The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not Respondent was selling "polluted" gasoline in violation of the standards set forth in Chapter 525.06, Florida Statutes (1980), and Rule Chapter 5F-2, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, is an agency of State government which has the obligation to inspect petroleum products in keeping with the provisions of Chapter 525, Florida Statutes (1980). 2/ The Respondent is a corporation which sells products in the State of Florida at an outlet located at 1050 U.S. 98 North in Brooksville, Florida. On November 11, 1981, a sample of three (3) petroleum products, i.e., regular gasoline, unleaded and diesel fuel was taken from Respondent's location which is known as Chuck's Car Wash. A laboratory analysis by Petitioner revealed that the unleaded gasoline showed a lead content above .110 grams per gallon. This reading is above the .05 gram per gallon maximum allowable lead content as set forth in Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(1)5(j), Florida Administrative Code. An analysis of the regular gasoline revealed an End Point of 494 degrees F. This reading is above the 446 degrees F maximum allowable End Point as set forth in Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(1)(c)4, Florida Administrative Code. Finally, an examination of the diesel product revealed a Flash Point below 60 degrees F. This reading is below the 120 degrees F allowable Flash Point as set forth in Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The results of these analyses were made known to Respondent and he was afforded the option of either immediately halting the sale of the products or to post a cash bond in the amount of $1,000.00 for 5,900 gallons sold of the above- referred products in lieu of confiscation of the remaining 1,681 gallons of the products. (See Release Notice or Agreement dated November 12, 1981.) Respondent posted a bond in the amount of $1,000.00. In the Release Notice, Respondent was advised that all three (3) products were to be removed from its tanks and new products dropped. Respondent was also afforded the opportunity to remove the no-lead which could he sold as leaded regular with the remaining two (2) products to be used in Respondent's private equipment. Petitioner's inspector who works out of portable laboratory No. 3, Jamie Gillespie, removed the samples from Respondent's tanks and conducted the analyses of the products. Inspector Gillespie made Respondent aware of his findings and his decision to post a Stop Sale Notice of the subject products. Inspector Gillespie obtained the cash bond from Respondent. Use of the above-referred products may cause catalytic converters to become contaminated; restrict exhaust systems and release excessive pollutants in the atmosphere. Use of these products also may clog fuel filters and carburetors. The low Flash Point from the diesel product may cause an engine to "run away" and in some instances may blow the head assembly from a diesel engine. Additionally, use of diesel with such a low Flash Point may contaminate dry injector nozzles and shorten the life of a diesel engine. (Testimony of Gillespie and Morris, inspectors and chemists employed by Petitioner, who conducted analyses of the subject products.) As stated, Respondent did not appear at the hearing to contest or otherwise rebut the charges alleged by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the entire record compiled herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Rule Subsections 5F-2.01(1)5(j), 5F-2.01(1)(c)4, and 5F-2.01(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code, and thereby, Respondent should be subjected to the penalties set forth in Section 525.06, Florida Statutes (1980), and the $1,000.00 bond posted be estreated. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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, 1982.
The Issue Whether or not the agency may, pursuant to Section 525.06 F.S., assess $390.04 for sale of substandard product due to a violation of the petroleum inspection laws and also set off that amount against Petitioner's bond.
Findings Of Fact Coleman Oil Co., Inc. d/b/a Shell Oil Co. at I-75 and SR 26 Gainesville, Florida, is in the business of selling kerosene, among other petroleum products. On November 15, 1990, Randy Herring, an inspector employed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and who works under the direction of John Whitton, Chief of its Bureau of Petroleum, visited the seller to conduct an inspection of the petroleum products being offered for sale to the public. Mr. Herring drew a sample of "1-K" kerosene being offered for sale, sealed it, and forwarded it to the agency laboratory in Tallahassee where Nancy Fisher, an agency chemist, tested it to determine whether it met agency standards. The testing revealed that the sampled kerosene contained .22% by weight of sulfur. This is in excess of the percentage by weight permitted by Rule 5F- 2.001(2) F.A.C. for this product. A "Stop Sale Notice" was issued, and on the date of that notice (November 20, 1990) the inspector's comparison of the seller's delivery sheets and the kerosene physically remaining in his tanks resulted in the determination that 196 gallons of kerosene had been sold to the public. Based on a posted price of $1.99 per gallon, the retail value of the product sold was determined, and the agency accordingly assessed a $390.04 penalty. The agency also permitted the seller to post a bond for the $390.04 on November 21, 1990. The assessment is reasonable and conforms to the amount of assessments imposed in similar cases.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order approving the $390.04 assessment and offsetting the bond against it. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 25th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: CLINTON H. COULTER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 510 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800 MR. RANDAL W. COLEMAN COLEMAN OIL COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 248 GAINESVILLE, FL 32602 HONORABLE BOB CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE THE CAPITOL, PL-10 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0810 RICHARD TRITSCHLER, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 515 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800
The Issue The issue here presented concerns an alleged violation of Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(1)(c)1, Florida Administrative Code, related to the permissible ten percent (10 percent) evaporated temperature for which gasoline shall not exceed 140F, and penalties to be imposed for such violations, in keeping with Section 525.06, Florida Statutes (1980), and Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(1)(c)1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, is an agency of State government which has the obligation to inspect petroleum products in keeping with the provisions of Chapter 525, Florida Statutes (1980). The Respondent is a corporation which sells petroleum products in the State of Florida at an outlet located at 3411 U.S. 19 North, Pasco County, Tarpon Springs, Florida. On November 23, 1981, a sample of the petroleum product, super unleaded gasoline (which was offered for sale) was taken from the Respondent's facility as indicated above. A subsequent analysis of that product by Petitioner's mobile laboratory revealed that the ten percent (10 percent) evaporated temperature was 153F. This reading exceeded the ten percent (10 percent) evaporated temperature of 140F as set forth in Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(1)(c)1, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's inspector, Jamie Gillespie, advised Respondent's agent that the premium unleaded gasoline was illegal due to its "stale" condition and the Respondent was given an option of either confiscation of the product or posting of a bond. The product is presently under a Stop Sale Notice and is under seal. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1.) A subsequent analysis by Petitioner's laboratory in Tallahassee revealed that the evaporation level of the product was found to be approximately 163F. Ben Bowen, Petitioner's Assistant Bureau Chief in charge of petroleum inspection, indicates that the discrepancy in the evaporation levels as analyzed by the two laboratories was most probably due to the seal which was on the product and the approximate seven (7) day delay in the transfer of the product from Tarpon Springs to the laboratory in Tallahassee. Respondent's supervisor, Mark Ordway, 1/ was shown how the product could possibly become stale due to a "venting" problem from the roof of the storage tank where the product was stored. Sam Puleo, a lab technologist employed in Petitioner's mobile laboratory, analyzed the sample of the product taken from Respondent's facility. According to Mr. Puleo, "stale" products such as that taken from Respondent's tanks would make it difficult to start an automobile engine.
