Testimony of Blair, Bostwick, Customers.) IV. Rate Base A regulated utility is entitled to an opportunity to earn a fair rate of return on its investment in plants and facilities which are used and useful in providing water and sewer service to the public. The utility investment is referred to as "rate base". Here, the average water and sewer rate base for the UTILITY's test year ending September 30, 1979, is calculated as follows: AVERAGE RATE BASE WATER SEWER Utility Plant in Service $847,287 2/ $1,218,363 Utility Plant held for Future Use (271,153) (608,476) Accumulated Depreciation (82,099) (97,306) Contributions in Aid of Construction (183,749) 3/ (178,456) 3/ (CIAC)--Net Allowance for Working Capital 11,983 4/ 11,851 TOTAL RATE BASE $322,627 $ 354,433 (Testimony of Blair, Asmus, Heiker, Lowe; Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Pg. 3; P.E. 4, R.E. 2.) V. Rate of Return A fair rate of return is the percentage factor that, when multiplied by the rate base, produces revenue that will pay the costs of capital--interest on debt to lenders, and return on equity to stockholders. In this case, after considering the UTILITY's capital structure and that of its parent company, Gulfstream Land and Development Corporation, the parties stipulated that a fair rate of return is determined to be 12.40 percent, and is calculated: COST OF CAPITAL Test Year Ending September 30, 1979 COMPONENT RATIO COST RATE WEIGHTED COST Common Equity 33.3 percent 15.50 percent 5.16 percent Long-Term Debt 53.0 13.67 7.24 Cost-Free Capital 13.7 -0- -0- TOTAL 100.0 percent Midpoint 12.40 percent (Testimony of Lowe, Asmus; Joint Stipulation of Parties, Joint Exhibit 2; P.E. 10.) VI. Operations and Maintenance Expenses The adjusted operation and maintenance expenses, including depreciation and taxes, of the UTILITY for the test year are set out below: CONSTRUCTED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS Test Year Ending September 30, 1979 WATER SEWER Operating Revenues: $160,531 5/ $83,830 5/ Operating Expenses: Operation 84,275 6/ 90,480 7/ Maintenance 11,586 4,324 Depreciation 12,219 16,014 Taxes Other than Income Tax 7,330 8/ 4,581 8/ Provision for Income Taxes 9,786 9/ -0- TOTAL EXPENSES $125,196 $115,399 Operating Income (Loss): $35,334 ($31,569) (Testimony of Asmus, Lowe; COMMISSION's Proposed Findings of Fact; P.E. 10, R.E. 1.) The depreciation expense indicated above includes an adjustment of $2,015 (water) and $6,788 (sewer) proposed by the UTILITY as a result of a rate base adjustment which properly reclassified plant balances to their proper month. The UTILITY had inadvertently posted plant additions to a year-end entry, rather than to the months the additions were completed. At hearing, the COMMISSION agreed to the rate base adjustment and agreed, "in principle", to the UTILITY's proposed correlative adjustment to depreciation expense. However, in its posthearing Proposed Findings of Fact, the COMMISSION's counsel disputed the UTILITY's adjustment, and offered a substitute adjustment: ". . .However, in actual calculation, the. . . [COMMISSION] disagrees. The utility's adjustment does not consider used and useful as applied to the expense. In addition, the. . . [UTILITY's] adjustment includes expense on pro-forma plant. The. . .[COMMISSION's] calculation considers these adjustments. (Pg. 4, Paragraph D.) Because factual issues are difficult to resolve by posthearing submittal, evidence should be presented at hearing, where it is subject to cross- examination and rebuttal. At hearing, the COMMISSION did not object to the depreciation expense adjustment presented by the UTILITY; neither did it cross- examine to elicit the method used for its calculation nor move for a continuance based on surprise or inability to adequately verify the UTILITY's figures. Rather, it chose to defer examination of and rebuttal to the UTILITY's evidence until after the conclusion of hearing. Under such circumstances, the COMMISSION's posthearing submittal is insufficient to overcome the competent evidence adduced by the UTILITY. (Testimony of Asmus, Lowe; Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact, Pg. 3, 4; P.E. 10.) VII. Tariff Modifications By its application, the UTILITY also requested COMMISSION approval of proposed water and sewer tariff modifications. By stipulation of the parties, the following modifications to the UTILITY's tariffs are warranted: The initial connection charge and reconnect charge on delinquent accounts is TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) during working hours and FIFTEEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($15.00) after working hours. Customer deposit shall be FIFTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($50.00) for both water and sewer service and TWENTY-FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($25.00) for either water service alone or sewer service alone. Customer deposits may be increased to the foregoing sums on delinquent accounts after giving thirty (30) days' written notice, which notice shall be separate and apart from any bill for service. (Testimony of Fabelo; Prehearing Stipulation; P.E. 1, R.E. 3.) VIII. Rates The UTILITY seeks, and the COMMISSION recommends approval of these specific rates and charges: WATER RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES Base facility charge per month based on meter sizes for zero consumption. METER SIZE 5/8" x 3/4" $ 5.00 1" 12.50 1-1/2" 25.00 2" 40.00 Gallonage Charge-Per 1,000 gallons .75 General Service Base Facility charge per month based on meter sizes for zero consumption. METER SIZE 5/8" x 3/4" $ 5.00 1" 12.50 1-1/2" 25.00 2" 40.00 3" 80.00 4" 125.00 Gallonage Charge-Per 1,000 gallons .75 SEWER RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES Base facility charge per month $ 5.00 First 10,000 gallons-Per 1,000 gallons .75 Over 10,000 gallons-Monthly flat rate 12.50 General Service Base facility charge per month based on motor size for zero consumption. METER SIZE 5/8" x 3/4" 5.00 1" 12.50 1-1/2" 25.00 2" 40.00 3" 80.00 4" 125.00 Gallonage Charge-Per 1,000 gallons .75 These requested rates are structured using a base facility charge (BFC) rate design. This rate design requires customers to pay: (1) their pro-rata share of the UTILITY's fixed facility costs, and (2) a charge for pumping, treating, and delivering the actual water gallonage consumed, by 1,000 gallon increments; it equally distributes the costs of providing utility service and the COMMISSION encourages its use. (Testimony of Fabelo; Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact; P.E. 1, P.E. 3.) These rates proposed by the UTILITY will generate water revenues of $158,890 and sewer revenues of $58,865, which provide a rate of return on water rate base of 10.52 percent, and a zero return on sewer rate base. Combined water and sewer operations will earn a rate of return of .35 percent, whereas a fair rate of return in this case has been stipulated to be 12.40 percent. Although the proposed rates will not provide the UTILITY with a fair return, the quality of its present water and sewer service will not suffer, or be decreased in any manner. (Testimony of Blair, Asmus; P.E. 10.)
Conclusions The water and sewer rate increases and tariff modifications requested by Petitioner are just, reasonable, not unjustly discriminatory, and should be granted. Although the rates will provide less than a fair return, it has not been shown that Petitioner's service will suffer. Petitioner's collection of interim rate increases from its customers prior to the effective date of Order No. 9344 violates Section 367.081(1), Florida Statutes (1979); all revenue so collected should be refunded to its customers. Revised tariff pages should be filed, a letter explaining the rate increases should be sent to Petitioner's customers, and the Petitioner's letter of credit, returned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the UTILITY's application for approval of the rates specified in Paragraph 11, infra, be granted; That the UTILITY be required to submit, for COMMISSION approval, revised tariff pages containing the new rates and rate structure; That the UTILITY be required to send to its customers a letter, approved in form by the COMMISSION, explaining the rate increases and reasons therefore; That the irrevocable letter of intent drawn on the Pan American Bank, dated May 3, 1980, be returned to the UTILITY and the bank releaned thereafter; That the tariff modifications contained in Paragraph 10, infra, be approved; and That the UTILITY be required to expeditiously refund to its customers the interim rate increases collected prior to the effective date of PSC Order No. 9344. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for a variance from agency rules governing daily domestic sewage flow so as to authorize an increase in the number of seats for his restaurant located in Howey in the Hills, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Fletcher C. Bishop, Jr., is the owner of a parcel of property located at Lot 22, Block C-2, Lakeshore Heights Subdivision, 102 South Palm Avenue, Howey in the Hills, Florida. The property consists of .0946 acre, or approximately one-tenth of an acre, and is one of several parcels located in Block C-2. Since January 1997, the property has been leased to Robert P. Jencic, who now operates a pizza restaurant on the premises known as Hungry Howies Pizza Shop. According to Jencic, he has a contract to purchase the property from Bishop at the end of his lease, or on March 1, 1998. Whether the property was actually purchased by Jencic on that date is not of record. Lakeshore Heights Subdivision is not served by a central wastewater treatment system; rather, each lot is served by a septic tank and drainfield system. Lot 22 adjoins several other commercial or business establishments situated on Lots 20, 21, 23, and 23A in the western half of Block C-2, and all share a common drainfield easement located to the rear of the lots. Except for Lot 20, all lots have tied into the drainfield and now use the easement for waste disposal purposes. Because they share a common easement, each lot has been allocated a portion of the easement for its respective septic tank and drainfield. In