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue's denial of Petitioner's application for a Florida fuel license should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On or about July 22, 2002, Armando B. Yzaguirre submitted to the Department a completed Florida Fuel Tax Application, Form DR-156, seeking licensure as a private carrier and wholesaler on behalf of My Oil (the "2002 Application"). The application listed Maria Yzaguirre as the president and chairman of the board of My Oil, and listed Armando B. Yzaguirre as the vice-president and chief executive officer of My Oil. This was the second Florida Fuel Tax Application filed by My Oil. On or about June 22, 2001, Maria Yzaguirre submitted to the Department a completed Florida Fuel Tax Application, Form DR-156, seeking licensure as a private carrier and wholesaler on behalf of My Oil (the "2001 Application"). The application listed Mrs. Yzaguirre as the president and sole stockholder of My Oil. The Department's rejection of the 2001 Application was at issue in DOAH Case No. 02-0469. The rejection was based on the fact that Armando Yzaguirre, a convicted felon whose civil rights had not been restored and who was the father of Armando B. Yzaguirre and the husband of Maria Yzaguirre, appeared to be in a position to exert control over the business of My Oil. Shortly before the 2001 Application was filed, Armando Yzaguirre had filed a Florida Fuel Tax Application for Yzaguirre Oil Company Inc. ("Yzaguirre Oil"). The application listed Armando Yzaguirre as the president and sole stockholder of Yzaguirre Oil. The coincidence of the applications, and the fact that they listed many of the same assets, led the Department to suspect that My Oil would operate as a "front" for Yzaguirre Oil, which was presumptively ineligible for licensure because it was owned and operated by a convicted felon. The relevant facts found in the Recommended Order for DOAH Case No. 02-0469 are as follows: In his review of the Yzaguirre Oil and My Oil applications, [Aaron Hood, the Department's revenue specialist] discovered that the companies claimed many of the same assets. Each company listed the same two tanker trucks to be used in transporting fuel. Each company listed 211 New Market Road, East, in Immolakee as its principal business address. Each company claimed exactly $1 million in accounts receivable. The timing of the filings and the common assets led Mr. Hood to suspect that the later My Oil application was submitted under Maria Yzaguirre's name to evade the possible disqualification of the Yzaguirre Oil application because of Mr. Yzaguirre's felony convictions. In short, Mr. Hood suspected that My Oil was a "front" corporation over which Mr. Yzaguirre would exercise control. The common assets also led Mr. Hood to suspect the truthfulness and accuracy of the financial affidavits filed by Maria Yzaguirre on behalf of My Oil. While it investigated the criminal history of Mr. Yzaguirre, the Department also investigated the extent of Mr. Yzaguirre's possible control over My Oil's business activities. Armando B. Yzaguirre is the 25-year- old son of Armando Yzaguirre and the stepson of Maria Yzaguirre. Testimony at the hearing established that Armando B. Yzaguirre completed both license applications and was the driving force behind the creation of both Yzaguirre Oil and My Oil. The elder Armando Yzaguirre's chief business is farming. His tomato and melon operation earns over $1 million per year. To save money on transporting the large amounts of fuel needed for his farming operations, Mr. Yzaguirre purchased two sizable tanker trucks in 2001, a new Peterbilt with a capacity of 9,200 gallons, and a 1998 Ford with a 2,500 gallon capacity. If these trucks were used only for Mr. Yzaguirre's farm, they would sit idle much of the time. This idle capacity gave Armando B. Yzaguirre the idea of going into the fuel transport business, using his father's tankers to deliver fuel to other farms and businesses in the area. Yzaguirre Oil was incorporated to operate as a fuel transport business. The business would be operated entirely by Armando B. Yzaguirre, who was the only member of the family licensed to drive the large tanker truck. The trucks were owned by and licensed to Yzaguirre Oil. Armando B. Yzaguirre was going through a divorce at the time Yzaguirre Oil was established. He was concerned that his wife would have a claim to half of any business he owned, and wished to ensure that ownership of Yzaguirre Oil would remain in his family. Thus, Armando B. Yzaguirre placed all ownership of Yzaguirre Oil in the name of his father, though his father would have no connection with the operation of the company's business. Subsequent to incorporating Yzaguirre Oil, Armando B. Yzaguirre discussed his prospective business with his stepmother, Maria Yzaguirre. Mrs. Yzaguirre was pleased that young Armando was establishing a business for himself. They discussed the future of the six younger Yzaguirre children and ideas for businesses that could be established to eventually be taken over by the children. Ultimately, the younger Armando and Maria Yzaguirre settled on the idea of a convenience store and filling station that could be established on part of a city block in Immolakee that the senior Mr. Yzaguirre already owned. This would be the type of business that the children could learn and work at while they were still in school, then take over after their graduation. This was the genesis of My Oil. Mrs. Yzaguirre contacted a lawyer to draft articles of incorporation and later transferred $100,000 from her personal money market account into a My Oil bank account to provide start-up money. The younger Armando Yzaguirre filled out the fuel license application, using his earlier application for Yzaguirre Oil as a model. As with the earlier application, the younger Armando Yzaguirre kept his name off the corporate documents and the fuel license application to avoid any claim by his soon- to-be ex-wife to the company's assets. He anticipated that My Oil would lease the two tanker trucks from Yzaguirre Oil, and thus listed them on the application as assets of My Oil. At the hearing, Mr. Yzaguirre conceded that he made mistakes on both applications. As noted above, he listed $1 million in accounts receivable for each of the companies. These were actually accounts receivable for his father’s farming operation, and should not have been included as assets for either Yzaguirre Oil or My Oil. * * * The Department pointed to several alleged discrepancies in the My Oil application as grounds for its suspicion that the company was a "front" for Yzaguirre Oil. First, the My Oil application, filed June 20, 2001, lists a corporate asset of $100,000 in cash on deposit at an unnamed bank, when in fact the cash was not deposited in a My Oil account at Florida Community Bank until September 10, 2001. Second, the My Oil application lists the two tanker trucks as corporate assets as of the date of application, when in fact the trucks were titled in the name of Yzaguirre Oil and the anticipated lease arrangement had yet to be consummated. Third, the My Oil application claimed the property at 211 New Market Road, East, as a corporate asset as of the date of application, when in fact the property was titled in the name of the elder Mr. Yzaguirre. Fourth, the My Oil application listed $1 million in accounts receivable as a corporate asset. As noted above, Armando B. Yzaguirre admitted at the hearing that these receivables were from his father's farming operation and should not have been listed on the application as assets of My Oil. Armando B. Yzaguirre plausibly explained that My Oil anticipated leasing the trucks, but that there was no reason to spend the money to finalize that arrangement until the fuel license was obtained and My Oil could actually commence operations. Similarly, Mrs. Yzaguirre clearly had on hand the $100,000 in cash claimed as a My Oil asset, and the timing of her actual transfer of that money into a My Oil account would not alone constitute cause for suspicion, given that My Oil had yet to commence operations when the application was filed. Armando B. Yzaguirre also convincingly explained that leasing the tanker trucks from his father's company would not give Yzaguirre Oil effective control over My Oil's business. The younger Mr. Yzaguirre contemplated that the lease agreement would be an arms-length arrangement between the two companies. If the companies could not arrive at a mutually satisfactory lease agreement, or if the lease agreement should later fall through, My Oil could lease trucks from another company and continue doing business. However, no witness for My Oil offered a satisfactory explanation as to how the elder Mr. Yzaguirre's ownership of the real property would not give him some degree of control over My Oil's business. At the time of the hearing, title to the property at 211 New Market Road, East, was in the name of Armando Yzaguirre. A warranty deed for at least a portion of the property, executed by the prior owners on July 16, 1998, was in the name of Armando Yzaguirre. The Yzaguirres did not explain whether My Oil would purchase or lease the property from the elder Mr. Yzaguirre. The structure of the arrangement is critical to the issue of the elder Mr. Yzaguirre's control over My Oil. Substitutes for the tanker trucks could be obtained in short order with little or no disruption of My Oil's business. However, the physical location of the convenience store and filling station could not be changed so readily, and the elder Mr. Yzaguirre's position as owner of that property could give him great leverage over the operation of the business. The Department also raised the issue of the undisclosed participation of Armando B. Yzaguirre in the business affairs of My Oil. The testimony of Maria Yzaguirre and of her stepson strongly indicated that the younger Mr. Yzaguirre would have substantial control over the business activities of My Oil. However, because Armando B. Yzaguirre's identity was not disclosed on My Oil's application, the Department had no opportunity to conduct a review of his background and character to determine whether he met the standard set by Section 206.026, Florida Statutes. In summary, there was no direct evidence that the Yzaguirres deliberately attempted to deceive the Department or that My Oil was established as a front to obtain licensure for the presumptively ineligible Yzaguirre Oil. The evidence did establish that Armando Yzaguirre has been convicted of at least one felony, and that his ownership of the real property on which My Oil would conduct business could provide him with control of My Oil's business activities. The evidence further established that Armando B. Yzaguirre will have control over My Oil's business, and that the Department should have had the opportunity to conduct a background review to determine his fitness under Section 206.026, Florida Statutes. The relevant conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order for DOAH Case No. 02-0469 are as follows: Section 206.026, Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part: (1) No corporation . . . shall hold a terminal supplier, importer, exporter, blender, carrier, terminal operator, or wholesaler license in this state if any one of the persons or entities specified in paragraph (a) has been determined by the department not to be of good moral character or has been convicted of any offense specified in paragraph (b): 1. The licenseholder. The sole proprietor of the licenseholder. A corporate officer or director of the licenseholder. A general or limited partner of the licenseholder. A trustee of the licenseholder. A member of an unincorporated association licenseholder. A joint venturer of the licenseholder. The owner of any equity interest in the licenseholder, whether as a common shareholder, general or limited partner, voting trustee, or trust beneficiary. An owner of any interest in the license or licenseholder, including any immediate family member of the owner, or holder of any debt, mortgage, contract, or concession from the licenseholder, who by virtue thereof is able to control the business of the licenseholder. 1. A felony in this state. Any felony in any other state which would be a felony if committed in this state under the laws of Florida. Any felony under the laws of the United States. (2)(a) If the applicant for a license as specified under subsection (1) or a licenseholder as specified in paragraph (1)(a) has received a full pardon or a restoration of civil rights with respect to the conviction specified in paragraph (1)(b), then the conviction shall not constitute an absolute bar to the issuance or renewal of a license or ground for the revocation or suspension of a license. . . . In December 1990, Armando Yzaguirre entered a no contest plea to a second-degree felony charge of possession of more than five but not more than 50 pounds of marijuana in a Texas court. At the time of Mr. Yzaguirre's Texas conviction, Florida law listed cannabis as a Schedule I substance. Section 893.03(1)(c)4, Florida Statutes (1990). Absent licensure or other authorization, bringing cannabis into the state was a third-degree felony in 1990. Section 893.13(1)(d)2, Florida Statutes (1990). Possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis was a third-degree felony in 1990. Section 893.13(1)(f) and (g), Florida Statutes (1990). There can be little question that Mr. Yzaguirre's felony in Texas would have constituted at least one felony under Florida law, and thus that Mr. Yzaguirre has been convicted of an offense specified in Section 