Petitioner's case, he has been allocated approximately 990 square feet. After Jencic signed a commitment in January 1997 to lease and purchase the property, he made extensive renovations in order to convert the property to a restaurant. On or about February 20, 1997, Jencic met with a representative of the Lake County Health Department, an agency under the direction and control of Respondent, Department of Health (Department). At that time, Jencic filed an application for a site evaluation concerning the replacement of the existing onsite sewage disposal system. The application noted that he intended to operate a pizza restaurant with 56 proposed seats. On February 21, 1997, a site evaluation was conducted by Robin Gutting, a Lake County Department of Health environmental supervisor. According to her report [t]he property size of 4120 square feet with available central water will allow a maximum 236 gallons of sewage flow per day . . . This will allow a 12 seat restaurant using single service articles and operating less than 16 hours per day. . . The size of the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System would be a minimum 900 gallon tank with 197 square feet of drainfield trench configuration. (emphasis added) Jancic received a copy of the report on or about March 12, 1997, and it clearly conveyed to him the fact that he could operate no more than 12 seats in his restaurant due to sewage flow limitations on his property. Despite being on notice that the restaurant would be limited to only 12 seats due to the lot flow restrictions, on March 19, 1997, Jencic filed an application with the Lake County Health Department for a construction permit to replace the existing septic tank with a 900 gallon septic tank, install a 900 gallon grease trap, and utilize a 197 square-foot primary drainfield and a 200 square-foot bed system. The application indicated that Jencic intended to operate a restaurant "for 12 seats, single service, open less than 16 hours per day." On May 28, 1997, Jencic's application was approved for "12 seats, single service, open less than 16 hours per day." After installing the new tank and grease trap, Jencic began restaurant operations subject to the above restrictions. After operating his pizza restaurant for a short period of time, Jencic determined that he could generate a profit only if the restaurant could be expanded to allow more seats, and he could use china and silverware (full service articles) rather than single service articles (throwaway utensils). To do this, however, he would need a larger sewage treatment system. By letter dated November 9, 1997, Jencic requested a variance from various Department standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems so as to "increase the seating from 12 seats to a maximum of 36 seats and [authorize] the use of china, silverware, and dishes." Although the letter does not refer to any rules, the Department has treated the letter as seeking a variance from three of its rules found in Part I, Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. First, Rule 64E-6.001(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides that an establishment cannot exceed the lot flow allowances authorized under Rule 64E-6.005(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code. If the seating capacity in the restaurant were increased, Jencic would exceed the lot flow allowances in violation of this rule. Second, Rule 64E-6.005(7)(b), Florida Administrative Code, prescribes the manner in which a determination of lot densities shall be made. Among other things, daily sewage flow cannot exceed an average of 2,500 gallons per day per acre. The easement which Petitioner shares with other lots is far less than an acre, even counting the space allocated to the adjoining lots. Finally, Rule 64E-6.008(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that minimum design flows for systems serving a structure shall be based on the estimated daily sewage flow as determined by Table I of the rule. That table specifies an estimated daily sewage flow of 20 gallons per seat for restaurants using single service articles only and operating less than 16 hours per day. Therefore, a 12-seat restaurant with those operating characteristics would require a system that could handle at least 240 gallons of sewage flow per day. The table further provides that a restaurant operating 16 hours or less per day with full service will generate an estimated sewage flow of 40 gallons per seat. Thus, a restaurant with up to 36 seats, as Jencic has requested, would require a system handling at least 1,440 gallons of sewage flow per day. In order to qualify for a variance, an applicant must show that (a) the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant; (b) no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage; and (c) the discharge from the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. In its letter denying the variance, the Department asserts that Jancic has failed to show that items (a) and (c) have been satisfied. Jencic, who recently immigrated to this country, will suffer considerable financial hardship if the request for a variance is denied. Indeed, he demonstrated at hearing that his life savings have been invested in the restaurant, and his parents have placed a substantial mortgage on their property to assist him in his endeavor. If he does not purchase the property as required by his contract, he will be forced to restore the property to its original condition at great expense. In short, given his investment in renovations and equipment, unless the restaurant is expanded, he fears he must file for bankruptcy. Both parties agree that Jancic will suffer a hardship if the variance is not approved. However, Jancic was aware of the lot flow limitations before he made application to replace the existing septic tank in March 1997, and well before he began operating the restaurant in May 1997. Unfortunately, then, it must be found that the hardship was intentionally created by Jencic's own actions. If the variance were approved, it would result in a much larger amount of sewage being discharged into the easement, which could not handle that amount of flow. This in turn could cause the system to fail, thus creating a sanitary nuisance and the leaching of sewage into the groundwater. In this respect, Jancic has failed to show that the discharge will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. Jencic offered into evidence a summary of his water usage during a representative period in 1997. That document indicated that metered water usage was approximately 3,000 to 4,000 gallons per month, even when he temporarily (and without authority) expanded his restaurant to 24 seats during a recent two-month period to test water consumption at the higher seating capacity. However, because the sewage strength of a restaurant is far greater than that of a residence, a sewage system must be sized on estimated waste flow, and not metered water flow rates. Therefore, the fact that Jancic's monthly metered water usage is less than 4,000 gallons is not relevant to a determination of the issues. The same finding must be made with respect to Jancic's well-intentioned efforts to decrease water flow by installing high pressure toilets and timed spring systems on his hand sinks. Jencic also requested that he be allowed "spike time" during the hours of 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., which are his peak hours of the day. In other words, the undersigned assumes that he is asking that consideration be given to the fact that he has virtually no business during the other hours of the working day, and that the flow during the peak hours alone would not be excessive on a daily basis. However, the Department's rules are calculated to maximum usage, and thus a "spike" allowance is not allowed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a variance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert P. Jencic 102 South Palm Avenue Howey in the Hills, Florida 34737 Marya Reynolds Latson, Esquire Post Office Box 2408 Ocala, Florida 34478 James Hardin Peterson, III, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully denied general permits to construct an extension to a public water supply distribution system and to construct a waste water treatment system at a camp being constructed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On December 11, 1991, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), Ft. Myers office, received applications from the Orange Blossom Baptist Association, Petitioner, submitted by its project engineer, for general permits to install an extension to provide water to, and construct a waste water treatment facility for, a camp being built by Petitioner. These applications were reviewed by the Respondent, and on January 2, 1992, James Oni telephoned Petitioner's engineer to tell him the applications were incomplete and additional information was required. Some of this additional information was submitted by Petitioner on January 7, 1992, but the word "vertical" was left out of the application to indicate what the 18 inch separation of the water and sewer lines represented; no pump out was provided for the lift station; the flotation formula as submitted contained a typographical error where an "s" was substituted for a "5", leaving the calculation of storage capacity of the system indeterminable; the lift station was only 4.5 feet deep and should normally be 10 feet; the configuration of the sump to insure solids would settle to the bottom was not provided, nor was the amount of concrete to be used to obtain this configuration shown; and the type of equipment to be used was not clearly shown. In summary, when submitted the application was not technically correct, and it remained technically incorrect after the additional information was submitted by the applicant. General permits are required to be processed by DER within 30 days of their receipt, and if not denied within that 30 day period they must be approved regardless of their compliance with the statutes and regulations.