206.026(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Mr. Yzaguirre has not received a full pardon or restoration of civil rights, thus mooting any potential application of Section 206.026(2)(a), Florida Statutes, to this case. Mr. Yzaguirre's ownership of the real property that would hold My Oil's principal place of business would give him the ability to control the business of the licenseholder. This conclusion might have been different had My Oil presented evidence of the business relationship under which it would operate the facility on Mr. Yzaguirre's property. The extent of Armando B. Yzaguirre's involvement in My Oil was not disclosed to the Department. Testimony at the hearing established that the younger Mr. Yzaguirre would be the principal operator of My Oil for the foreseeable future. Due diligence under Section 206.026, Florida Statutes, requires the Department to conduct a background investigation of Armando B. Yzaguirre prior to the issuance of a fuel license to My Oil. In conclusion, My Oil has failed to demonstrate its entitlement to a Florida fuel license on the merits of the application it filed on June 20, 2001. The Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 02-0469 recommended that My Oil's 2001 Application be denied, but without prejudice to My Oil's ability to file a subsequent application curing the defects of its 2001 Application. In the 2002 Application, My Oil sought to cure those defects. First, the 2002 Application listed Armando B. Yzaguirre as a principal of My Oil, providing the Department an opportunity to conduct an investigation of his background and character. The Department's background check revealed no criminal convictions or other disqualifying factors related to Armando B. Yzaguirre. The Department's background check also revealed no criminal convictions or other disqualifying factors related to Maria Yzaguirre. The 2002 Application included an executed lease agreement, dated July 19, 2002, by which Armando Yzaguirre granted to My Oil a five-year lease on the premises at 211 New Market Road, East, in Immokalee. The lease specifies that My Oil will pay rent of $1,000 per month, and that the premises are to be used for the purpose of "a convenience store and retail gasoline sales to the general public, storage, and uses related to such use . . . and for no other purpose or purposes." The lease expressly states: "Landlord shall have no control over the use of the premises by the Tenant during the period of the lease." The 2002 Application continued to list the two tanker trucks as assets of My Oil, though they remain titled to Yzaguirre Oil. Armando B. Yzaguirre testified that My Oil does have a written lease with Yzaguirre Oil for the use of the tanker trucks. Armando Yzaguirre confirmed the existence of a lease on the trucks. However, the lease was not included in the 2002 Application and was not produced at the hearing. After receiving the 2002 Application, the Department contacted Armando B. Yzaguirre to request a current balance sheet for My Oil. The balance sheet submitted by Mr. Yzaguirre purported to show the assets and liabilities of My Oil as of July 22, 2002. The balance sheet indicated a negative total equity of $5,904.43. It indicated a "credit card" debt of $101,000 to Yzaguirre Farms, and other accounts payable of $36,852.79 to Yzaguirre Farms. At the hearing, the Department produced a canceled check from Armando Yzaguirre to My Oil in the amount of $101,000, with the notation, "My Oil Operating & Payroll." Armando Yzaguirre testified at the hearing that he has taken steps to have his civil rights restored, but that the process is not yet complete and his rights have not been restored. On August 22, 2002, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to Deny the 2002 Application, which stated, in relevant part: Your organization does not qualify for this license as there is a felony conviction of an owner of interest in the license and/or an immediate family member of the owner, as outlined in Chapter 206.026(1)(a)(9)&(b), Florida Statutes. The Department based its denial on several factors. First, the family relationship between My Oil's principals and Armando Yzaguirre itself raised the potential for Armando Yzaguirre to control My Oil. In particular, the Department noted the fact that Armando B. Yzaguirre resides in a mobile home owned by his father, and located a few hundred feet away from Armando Yzaguirre's main residence on the family property. Second, the balance sheet submitted by My Oil indicated a negative equity with large debts owed to Yzaguirre Farms, controlled by Armando Yzaguirre. Third, the Department concluded that the lease on the premises at 211 New Market Road, East, would not prevent Armando Yzaguirre from exerting control over My Oil, by breaking the lease, raising the rent, selling the property, or ejecting My Oil from the premises. Fourth, no proof was offered that My Oil had leased or purchased the tanker trucks from Yzaguirre Oil, meaning that My Oil's means of transporting fuel would be directly controlled by Armando Yzaguirre. Fifth, the $101,000 constituting the startup money for My Oil appears to have come directly from the bank account of Armando Yzaguirre. Sixth, My Oil was administratively dissolved by the Department of State on October 4, 2002, for failure to file an annual report. Finally, the Department stated that, regardless of the arms-length nature of any business dealings between My Oil and Armando Yzaguirre, My Oil would not be granted a license until Armando Yzaguirre's civil rights have been restored. The close family relationship coupled with the fact that Armando Yzaguirre is the source of My Oil's startup funds, its tanker trucks, and its business location, militate against granting My Oil a license so long as Armando Yzaguirre's civil rights have not been restored. In response, My Oil insisted that its 2002 Application cured every specific deficiency noted in the 2001 Application. First, it listed Armando B. Yzaguirre as a principal so that his background and criminal history could be investigated, and the Department's investigation revealed no disqualifying offenses. Armando B. Yzaguirre testified that the July 22, 2002, balance sheet submitted at the Department's request was not an accurate My Oil balance sheet. He stated that in setting up the computer program for My Oil's accounting, he attempted to shortcut the software's lengthy setup process for new businesses by simply copying an existing Yzaguirre Farms spreadsheet, then substituting the name "My Oil" for "Yzaguirre Farms." However, he quickly discovered that his "shortcut" would require him to delete manually every balance sheet entry for Yzaguirre Farms and re-enter the correct entries for My Oil. He abandoned this effort and began a My Oil spreadsheet from scratch, but he