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying Orange Blossom Baptist Association general permits to install a waste water treatment facility and to construct an extension to a public water supply distribution system in Highlands County, Florida. ORDERED this 6th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: William N. Clark, P.E. 233 E. Park Avenue Lake Wales, FL 33853 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Whether, and to what extent, Magnolia Valley Services, Inc., should be allowed to increase its water and sewer service rates.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: I. The Application By application filed on August 14, 1980, APPLICANT sought authority to increase its water and sewer rates, on an interim and permanent basis, in amounts sufficient to produce $60,847 in annual gross water revenues, and $100,768 in sewer revenues. By Order No. 9571 dated September 30, 1980, the COMMISSION authorized an interim sewer revenue increase, under bond, of $8,205, and denied an interim increase in water revenues. The COMMISSION has approved APPLICANT's use of a test year ending December 31, 1979. At hearing, the APPLICANT amended its application by reducing its requested water revenues to $50,287, and increasing requested sewer revenues to $101,522. (Testimony of Gregg, Prehearing Statement; P-4.) II. Depreciation Rate Depreciation is a method of allocating the cost of fixed assets to their estimated useful life. As an above-the-line operating expense, it affects a utility's net operating income; by its impact on accumulated depreciation of plant-in-service and accumulated amortization of contributions-in-aid-of- construction, it also effects calculation of rate base. (Testimony of Walker, Gregg; P-3, R-1.) The COMMISSION has promulgated no rules as guidelines which establish generally, or in particular, the useful life of utility assets or the method by which their depreciation should be calculated. In practice, however, it has allowed utilities to apply a straight-line 2.5 percent depreciation rate and a 40-year useful life to all depreciable assets. Any deviation from this 2.5 percent across-the-board rate must be justified by the utility. (Testimony of Heiker.) Here, the APPLICANT proposes depreciation rates which vary according to the estimated useful life of the plant or equipment involved. In contends that its shorter estimates of useful life of specific assets reflect reality and actual experience more accurately than an across-the-board 40-year life standard. For example, rate meters are routinely replaced on a 20-year basis and lack of reserve capacity and changing voltages have substantially reduced the expected life of electrical motors and equipment. The APPLICANT's estimates of useful life were established by the opinion of a utility consultant and engineer whose qualifications went unchallenged by the COMMISSION; no competent evidence was offered to discredit or rebut his conclusions. The COMMISSION's engineer candidly admitted that depreciation "is really a nebulous thing," (Tr. 64) and declined to assert that the APPLICANT's depreciation schedules were erroneous. (Tr. 69.) The COMMISSION disputed the APPLICANT's depreciation schedules by referring to an unpublished 1973 staff memorandum retained at the agency's offices and not produced at hearing. That memorandum purportedly adopted 1973 depreciation rates developed by the American Water Works Association. Upon motion of APPLICANT, testimony concerning the contents of that memorandum was subsequently stricken. The COMMISSION engineer also testified that he was unfamiliar, even generally, with how the American Water Works Association's depreciation rates were derived. In light of the quality of the evidence presented of record, the APPLICANT's depreciation rates (including estimated useful life) are accepted as persuasive. (Testimony of Heiker, Gregg; P-1, P-3.) III. Attrition Allowance The APPLICANT seeks to include in operating expenses an attrition allowance of $1,992 for water and $8,161 for sewer operations based on alleged attrition it experienced between 1975 and 1979. It defines attrition as increased annual expenses which cannot be recovered at the time they are incurred. The COMMISSION opposes the requested attrition allowance on the grounds that: (1) the attrition study performed by the APPLICANT is unreliable, and (2) that the recent enactment of Section 367.081(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), which allows the passing through of certain increased expenses to customers, eliminates the need for a special attrition allowance. (Testimony of Gregg, Walker; P-2.) The COMMISSION's position is well taken. First, a major portion of the cost increases experienced by the APPLICANT in the past will be able to be passed through to its customers pursuant to Section 367.081, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980). 2/ Those costs include increased power costs and ad valorem taxes. The APPLICANT responds that Section 367.081(4), supra, will not enable it to fully recover increasing expenses when they occur because rates may be adjusted, based on increased operating costs, not more than twice a year. Section 367.081(4)(e), supra. However, this new law should be implemented before it is pronounced inadequate to fulfill its purpose. Experience may show that major costs increase sporadically, or at predictable cycles, which facilitate carefully timed rate increases under Section 367.081(4), and that two such increases a year may prove fully adequate. (Testimony of Gregg, Walker; P- 2, R-1.) Secondly, the attrition study (P-2) submitted by the APPLICANT does not reasonably justify, or provide a reliable basis for projecting an attrition rate into the future. The 1975-1979 historical cost increases have not occurred at a constant rate. The 1979 increase in water operation costs was less than one- half of the average increase experienced between 1975 and 1979; in sewer operations, the 1979 cost increases were less than one-third of the four-year average. Moreover, a major factor in increased sewer costs was the 1978 conversion to a spray irrigation, total retention, sewage treatment system. Since this system meets the 1983 federal Clean Water Act standard of no- discharge, it is unlikely that increased operational costs relating to treatment changes will continue to occur. In short, the 1975-1979 historical cost increases of APPLICANT have been sporadic and do not support an assumption that they will continue to occur at the same rate. To include an attrition allowance based on such an assumption would be unwarranted. (Testimony of Gregg, Walker; P-2, R-1.) IV. Allowance of an Undocumented Operating Charge The APPLICANT proposed a $600 sewer expense item which was opposed by the COMMISSION because of lack of documentation. In response, the APPLICANT submitted--immediately prior to hearing--a cancelled check in the amount of $1,000. The discrepancy between the two amounts remains unexplained. Such action falls short of providing adequate documentation, and the proposed $600 sewer expense item must therefore be rejected. See, 25-10.77, FAC. V. Elements of Ratemaking and Applicant's Gross Revenue Requirements The parties agree: (1) that 14.5 percent is a fair and reasonable rate of return on rate base and reflects the actual cost of capital to APPLICANT; that the new rates should be designed in accordance with the base facility design concept, and that the quality of APPLICANT's water and sewer service is satisfactory. The remaining elements of ratemaking--rate base and net operating income--are not in dispute, and are depicted below: 3/ RATE BASE Test Year Ended 12/31/79 Water Sewer Plant in Service Accumulated $269,887 $511,200 Depreciation $(37,384) 4/ $(54,685) Net Plant $232,503 $456,515 Contributions in Aid of Construction (179,251) (360,055) Accumulated Amortization 22,421 Net Contributions in Aid of 4/ 41,231 4/ Construction (156,830) (318,824) Working Capital 3,515 7,082 TOTAL $ 79,188 $144,773 OPERATING STATEMENT Test Year Ended 12/31/79 Water Sewer Operating Revenues $53,300 $72,608 Operating Expenses: Operations 25,552 45,353 Depreciation 3,848 5/ 4,876 5/ Maintenance 2,572 6/ 11,306 6/ Amortization 1,439 Taxes Other Than Income 4,654 7/ 8,338 7/ TOTAL Operating Expenses $36,626 $71,312 Net Operating Income$16,674 $ 1,296 By applying a 14.5 percent rate of return against a rate base Of $79,188 for water and $144,773 for sewer, it is concluded that the APPLICANT should be allowed an opportunity to earn a return, or net operating income of $11,482 for water and $20,992 for sewer. Annual gross revenues of $48,108 (water) and $92,304 (sewer) are required to produce such a return--resulting in a net annual reduction of water revenues of $5,192 and a net increase of $19,696 in sewer revenues. VI. Interruption of Service Treatment Without Advance Notice Although the overall quality of its service has been adequate, infra, the APPLICANT has unnecessarily inconvenienced customers by interrupting water service without advance notice. These interruptions were planned in advance and not made on an emergency basis. The APPLICANT failed to adequately explain or excuse its failure to give timely notice. (Testimony of Pepper.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Magnolia Valley Services, Inc., be authorized to file new rates structured on the base facility charge concept and designed to generate gross annual revenues of $48,108 for water operations and $92,304 for sewer operations, based on the average number of customers served during the test year. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be directed to strictly comply in the future with Section 25-10.56, Florida Administrative Code, by giving advance notice of service interruptions which are not emergency in nature. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1981.