never deleted the partially converted Yzaguirre Farms spreadsheet from his computer. Mr. Yzaguirre testified the Department's phone call to request a current balance sheet came to him on his cellular phone while he was working on his father's farm. He relayed the message to his secretary, who printed a My Oil balance sheet and faxed it to the Department. Mr. Yzaguirre stated that, until the Department rejected the 2002 Application, he did not realize that his secretary had faxed a balance sheet generated by his aborted conversion of the Yzaguirre Farms spreadsheet, rather than the actual balance sheet for My Oil. A copy of what Armando B. Yzaguirre claimed was the actual My Oil balance sheet as of July 31, 2002, was introduced at the hearing. This balance sheet indicates an opening equity of $101,000, with $92,078.02 in retained earnings and operating and payroll accounts totaling $8,921.98. The July 31, 2002, balance sheet is accepted as the actual balance sheet for My Oil. While this balance sheet refutes the Department's conclusion that My Oil is starting business with a negative balance sheet indicating over $136,000 in debts to Yzaguirre Farms, it does not refute the evidence that the entire source of My Oil's cash accounts is $101,000, provided in the form of a check from an account in the name of Armando Yzaguirre. Armando B. Yzaguirre testified that the money came from a joint money market account in the name of Armando and Maria Yzaguirre, and that Maria was the source of the funds. This testimony is inconsistent with the fact that the check in question was signed by Armando Yzaguirre, and that his name alone appeared on the account name printed on the check. The elder Mr. Yzaguirre testified that he signed the check, but also testified that the account is in his name and that of his wife, and that they both consider the $101,000 to be her investment in My Oil. Neither of the Yzaguirres offered an explanation as to why Maria Yzaguirre's name did not appear on a check they claimed was drawn on a joint account. The Department's concerns about Armando Yzaguirre, a convicted felon, being the source of My Oil's startup funding were reasonable. My Oil failed to offer evidence sufficient to allay those concerns. Despite My Oil's claims to the contrary, the $101,000 check was plainly signed by Armando Yzaguirre and drawn from an account in his name. My Oil failed to explain the terms under which it accepted this startup funding from Armando Yzaguirre. The Department's explanation of its rejection of the lease submitted by My Oil for the premises at 211 New Market Road, East, was not reasonable. The lease document is a standard, arms-length agreement between My Oil and Armando Yzaguirre. The Department offered no evidence to support its assertions that Armando Yzaguirre would break the terms of the lease, that My Oil would not exercise its legal rights should Mr. Yzaguirre violate the lease's provisions, or that the lease should be considered invalid because a contract between relatives is inherently suspect. The other concerns raised by the Department-- that Mr. Yzaguirre might raise the rent, sell the property, or evict My Oil-- are answered by the terms of the lease itself and raise no issues beyond those that would arise in any lessor/lessee relationship. As to the lease on the tanker trucks, both Armando B. and Armando Yzaguirre testified that My Oil did have a lease on the trucks, to take effect if and when My Oil receives a fuel tax license from the Department. Their testimony is credited as to the existence of the lease, though they offered no testimony specifying the terms of the lease. The fact that My Oil was administratively dissolved for failure to file an annual report should have played no part in the Department's rejection of My Oil's application. Such dissolution is an administrative matter easily cured by the filing of the report. At most, the Department should have required My Oil to provide proof of reinstatement prior to issuance of any fuel tax license. In summary, several of the particular concerns on which the Department based its decision were overstated. However, the Department's overarching concern that Armando Yzaguirre was in a position to control the business of My Oil was reasonable. Armando Yzaguirre was clearly the source of the $101,000 in startup money for My Oil, and no evidence was offered to explain the terms under which this money was provided to My Oil. The lease arrangements for the premises and the tanker trucks may be unobjectionable in themselves, but when coupled with the fact that My Oil is heavily indebted to Armando Yzaguirre, they raise entirely reasonable suspicions regarding My Oil's independence from Mr. Yzaguirre's control. The Department's position that My Oil cannot be granted a license until Armando Yzaguirre's civil rights have been restored is supported by the evidence. Armando Yzaguirre is the source of My Oil's funds, its place of doing business, and its means of transporting fuel. My Oil failed to demonstrate that these facts do not give Armando Yzaguirre the ability to control its business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying the application of My Oil Company, Inc., for a Florida fuel license, without prejudice to the ability of My Oil Company, Inc., to file a new application upon the restoration of Armando Yzaguirre's civil rights. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 28th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Robert F. Langford, Jr., Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol-Tax Section Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 E. Raymond Shope, II, Esquire 1404 Goodlette Road, North Naples, Florida 34102 R. Lynn Lovejoy, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol-Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Frank Gish operates Gish's Exxon service station, which is located at 400 Ridgewood Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida. Gish's Exxon service station purchases all of its gasoline from the Respondent, Widmaier Oil Company. On or about February 17, 1982, one of the Department's employees performed a routine inspection at Gish's Exxon service station. Samples were taken from each of the station's gasoline pumps and forwarded to a mobile laboratory. One of the samples taken was from the pump labeled "Exxon Unleaded." An examination of this sample was performed on the same date. The lead content of the sample was found to be .09 grams per gallon. After this analysis was performed, the remainder of the sample was forwarded to the Department's laboratory in Tallahassee for more detailed examination. Personnel at the Department's laboratory in Tallahassee performed a precise X-ray examination of the sample. American Society for Testing Materials standards were applied in