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent's facility is a public water system subject to regulation by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) pursuant to Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, or whether it is exempt from those regulations by virtue of Rule 17-22.102 if the facility is subject to regulation by DER, whether Respondent should take the corrective actions set forth in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action and should pay DER's expenses incurred in the pursuit of this case. DER presented the testimony of Cliff McKeown, a potable water engineer, and Linda Frohock, planning manager for the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). DER had Exhibits 1-4 admitted into evidence. Respondent, Lex Thompson, presented his own testimony and that of Hugh Kelly. The parties have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. They have been considered and a ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact DER is the Florida administrative agency which has the authority to administer and enforce the provisions of the Florida Safe Water Drinking Act, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent is a natural person and citizen of the State of Florida. Respondent owns and is responsible for the construction of a potable water distribution main extension ("the facility") which serves a subdivision known as High Bluff Acres-near the community of Midway in Gadsden County, Florida. (See Prehearing Stipulation). On February 1, 1980, Respondent was issued construction permit number DS20-27385 for the facility. The construction permit described the facility as a potable water distribution main extension to the Talquin Electric Company's Midway water- system. The project was to be constructed with approximately 940 linear feet of four inch PVC valves and appurtenances. Specific condition number 15 of the permit restricted operation of the extension until department approval was issued. This approval would be granted upon receipt of certification by the engineer of record as to construction in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and receipt of two satisfactory bacteriological analyses. DER has not received this information and had not issued an approval for use of the facility. The construction permit expired on September 1, 1981. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent modified the facility by constructing it with 550 feet of one inch to one and one-half inch PVC water mains. (See Prehearing Stipulation). DER conducted an inspection of the facility on February 23, 1982. The facility was found to be in use without final DER approval. By letter dated February 26, 1982, DER notified Respondent of his non-compliance with Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, and requested Respondent to submit specified compliance items. (See Prehearing Stipulation). In October of 1982, DER personnel contacted Respondent . by telephone. Respondent agreed to obtain a permit renewal and modify the unauthorized water line as soon as funds in the form of rent were released by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). On November 1, 1982, DCA notified DER that payments were being made. (See Prehearing Stipulation). On June 8, 1983, DER notified Respondent of his non- compliance with Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, and requested a reply on actions to be taken to correct the deficiency. By letters dated October 18, 1984, and December 17, 1984, DER notified Respondent that the facility was not approved for use. Respondent was further requested to inform DER as to the status of the facility. DER received no response to these requests. (See Prehearing Stipulation). The facility was not constructed in accordance with DER-approved plans, and DER has issued no written approval or consent for alterations to the system. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent placed the facility in service without submitting a certification of completion and a copy of satisfactory bacteriological results to DER for approval and clearance. (See Prehearing Stipulation). The facility is not designed to provide maximum hourly system demand without development of distribution pressure lower than 20 psi. (See Prehearing Stipulation). DER has incurred costs and expenses in the pursuit of this case in the amount of $453.50. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent's facility consists of distribution and storage facilities only and does not have any collection or treatment facilities. It obtains all its water from and is not owned or operated by the Talquin Electric System. Further, Respondent is not a carrier which conveys passengers in interstate commerce. (See Prehearing Stipulation) The public water distribution system constructed by Respondent is connected to twenty dwelling units in twelve structures. The High Bluff Acres subdivision is a government- subsidized, but privately-owned, low-income housing development, wherein DCA, acting on behalf of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), subsidizes the payment of rent for the housing. Respondent entered into several agreements on behalf of Salter, Stephens and Thompson, with the DCA to rehabilitate existing structures at High Bluff Acres and thus qualify for the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Assistance Program (HAP) established by HUD. The purpose for entering into the HAP contracts is to provide low cost housing to low income persons. These agreements were entered into over a period of several months during 1981 and 1982. Upon satisfactory completion of the rehabilitation pursuant to the agreements, Respondent entered into a HAP contract for each structure in High Bluff Acres, for a total of twelve structures (20 dwelling units). The HAP contract establishes the contract rent that can be allowed for each individual dwelling unit in a structure (the contract covers one structure). The contract rent is calculated according to a formula established by HUD for such purposes, and includes monetary allowances for utilities or other services which are provided by the owner. It does allow the lessor to recover his capital expenses in rehabilitating an individual housing unit. DER Exhibits 3 and 4 are two of the twelve HAP contracts entered into by the Department of Community Affairs and Respondent, Lex Thompson. Each of these contracts has an Exhibit B which is entitled "statement of services, maintenance and , utilities to be provided by owner." These exhibits show that Respondent has agreed to provide water to the units under the HAP contract. Contract rents paid to Respondent as authorized agent for the partnership include an allocation of money to reimburse Respondent for providing water to the tenants in the dwelling units. However, subsequent to Thompson's and DCA's entering into the contracts for payment of these rental subsidies, Respondent notified DCA that he had incurred additional capital expenses. Since his rental payments were already at the maximum allowable rate, however, Respondent did not seek to modify the aforementioned contracts because the amendment would not result in any greater payment of monies to him. At no time has Respondent amended the terms of the HAP contracts with respect to provision of water to the tenants at High Bluff Acres. He is still receiving the reimbursement for provision of water to tenants. The general partnership which had been receiving contract rents for the dwelling units was dissolved in May, 1985, and the contracts for each structure were assigned to various individuals. Respondent, individually, owns one structure and his wife owns another. DER has received no potable water quality or quantity complaints regarding the High Bluff Acres subdivision. Moreover, the potable water system existing in the High Bluff Acres subdivision does not constitute a present threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order and therein order the following corrective actions: That within 45 days, Respondent shall hire an engineer registered in Florida to design a new distribution system for High Bluff Acres or modifications to the existing system, and submit a completed application to the Department for a permit to construct or modify the system. That within 60 days of issuance of the permit, Respondent shall have the distribution system installed, tested(including pressure testing, bacterial testing, disinfectant-testing) and shall have the engineer sign and seal the plans indicating to the Department that the system conforms with the approved plans, and both DER and American Water Works Association standards. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be ordered to pay the Department's costs and expenses in the amount of $453.50, and that same be paid to the Department by cashier's check within 30days. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESL1NG 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 4th day of November, 1985 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding of Fact 1 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 13). Proposed Finding of Fact 2 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 15). Proposed Finding of Fact 3 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 15). Proposed Finding of Fact 4 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 17). Proposed Finding of Fact 5 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 18). Proposed Finding of Fact 6 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 19). Proposed Finding of Fact 7 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 22). Proposed Finding of Fact 8 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 21). Rulings on Respondents Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding of Fact 1 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 1). Proposed Finding of Fact 2 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 2). Proposed Finding of Fact 3 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 3). Proposed Finding of Fact 4, first sentence, is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 4). The second sentence is rejected as being unsupported by the evidence and irrelevant. Proposed Finding of Fact 5 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 5). Proposed Finding of Fact 6 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 6). Proposed Finding of Fact 7 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 7). Proposed Finding of Fact 8, first sentence, is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 8). The remainder of Proposed Finding of Fact 8 is rejected as irrelevant. Proposed Finding of Fact 9 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 12). Proposed Finding of Fact 10 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 14). Proposed Finding of Fact 11 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Facts 19 and 20). Proposed Finding of Fact 12 is rejected as unsupported by the evidence, irrelevant and conclusory. Proposed Finding of Fact 13 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 23), except that it is rejected as it relates to a potential threat because that portion is unsupported by the competent, credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Clare E. Gray, Esquire Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William L. Hyde, Esquire 300 East Park Avenue Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application to increase its water and sewer rates to its customers in Palm Beach County should be granted; and Whether Petitioner failed to comply with Florida Public Service Commission Orders Nos. 0924 and 8382 directing Petitioner to comply with information submission requirements in connection with its application for rate increase. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATION Petitioner's rate increase request should he granted in accordance with the findings in this recommended order. Such rates are just, reasonable, not unjustly discriminatory and consistent with Section 367.081, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980) Commission Orders No. 8924 and 0382 did not, by their terms, direct Petitioner to comply with minimum filing requirements by a date certain. Therefore, Petitioner's lengthy and unexcused delay in complying with such requirements does not constitute a violation of the Orders.
Findings Of Fact Background In May, 1978, Petitioner, Mangonia Park Utility Company ("UTILITY"), filed with the Respondent, Florida Public Service Commission ("COMMISSION"), applications to increase, on an interim basis, its sewer and water rates to its customers in Palm Beach County, Florida. By Order Nos. 8924 and 8382, issued on June 21 and July 7, 1978, respectively, the COMMISSION suspended the proposed rates, approved interim water and sewer rate increases, found that the UTILITY's application did not comply with the COMMISSION's minimum filing requirements, and acknowledged the UTILITY's statement that it would file an application which meets filing requirements by September 1, 1979. Between November, 1979, and April, 1980, the UTILITY supplied additional information but did not fully comply with the minimum filing requirements. On May 15, 1980, the COMMISSION issued an Order requiring the UTILITY to show cause why the interim rates should not be repealed and monetary penalties imposed for the UTILITY's alleged failure to comply with Order Nos. 8924 and 8382. The question of the UTILITY's compliance with those Orders was set to be heard in conjunction with its rate increase application. It was not until May 29, 1980 that the UTILITY submitted a completed application and complied with the minimum filing requirements. On November 5, 1980, the COMMISSION forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal Section 120.57 hearing. This case was then set to be heard on January 21, 1981. At hearing, the UTILITY called Philip D. Mitchell and Boyd D. Ellis as its witnesses and offered Petitioner's Exhibits No. 1 through 6 into evidence. On February 16, 1981, the COMMISSION timely submitted its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Testimony of Willis, Ellis, P-2, R-1). II Rate Increase Application The UTILITY owns and operates water treatment facilities consisting of three wells, two pumps, a lime softening unit, and two storage tanks. Since April, 1979, the City of Riviera Beach has provided treatment to the UTILITY's sewage. The UTILITY's sewage facilities now consist of a master lift station, pumps, and sewage lines. The approved test period for this rate proceeding is the twelve months prior to June 30, 1979. During the test year, the UTILITY provided water service to 113 residential customers, 49 general service customers, and one multiple dwelling customer; it provided sewer service to 75 residential customers, 47 general service customers, and one multiple dwelling customer. As a result of its analysis of the UTILITY's application, together with its books and facilities, the COMMISSION proposed various adjustments, almost all of which were accepted and agreed to by the UTILITY. At hearing, issues involving the UTILITY's request for pro forma salary adjustments and recovery for income tax liability were eliminated when it withdrew its request. The only factual issue which remains concerning the requested rate increase is the useful life and depreciation rate which should be applied to the UTILITY's plant and equipment. Useful Life and Depreciation Rate The COMMISSION contends the standard 40-year useful life with a 2.5 percent depreciation rate is appropriate; the UTILITY contends that such a depreciation rate does not take into account changing technology and obsolescence, and that a 25 to 30-year useful life with a 3.3 to 4 percent depreciation rate is more appropriate. The UTILITY acknowledged that the determination of useful life of utility equipment required engineering judgment. However, it presented no testimony by a qualified engineer on the subject. Its evidence consisted solely of its accountant's long- standing "conceptual objection" to use of a 40-year useful life for utility plants. The only competent and credible evidence on the question was presented by the COMMISSION. Its qualified engineer testified that he conducted an on-site independent study of the UTILITY plant and concluded that, in this instance, a 40-year useful life, with a 2.5 percent depreciation rate, was appropriate. In view of the foregoing, it is determined that a 40-year useful life, with a 2.5 percent depreciation rate, should be applied against the UTILITY's plant. (Testimony of Mitchell, Munt). Having thus determined the appropriate depreciation rate for use in this case, the parties have agreed to the following rate- making factors: Rate Base The adjusted test year rate base for the UTILITY's water system is $210,799; the rate base for its sewer system is $65,151. Both are calculated below: RATE BASE TEST YEAR ENDED 06/30/79 WATER SEWER Utility Plant in Service $ 386,611 $ 287,939 Plant Held For Future Use -0- (3,750) Acquisition Adjustment 18,990 -0- Accumulated Depreciation (42,485) (28,541) Amortization of Acquisition Adjustment (4,600) -0- Contribution in Aid of Construction (Net of Amort.) (154,349) (203,069) Working Capital Allowance 6,632 12,572 Income Tax Lag -0- -0- Rate Base 210,799 65,151 (Testimony of Willis, Mitchell, R-3) Net Operating Income The UTILITY's adjusted operating income for the test year - a $15,673 loss (water) and a $46,837 loss (sewer) - together with its rate of return, are depicted below: OPERATING STATEMENT TEST YEAR ENDED 06/30/79 WATER SEWER Operating Revenues $ 46,441 $ 60,192 Operating Expenses Operation 43,759 94,572 Maintenance 9,297 6,002 Depreciation (sic) 4,716 993 Amortization 541 -0- Taxes Other Than Income 3,801 5,462 Income Taxes -0- -0- Total Operating Expenses 62,114 107,029 Operating Income $(15,673) $(46,837) Rate of Return (7.44 perct) (Testimony of Willis, Mitchell, R-3) Capital Structure and Cost of Capital (71.89 perct) The UTILITY's capital structure, and weighted cost of capital, are as follows: COST OF CAPITAL COMPONENT RATIO COST RATE WEIGHTED COST Long-Term Debt Customer Deposits 99 perct 9.84 perct 1 perct 8.00 perct 9.74 perct .08 perct 100 perct 9.82 perct (Testimony of Mitchell, Clinger, R-5) Rate of Return Based on its cost of capital, the parties have agreed that percent constitutes a fair rate of return on the UTILITY's rate base. The UTILITY has a deficit in common stock equity; a return on negative investment is inappropriate. (Testimony of Mitchell, Clinger, (sic), R-5) Rate Structure The UTILITY's current water rates are conventionally structured using a minimum monthly charge which includes a minimum number of gallons and a one-step excess rate over that minimum; its residential and general service sewer rates are structured using a flat rate. The parties agree that the rates should be revised in accordance with what is known as the base facility charge (BFC) rate design. The purpose of this design is to recover the costs of providing service to each particular customer. Its monthly charges consists of two components: A base charge which covers expenses not related to actual water use, such as depreciation, billing and collecting, property taxes, debt interest, maintenance, etc., and a gallonage charge based on the allocated costs associated with pumping, treating and delivering the water to the customer. Sewer rates are similarly structured and directly related to actual water consumption. The BFC rate design structure equitably distributes the fixed and variable costs of providing service to customers and allows them to exercise greater control over the rates which they pay. In implementing the BFC rate design, the COMMISSION makes two specific recommendations which are not opposed by the UTILITY, are reasonable, and should be followed: (1) that public fire hydrants not be charged, and (2) that the monthly charge for private fire lines be one-third of the BFC charge for the particular sized connection. (Testimony of Taylor, R-4A) Required Revenue In order to be allowed the opportunity to earn a 9.82 percent return on its rate base, the UTILITY should file rates which generate annual gross revenue at $83,747 for the water system and $114,792 for the sewer system. This revenue should produce net operating revenue of $20,700 and $6,398, respectively. (Testimony of Mitchell, Willis, R-3) III Alleged Violation of Commission Order Nos. 8924 and 8382 The COMMISSION contends that the UTILITY violated Order Nos. 8924 and 8382 by its failure to comply with minimum filing requirements until May 29, 1980. For such violations, the COMMISSION seeks to impose a penalty of $200. The orders in question do not explicitly direct or order the UTILITY to file an application which complies with the minimum filing requirements by a date certain. Consequently, the UTILITY's lengthy and unexcused delay in complying with such requirements does not constitute a violation of or refusal to comply with the orders in question. (Testimony of Mitchell, Willis, R-1)