conducting the examination. The lead content of the sample was found to be .098 grams per gallon. The Department's rules require that gasoline sold as unleaded gasoline may not contain more than .05 grams of lead per gallon Rule 5F-2.01(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code. The Department's testing techniques have a "reproducibility factor" or error factor of up to .034 grams per gallon. Thus, the Department does not take action based upon tests that it runs unless the tests reveal a lead content of more than .084 grams per gallon. The samples taken from Gish's Exxon service station exceeded this amount, and a "Stop Sale" order was issued. Widmaier Oil Company posted a bond in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) with the Department, so that the gasoline could be sold as "leaded gasoline." Widmaier Oil Company has agreed to accept responsibility for the selling of any illegal product as might be determined in this proceeding. No evidence was offered at the hearing from which it could be determined how the unleaded gasoline being sold at Gish's Exxon service station came to have an excessive lead content. Respondent contended that the gasoline may have been contaminated by the Petitioner's agents wrongly placing samples of gasoline that had been taken from a leaded pump into the unleaded tank. This contention is not supported by any evidence, and it appears that the samples taken by the Respondent's agents were not sufficient in volume to have raised the lead content in the unleaded tank to a level that would have violated the Department's standards.
Findings Of Fact At a routine inspection conducted on December 27, 1978 at Suncoast's Fine Station 45 at 825 49th Street, St. Petersburg, Florida, a sample of gasoline taken from the unleaded pump was returned to the mobile laboratory for testing. This test showed the lead content to exceed .110 grams per gallon. A stop sale order was placed on the pump from which the sample was taken and the sample was forwarded to Tallahassee for further testing to ascertain the exact lead content. The laboratory test conducted at Tallahassee showed the sample to have a lead content of .312 grams per gallon. In lieu of having the gasoline, on which the stop sale order was entered, confiscated, Respondent posted a bond in the amount of $1007.68 and the gasoline was released to be sold as regular gasoline. At the time the stop sale was placed on the tank it was determined that some 1441 gallons of excess lead gasoline had been sold from this tank since the tank was last filled. In lieu of confiscating the remainder of the gasoline in this tank, Petitioner was given the option of posting a bond in the amount of $1007.68, which represented the retail price of the gasoline sold from that tank. It is the forfeiture of this bond which Petitioner is contesting, and no evidence was submitted by Petitioner why the bond should not be forfeited.
The Issue This proceeding is for the purpose of resolving a territorial dispute regarding the extension of gas service to areas of The Villages of Sumter Lake (“The Villages”) in Sumter County, Florida, pursuant to section 366.04(3)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 25-7.0472; and whether a Natural Gas System Construction, Purchase, and Sale Agreement (“Agreement”) between the City of Leesburg (“Leesburg”) and South Sumter Gas Company (“SSGC”) creates a “hybrid” public utility subject to ratemaking oversight by the Public Service Commission (“Commission”).
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Stipulated Issues PGS is a natural gas local distribution company providing sales and transportation delivery of natural gas throughout many areas of the State of Florida, including portions of Sumter County. PGS is the largest natural gas provider in Florida with approximately 390,000 customers, over 600 full-time employees, and the same number of construction contract crews. PGS’s system consists of approximately 19,000 miles of distribution mains throughout Florida. PGS operates systems in areas that are very rural and areas that are densely populated. PGS currently serves more than 45,000 customers in Sumter and Marion counties. PGS is an investor-owned “natural gas utility,” as defined in section 366.04(3)(c), and is subject to the Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to resolve territorial disputes. Leesburg is a municipality in central Florida with a population of approximately 25,000 within the city limits, and a broader metropolitan service area (“MSA”) population of about 50,000. Leesburg provides natural gas service in portions of Lake and Sumter counties. Leesburg is a “natural gas utility” as defined in section 366.04(3)(c). Leesburg has provided natural gas service to its customers since 1959, and currently serves about 14,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers both within and outside its city limits via a current system of approximately 276 miles of distribution lines. Leesburg is subject to the Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to resolve territorial disputes. SSGC is a Florida limited liability company and an operating division of The Villages. SSGC is the entity through which The Villages has entered into a written contract with Leesburg authorizing Leesburg to supply natural gas services to, initially, the Bigham developments. The issues of cost of capital and amortization and depreciation are not applicable to this dispute. The Dispute A territorial dispute is a disagreement over which natural gas utility will serve a particular geographic area. In this case, the area in dispute is that encompassed by the Bigham developments. PGS argued that the dispute should be expanded to include areas not subject to current development, but that are within the scope of anticipated Villages expansion. The extension of this territorial dispute beyond the Bigham developments is not warranted or necessary, and would have the effect of establishing a territorial boundary in favor of one of the parties. As a result of the Agreement to be discussed herein, SSGC has constructed residential gas infrastucture within Bigham, and has conveyed that infrastructure to Leesburg. Leesburg supplies natural gas to Bigham, bills and collects for gas service, and is responsible for upkeep, maintenance, and repair of the gas system. The question for disposition in this proceeding is whether service to Bigham is being lawfully provided by Leesburg pursuant to the standards applicable to territorial disputes. Natural Gas Regulation PGS is an investor-owned public utility. It is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission with regard to rates and service. Its profits and return on equity are likewise subject to regulation. Leesburg is a municipal natural gas utility. The Commission