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, (Board), was the Pinellas County agency responsible for the certification and regulation of construction specialties. Respondent was certified by the Board as an irrigation systems specialty contractor under license C-5997 in force at the time. Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Sun City Lawn Irrigation. On or about May 17, 1994, Respondent contracted with William J. Schneider, who resided at 5661 25th Avenue North in St. Petersburg, to install a lawn irrigation system in Mr. Schneider's front lawn. The automatic system was to incorporate 2 zones and was, according to the contract and the testimony of Mr. Schneider, to be connected to Schneider's then existing 1/2 horsepower electric pump which drew water from several wells on his property. Mr. Schneider claims there are four wells. No evidence was introduced to contradict that. On the day the system was installed, Mr. Schneider was not at home. Respondent's employees performed a test of the water capacity on Mr. Schneider's property. At first, the wells produced 10 gpm, which was adequate for the system, but after a few minutes of drawdown, they found that the wells were producing only 4 gpm, along with some air. At that time Mr. Freestone, Respondent's sales manager, spoke with Mrs. Schneider about the situation, advising her there were two options open. One was to install a larger pump and the second was to connect the system to the city water supply. Mrs. Schneider returned to the house, presumably to call Mr. Schneider to get his decision on the matter. He claims she did not reach him. Respondent claims that she thereafter returned with directions to install a water line for connection to the city system. This is completely contrary to what Mr. Schneider had wanted and to what is included in the contract. Mr. Schneider claims he did not want to connect to city water because of the added expense of doing so, and he claims he made this very clear to Respondent's employees at the beginning and at all times thereafter. In any case, the system was installed and was, somehow, connected to the city water system near the place where the water line enters the house. In addition, no backflow preventer was installed to insure against contamination getting into the water system as is required by the building code. Most, if not all, the work on this project was completed by Respondent's son and employee, Scott, who was not present at the hearing. Respondent attempted to introduce an unsworn written statement by Scott Bosworth, but it was not accepted. Scott advised Mr. Schneider, when he returned from work that day, that they had been unable to use his pump and wells. Nonetheless, Mr. Schneider paid Respondent in full for the work for which he had contracted, except for a supplemental charge in the amount of $190.95 for the tie in to the city water and the valves and other items connected therewith. Mr. Schneider claims that he made several calls to Respondent's office in an effort to correct the situation but was unable to reach anyone who could give him satisfaction. However, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, Mr. Schneider got through and was called back by Mr. Freestone with whom he discussed the situation and the additional charges. He was subsequently advised by counsel that he did not have to pay the additional sum and did not do so. Some time thereafter, Mr. Schneider was advised by the city that he would be fined because of the illegal installation. He then contacted another irrigation company, run by Mr. Williams, who examined the system and determined that the irrigation system installed by Respondent had been connected to the city water system and that no backflow preventer had been installed. A check with the city's building department revealed that no permit had been procured for this installation. Respondent's license to install irrigation systems does not include authority to connect that system with the public water system. That procedure must be done by a licensed plumber. Respondent and Mr. Freestone, the only individuals in the company who had the authority to arrange with a plumber to make the actual hook up to the city system, both deny that any arrangement was made by them to have the system connected to the city water system. Mr. Schneider arrived home on the day in question to find only Respondent's son, Scott, at work on the project. Scott indicated it would be necessary to move two bushes near the house to facilitate connection of the system with the water supply. Mr. Schneider contracted with Scott to move the bushes and remove them from the premises. Scott moved them but failed to remove them. In light of the fact that Scott was working on the system at the time Mr. Schneider arrived home, and the system was found to be connected to the city system thereafter without anyone else touching it, it must be concluded that the connection was made him. Respondent admits he did not come to the property in question while the system was being installed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Board suspending the license of the Respondent for a period of six months with provision for withholding execution of the suspension for a period of one year conditioned upon such criteria as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 31st day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Larry J. Bosworth 8901 14th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
Findings Of Fact Quality of Service There were no customers of the utility present at the public hearing, except for the Department of the Navy. As a result, there is no public testimony in the record relating to the quality of the water and sewer service provided by the utility. However, a representative of the Department of Environmental Regulation and an engineer from the Public Service Commission agree that the utility's water treatment meets all relevant quality standards, and its sewage treatment is within acceptable limits. Nevertheless, there exist problems of infiltration into the company's sewage lines which have resulted in variations in its level of treatment efficiency. The Department of the Navy acknowledges that some of these infiltration problems originate at the Navy housing facility, and the Navy asserts that corrective measures will be undertaken. In the meantime, the Navy contends that the sewage flows from its housing facility have been underestimated, resulting in an overstatement of revenue to the utility. However, there is insufficient specific evidence in the record to support a finding of fact resolving this issue. Since the variations in the utility's sewage treatment efficiency are within acceptable levels, the Company's wastewater treatment is found to be satisfactory. Rate Base By its exhibits, the utility has alleged its adjusted rate base to be $59,401 for water and $87,134 for sewer. Public Service Commission adjustments reduce and correctly state the water rate base to be $19,356 and the sewer rate base to be $65,552. The utility contests the removal of $16,530 from sewer rate base as a contribution in aid of construction (CIAC). This amount is the difference between the $155,000 paid by the Duval County School Board to a partnership consisting of the utility's partners and others, and the $138,170 recorded on the books of the utility. It contends the $16,330 represents a contractor's profit to one of the former partners of utility, but this amount is properly recordable as CIAC and should be removed from rate base. Other adjustments are either not contested, or make no material difference in the utility's revenue requirements, and should be accepted. The accompanying schedules 1 and 3 detail the rate base for both water and sewer with appropriate explanations for the adjustments. Cost of Capital Representatives from the utility and from the Public Service Commission presented evidence on the issue of cost of capital. The major area of disagreement relates to the company's capital structure. The Commission contends that the utility is 100 percent debt, while the utility asserts the capital structure to be 52.97 percent equity and 47.03 percent debt. The Commission's contention is based on the annual reports filed by the utility wherein a deficit is reported in the equity account. The utility, however, has made several adjustments to the investment shown in the annual reports which it alleges increase equity from a deficit of $39,804 to a positive amount of $92,727. The first adjustment made by the utility is in the amount of $22,700 to make the amount of investment equal to rate base, in accordance with principles of double entry bookkeeping. However, because revenue requirements of public utilities are based on used and useful plant in service rather than on total assets, it is not uncommon for the rate base to be different in amount from the total capitalization. Thus, this adjustment is unnecessary and improper. The utility's second adjustment increases the amount of investment by $39,464 as the Unrecovered Cost of Abandonment of Utility Plant. The plant to which this adjustment refers was abandoned, and because of the hazards presented by the abandoned structure, it was disassembled and scrapped. The unrecovered costs were written off for tax purposes, but were not written off for regulatory purposes. This amount should be treated as any other loss, and the adjustment to increase investment should be disallowed. When a utility has recovered the cost of a loss due to abandonment through a write off against income, the placement of the amount of the investment in the capital account results in accounting twice for the loss. The third adjustment involves an amount of $57,067 representing loans procured by the utility's partners from a financial institution. Although these loans were made directly to the partners, the proceeds were used by the utility and the company services the debt. The utility contends that these funds are equity, and it has increased the investment account by the amount thereof. However, the intent of the parties to the transaction was that the funds borrowed by the partners were loaned to the utility, not invested in it. Accordingly, the utility's adjustment is improper; the amount of the loan should be considered as debt in the utility's capital structure; and it should be allowed to earn the embedded cost of this debt, but not an equity return on the amount thereof. In summary, since this utility's equity account has a deficit balance, the appropriate capital structure is 100 percent debt. The cost of this debt is its embedded cost, estimated to be 11.75 percent overall, and the weighted cost is 10.21 percent, as shown in the following table. CAPITAL STRUCTURE COMPONENT PERCENT OF AMOUNT CAPITAL COST RATE WEIGHTED COST Mortgage Note $36,593 20.9 8.00 2.312 Loans Outstanding 48,162 38.0 9.69 3.681 Proposed Note 41,870 33.1 12.76 (est) 4.220 TOTAL $126,625 100.0 10.213 perc. These "Amounts" are the non-current portion of the debt. Operating Statements The accompanying schedules 2 and 4 detail the operating statements for both water and sewer, with appropriate adjustments. The utility contests the Commission's disallowance of depreciation on its proforma plant acquisition. However, the plant has not yet been constructed. Thus, although the proforma plant adjustments have been agreed to, depreciation expense thereon cannot be allowed. The utility further challenges a Commission adjustment disallowing depreciation expense on contributed assets. This adjustment is proper and should be allowed. The utility also contends that it should be allowed income taxes, asserting that an unincorporated proprietorship is entitled to the same income tax expense as a corporation, and that the related income taxes do not have to be paid, merely accrued. However, the purpose of the income tax accounts in the NARUC Uniform System of Accounts is to allow entities which pay income accounts in which to record them. There is no provision in the uniform system for recordation of a nonexistent expense. Since the utility admits that the partnership has paid no income taxes, the disallowance is proper. Finally, the utility contests what it claims is disallowance by the Commission of all its proposed amortization of abandoned plant. However, the exhibits reflect that the Commission increased the amount of amortization expense from $2,790 to $3,284 for water, and from $3,016 to $6,468 for sewer, to allow for amortization of the abandoned plant. Revenue requirements The application of a 10.21 percent rate of return to the adjusted rate base for both water and sewer requires that the utility receive gross annual revenues of $33,752 for water and $81,432 for sewer. These revenues represent increases of $9,381 and $23,446 for water and for sewer, respectively. See Schedules 2 and 4 attached). Rate structure The utility provides water service to an average of 67 residential customers, 12 general service customers and 11 multi-dwelling customers (Average 346 Units). It provides sewer service to an average of 26 residential customers, 12 general service customers and 4 multi-dwelling customers (Average 645 Units). The present residential water rates are structured to provide for a minimum quarterly charge, which includes a minimum number of gallons, and a one- step excess rate over that minimum. The proposed rates follow the same basic structure. The present general service water rates are structured in the same manner, except that the rates for this classification are approximately 25 percent higher than residential. The proposed rates follow the same basic structure. The present multi-dwelling water rates are structured in compliance with the provisions of the old Rule 25-10.75, Florida Administrative Code, which provided that the rate for master metered multiple dwelling structures should be 66 2/3 percent of the minimum residential rate, with an equal minimum gallonage allowance included within the unit minimum charge. The total number of gallons to be included within the minimum gallonage allowance was determined by the number of units served, with excess gallons over the cumulative allowance to be billed at the excess residential rate. The proposed races follow the same basic structure for determining the minimum gallonage allowance and excess gallonage over the minimum allowance. The proposed minimum charge per unit has been structured approximately 25 percent higher than the proposed minimum unit charge for residential service. The proposed excess rate has been structured at the same level as general service, which is approximately 25 percent higher than the residential service rate. Any rate structure that requires a customer to pay for a minimum number of gallons, whether those gallons are used or not, is discriminatory. Over 27 percent of this utility's basic residential customers did not use as much as the minimum gallonage allowance during the test year. The average number of gallons consumed in the gallon brackets below the minimum allowance bracket was 3,197 gallons per customer per quarter. A rate structure that requires the general service customers to pay a higher rate than the other classifications of service is also discriminatory. Since the Cost of Service to Multiple Dwelling Structures Rule 25- 10.75, Florida Administrative Code, was repealed by Commission Order No. 7590, issued January 18, 1977 in Docket No. 760744-Rule, it has been the practice of the Public Service Commission to structure this type customer in the general service classification, and to structure water rates under the Base Facility Charge form of rate design. The basic concept of this type rate design is to determine a base charge whose foundation is based on the associated costs of providing service to each type customer. The charge covers associated costs such as transmission and distribution facility maintenance expenses, depreciation, property taxes, property insurance, an allocated portion of customer accounts expenses, etc. The amount of the charge is determined by an equivalent residential connection formula using the standard meter size as the base. There are not any gallons included within the frame of the Base Facility Charge. The second structure is to determine the appropriate charge for the water delivered to the customer. This charge would cover related costs such as pumping expenses; treatment expenses, an allocated portion of customer accounts expenses, etc. The primary reasoning supporting this type structure is that each customer pays a prorata share of the related facility costs necessary to provide service, and thereafter the customer pays for only the actual number of gallons consumed under the gallonage charge. The present residential sewer rates are structured in the manner of a quarterly flat-rate charge for all residential customers. The proposed rates are structured with a minimum charge, which includes a minimum number of gallons and an excess rate above that minimum. The present general service sewer rates are structured so that a percentage factor is applied to the water bill to determine the sewer charge. The rates for this classification are structured approximately 25 percent higher than residential. The proposed rates are structured with a minimum charge, which includes a minimum number of gallons and an excess rate above the minimum. The proposed rates are structured approximately 25 percent higher than residential. The present multi-dwelling sewer rates are structured in compliance with the provisions of the old Rule 25- 10.75, Florida Administrative Code, which provided that the rate for sewer service to multiple dwelling units should be 66 2/3 percent of the basic charge for sewer service to single residential units. The proposed rates are structured with a minimum charge for each unit, which includes a minimum number of gallons, and an excess rate over the minimum. The minimum charge per unit and the excess rate are structured approximately 25 percent higher than residential. Since the repeal of Rule 25-10.75, Florida Administrative Code, it has been the practice of the Public Service Commission to structure this type customer in the general service classification of customers, and to structure sewer rates under the Base Facility Charge form of rate design. This should be implemented by the utility for both water rates and sewer rates. The utility has been misapplying its schedule of rates for the commercial sewer classification of service. The schedule calls for 250 percent of the water bill with a minimum charge of $0.15 monthly ($24.45 quarterly). However, the utility has been billing its commercial sewer customers 250 percent of the water bill plus the minimum charge. This amounted to an overcharge to this customer classification of approximately $1190 during the test period. The utility should be required to make the appropriate refund to each commercial sewer customer, and the amount of this overcharge has been removed from test year revenues on the attached schedule 4. The utility is collecting a meter installation charge of $200, and a charge of $246 for each connection to the sewer system, without any apparent tariff authority. Further, the charges made for customer reconnect after disconnection for nonpayment are not adequate to cover the associated costs of this service. An investigation docket should be opened to consider the appropriateness of the meter installation charge, and to receive evidence of actual costs of service restoration. Finally, insufficient facts were presented to support a finding relative to the validity of the utility's sewer service contract with the Navy or the compatibility of the charges for sewer service to the Navy with the utility's tariff. These issues should be revisited during the course of the investigation docket. However, the utility's practice of requiring customer deposits when service is billed in advance should be discontinued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Buccaneer Service Company, 1665 Selva Marina Drive, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, be granted in part, and that the utility be authorized to receive gross annual water revenue of $33,752, and gross annual sewer revenue of $81,423, by rates to be approved by the Public Service Commission. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to adopt a Base Facility charge form of rate design for both water and sewer rates, and to make appropriate changes in its tariff. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to refund to each commercial sewer customer a prorata portion of the total amount of overcharges collected since the beginning of the test year. It is further RECOMMENDED that an investigation docket be opened for the purpose of making further inquiry into the appropriateness of the utility's meter installation charge, to receive evidence of actual costs of service restoration, and to determine the validity of the utility's contract for sewer service with the Navy and the appropriate rate to be charged for this service. And it is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be required to discontinue the practice of collecting customer deposits for service which is billed in advance. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 6th day of August, 1980. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be required to obtain a current operating permit for his aerobic treatment unit and have a $500.00 fine imposed for violating an agency rule for the reason cited in the Citation for Violation issued by Petitioner on December 1, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this dispute, Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), has alleged that Respondent, Dr. Anthony Massaro, a retired public health physician, failed to obtain an annual operating permit for an aerobic treatment unit (ATU) located at his residence at 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. The Flagler County Health Department (Health Department) is charged with the responsibility of issuing such permits. That department is under the direction and control of Petitioner. While Respondent readily admits that he failed to obtain a permit, he contends that he was misled by the Health Department when he first installed an ATU at his residence; the Health Department is not enforcing the law regarding ATUs and thus another system would be more appropriate; and the law, as he interprets it, allows him to install another type of on-site sewage disposal unit on his property. Respondent purchased his property in Flagler County in 1997. The property is located in Ocean View Estates Subdivision (subdivision), which has an Urban Single-Family Residential District (R-1b) zoning classification under the Flagler County Land Development Code (Code). Section 3.03.05A of the Code requires that owners within the R-1b classification use "public or community water and sewer facilities," but makes an exception for "[s]mall R-1b subdivisions, fifty (50) lots or less, utilizing a public community water system," in which case residents "may utilize Class I aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems." Further, "[t]he use of individual onsite sewage disposal systems must be consistent with adopted county policies and standards." Because the subdivision has 50 lots or less, and public or private sewer facilities were not available in the area, the subdivision's Plat Agreement recorded in 1995 provided that "[i]ndividual aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems are to be permitted and constructed as each lot is developed." Another type of onsite sewage disposal system is the anerobic system, which has a septic tank and larger drainfield, is far less expensive, but does not conform with "county policies and standards" in this locale. Thus, this type of system requires a variance from the zoning regulations before one can be installed in the subdivision. Even so, Respondent says "all" of his neighbors have installed such a system. Because of the Plat Agreement, the zoning restriction, the difficulty in obtaining a variance, and the lack of a sewer line, Respondent had no choice except to use an ATU system for his residence. This meant that he had to apply for a permit from the Health Department. Once a permit is obtained and an ATU installed, the owner must renew his operating permit annually at a cost of $150.00, and he must enter into a maintenance agreement with a licensed contractor. The $150.00 fee is used to defray the costs incurred by the Health Department in making quarterly inspections and performing annual sampling and laboratory analysis of effluent. The record does not reflect precisely when a sewer line became operational across the street from Respondent's property, but the sewer project was accepted "for service" in April 1998, or before Respondent's ATU was installed in August 1998. Had Respondent known this, he would have obviously chosen that option rather than an ATU. The evidence reflects that in November 1997 Respondent made application for an ATU with the Health Department, a permit was issued in December 1997, and the system was installed and approved in August and September 1998, respectively. In early April 1998, the Health Department was advised by the private utility company that it would accept new sewer connections in a service area that included Respondent's home. However, Health Department representatives made no mention of this to Respondent since they were under the impression that he desired to use the ATU option, they do not normally "counsel" applicants on onsite sewage disposal system options, and Respondent had made no inquiry. Disclosure of this fact would have saved Respondent considerable money (and grief) in the long run; unfortunately, however, while good public relations would dictate otherwise, the Health Department had no legal obligation to do anything other than process the pending application. Likewise, it has no obligation in law to now pay the costs for Respondent to hook up to the line because of its non-disclosure. Respondent has now invested more than $5,000.00 in his ATU. This type of system is operated by a compressor in Respondent's garage, which must be run 24 hours per day, and is very noisy. Because of this, Respondent understandably wishes to change to an anerobic system, which has a traditional septic tank, larger drainfield, no unsightly "mound" in the yard, no annual permits, and is far cheaper than an ATU. Also, it does not require a noisy motor to sustain operations. However, this type of system is prohibited by the Code except where a variance from Flagler County (County) has been obtained. It appears to be unlikely that Respondent can obtain a variance from the County. Because Respondent's property is so low in relation to the sewer line, to achieve the proper gravity, he must install a lift station and pay a connection fee, both totaling $3,540.00, before hooking up to the sewer system. Given these costs, and the considerable investment he already has in an ATU, Respondent does not consider this to be a viable alternative. Respondent pointed out that, despite the requirement that they do so, many ATU owners in the County are not running their systems 24-hours per day because of the noise from the compressor. He also pointed out that the Health Department has consistently found numerous violations of such systems during its inspections. He further asserted that while the $150.00 annual fee is to defray certain sampling and laboratory analysis costs associated with inspecting ATUs, the Health Department has done neither on his ATU. Finally, Respondent pointed out that prior to 1999 the regulations were enforced by sampling the compliance of a very small percentage of total ATU systems (ten percent), rather than all systems, in the County. Given these considerations, Respondent concludes that ATUs are the least effective way to treat sewage, and that existing laws and regulations have not been enforced. Assuming these allegations to be true, and they were not seriously disputed, they are legitimate concerns. However, until the law is changed, they do not constitute a lawful basis for allowing Respondent to switch to an anerobic system. Respondent further contended that under his interpretation of the general law, which was not fully understood by the undersigned, he is not required to use an ATU. But local zoning regulations clearly require that he do so, and until the state or local regulations are changed or waived, he cannot use an anerobic system. Finally, Respondent has cooperated with the Department throughout this process. With his lengthy public health background, Respondent initiated this action with good intentions, seeking to point out the flaws in the ATU systems, and to remedy a problem which none of his neighbors apparently have. Given these considerations, a civil penalty should not be imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order sustaining the charge in the Citation for Violation and requiring that Respondent obtain an annual permit for his ATU. A civil penalty is not warranted. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Dr. Anthony Massaro 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard Flagler Beach, Florida 32136 Amy M. Jones, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact In light of the aforementioned stipulations entered into by the parties, the parties agreed that the only remaining disputed issue was the quality of service being provided by Petitioner. In this connection, the record establishes that Petitioner operates nine water systems in Duval County, one of which is known as the "Milmar Plant." Water furnished through this plant has, in the past, violated applicable regulatory standards with regard to high iron levels and corrosivity, to such an extent that the system was the subject of a Corrective Order entered by the Duval County Public Health Division of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in 1980. However, as a result of Petitioner's agreement to connect to the City of Jacksonville water system, these problems should be alleviated when the switch-over and connection are accomplished. Accordingly, as a condition to approval of the requested rate increase, Petitioner should be required to complete the switch-over and connection to the City of Jacksonville water system prior to the entry of a Final Order granting the requested rate increase.