does not regulate, or require the reporting of municipal natural gas utility rates, conditions of service, rate-setting, or the billing, collection, or distribution of revenues. The evidence suggests that the reason for the “hands- off” approach to municipal natural gas utilities is due to the ability of municipal voters to self-regulate at the ballot box. PGS argues that customers in The Villages, as is the case with any customer outside of the Leesburg city limits, do not have any direct say in how Leesburg sets rates and terms of service.1/ That may be so, but the Legislature’s approach to the administration and operation of municipal natural gas utilities, with the exception of safety reporting and territorial disputes, is a matter of legislative policy that is not subject to the authority of the undersigned. History of The Villages The Villages is a series of planned residential areas developed under common ownership and development. Its communities are age-restricted, limited to persons age 55 and older. It has been the fastest growing MSA for medium-sized and up communities for the past five years. The Villages started in the 1970s as a mobile home community known as Orange Blossom Gardens in Lake County. That community proved to be successful, and the concept was expanded in the 1980s to include developments with golf courses and clubhouses. Residents began to customize their mobile homes to the point at which the investment in those homes rivaled the cost of site-built homes. In the 1990s, The Villages went to site-built home developments. By then, one of the two original developers had sold his interest to the other, who proceeded to bring his son into the business. They decided that their approach of building homes should be more akin to traditional development patterns in which growth emanates from a central hub. Thus, in 1994, the Spanish Springs Town Center was built, with an entertainment hub surrounded by shopping and amenities. It was a success. By 2000, The Villages had extended southward to County Road (“CR”) 466, and a second town center, Lake Sumter Landing, was constructed. The following years, to the present, saw The Villages continue its southward expansion to State Road (“SR”) 44, where the Brownwood Town Center was constructed, and then to its southernmost communities of Fenney, Bigham North, Bigham West, and Bigham East, which center on the intersection of CR 468 and CR 501. The Villages currently constructs between 200 and 260 residential houses per month. Contractors are on a computerized schedule by which all tasks involved in the construction of the home are set forth in detail. The schedule was described, aptly, as rigorous. A delay by any contractor in the completion of the performance of its task results in a cascading delay for following contractors. Gas Service in the Area Gas mains are generally “arterial” in nature, with relatively large distribution mains operating at high distribution pressure extending outward from a connection to an interstate or intrastate transmission line through a gate station. Smaller mains then “pick up” growth along the line as it develops, with lower pressure service lines completing the system. In 1994, Leesburg constructed a gas supply main from the terminus of its existing facility at the Lake County/Sumter County line along CR 470 to the Coleman Federal Prison. In August 2009, PGS was granted a non-exclusive franchise by the City of Wildwood to provide natural gas service to Wildwood. SSGC Exhibit 6, which depicts the boundaries of the City of Leesburg, the City of Wildwood, and the City of Coleman, demonstrates that most, if not all, of the area encompassed by the Bigham developments is within the Wildwood city limits. In 2015, the interstate Sabal Trail transmission pipeline was being extended south through Sumter County. The line was originally expected to run in close proximity to Interstate 75. Even at that location, Leesburg decided that it would construct a gate station connecting to the Sabal Trail pipeline to provide backfill capabilities for its existing facilities in Lake County, and for its Coleman prison customer. In 2016, the Sabal Trail pipeline was redirected to come much closer to the municipal limits of Leesburg. That decision made the Leesburg determination to locate a gate station connecting to the Sabal Trail pipeline much easier. In addition, construction of the gate station while the Sabal Trail pipeline was under construction made construction simpler and less expensive. By adding the connecting lines to the Sabal Trail pipeline while it was under construction, a “hot tap” was not required. In May 2016, PGS began extending its gas distribution facilities to serve industrial facilities south of Coleman. It started from the terminus of its existing main at the intersection of SR 44 and CR 468 -- roughly a mile and a half west of the Lake County/Sumter County line and the Leesburg city limit -- along CR 468 to the intersection with U.S. Highway 301 (“US 301”), and extending along US 301 to the town of Coleman by January 2017. The distribution line was then extended south along US 301 to Sumterville.2/ In addition, Sumter County built a line off of the PGS line to a proposed industrial customer/industrial park to the south and west of Coleman, which was assigned to PGS. It is common practice for investor-owned utilities to extend service to an anchor customer, and to size the infrastructure to allow for the addition of customers along the route. By so doing, there is an expectation that a line will be fully utilized, resulting in lower customer cost, and a return on the investment. Nonetheless, PGS has not performed an analysis of the CR 468/US 301 line to determine whether PGS would be able to depreciate those lines and recover the costs. The CR 468/US 301 PGS distribution line is an eight- inch line, which is higher capacity in both size and pressure. The entire line is ceramic-coated steel with cathodic protection, which is the most up-to-date material. PGS sized the CR 468/US 301 distribution line to handle additional capacity to serve growth along the corridor. Although PGS had no territorial or developer agreement relating to any area of The Villages when it installed its CR 468/US 301 distribution line, PGS expected growth in the area, whether it was to be from The Villages or from another developer. Although it did not have specific loads identified, the positioning of the distribution line anticipated residential and commercial development along its route. Nonetheless, none of the PGS lines were extended specifically for future Villages developments. PGS had no territorial agreement, and had no discussion with The Villages about serving any development along the mains. PGS constructed a gate station at the intersection of CR 468 and CR 501 connecting to the Sabal Palm pipeline to serve the anchor industrial facilities. The Sabal Trail gate station was not constructed in anticipation of service to The Villages. Gas Service to The Villages In 2017, The Villages decided to extend gas service to its Fenney development, located along CR 468. Prior to that decision, The Villages had not constructed homes with gas appliances at any residential location in The Villages. The Villages has extended gas to commercial facilities associated with its developments north of SR 44, which had generally been provided by PGS. The Villages’ development in Fruitland Park in Lake County included commercial facilities with gas constructed, installed, and served by Leesburg. Prior to the time in which the Fenney development was being planned, The Villages began to require joint trenching agreements with various utilities contracted to serve The Villages, including water, sewer, cable TV, irrigation, and electric lines. Pursuant to these trenching agreements, The Villages’ contractors excavate a trench to serve residential facilities prior to construction of the residences. The trenches are typically four-feet-wide by four-feet-deep. Each of the utilities install their lines in the trench at a designated depth and separation from the other utility lines in order to meet applicable safety requirements. Using a common trench allows for uniformity of installation and avoids installation mishaps that can occur when lines are installed after other lines are in the ground. The trenching agreements proved to be effective in resolving issues of competing and occasionally conflicting utility line development. The PGS CR 468 distribution line runs parallel to CR 468 along the northern boundary of the Fenney development. Therefore, PGS was selected to provide service when the decision was made to extend gas service into Fenney. PGS entered into a developer agreement with The Villages that was limited to work in Fenney. PGS was brought into the Fenney development project in August 2017, after four development units had been completed. Therefore, PGS had to bring gas service lines into residences in those units as a retrofitted element, and not as a participant to the trenching agreements under which other utilities were installed. There were occasions during installation when the PGS installation contractor, R.A.W. Construction, severed telephone and cable TV lines, broke water and sewer lines, and tore up landscaped and sodded areas. As a result, homes in the four completed Fenney development units were delayed resulting in missed closing dates. However, since PGS was not brought in until after the fact for the four completed developments, it is difficult to assign blame for circumstances that were apparently not uncommon before joint trench agreements were implemented, and which formed the rationale for the creation of joint trench agreements.3/ The Villages was not satisfied with the performance of PGS at its Fenney development. The problems described by The Villages related to construction and billing services. The Villages also complained that PGS did not have sufficient manpower to meet its exceedingly rigid and inflexible construction requirements. Mr. McDonough indicated that even in those areas in which PGS was a participant in joint trenching agreements, it was incapable of keeping up with the schedule. Much of that delay was attributed to its contractor at the time, R.A.W. Construction. After some time had passed, PGS changed contractors and went with Hamlet Construction (“Hamlet”), a contractor with which The Villages had a prior satisfactory relationship. After Hamlet was brought in, most of the construction-related issues were resolved. However, Mr. Lovo testified that billing issues with PGS were still unsatisfactory, resulting in delays in transfer of service from The Villages to the residential home buyer, and delays and mistakes in various billing functions, including rebates. In late 2017, as the Fenney development was approaching buildout, The Villages commenced construction of the Bigham developments. The three Bigham developments were adjacent to one another. The Bigham developments will collectively include 4,200 residential homes, along with commercial support facilities. By September 27, 2017, Leesburg officials were having discussions with Mr. Geoffroy, a representative of its gas purchasing cooperative, Florida Gas Utility (“FGU”), as to how it might go about obtaining rights to serve The Villages’ developments. Mr. Rogers inquired, via email, “[w]hat about encroachment into [PGS] territory north of 468, which is where they plan to build next? [PGS] has a line on 468 that is feeding the section currently under development.” Some 15 minutes later, Mr. Geoffroy described the “customer preference” plan that ultimately became a cornerstone of this case as follows: Yes, the areas that the Villages “plans” to build is currently “unserved territory”, so the PSC looks at a lot of factors, such as construction costs, proximity of existing infrastructure and other things; however, the rule goes on to state that customer preference is an over-riding factor; if all else is substantially equal. In this case, simply having the Villages say they will only put gas into the homes if Leesburg serves them, but not TECO/PGS, will do it. (emphasis added). On November 16, 2017, Leesburg was preparing for a meeting with The Villages to be held “tomorrow.” Among the topics raised by Mr. Rogers was “territorial agreement?” to which Mr. Geoffroy responded “[d]epends on which option [The Villages] choose. If they become the utility, then yes. If not, you will eventually need an agreement with [PGS].” During this period of time, PGS had no communication with either Leesburg or The Villages regarding the extension of gas service to Bigham. PGS became aware that Hamlet was installing gas lines along CR 501 and CR 468 in late December 2017. PGS had not authorized those installations. Bigham West adjoined Fenney, and PGS had lines in the Fenney development that could have established a point of connection to the Bigham developments without modification of the lines. In addition, each of the three Bigham developments front onto CR 468 and are contiguous to the CR 468 PGS distribution line. The distance from the PGS line directly into any of the Bigham developments was a matter of 10 to 100 feet. The cost to PGS to extend gas service into Bigham would have been minimal, with “a small amount of labor involved and a couple feet of pipe.” PGS met with Leesburg officials in January 2018 to determine what was being constructed and to avoid a territorial dispute. PGS was directed by Leesburg to contact The Villages for details. Thereafter, PGS met with representatives of The Villages. PGS was advised that The Villages was “unappreciative” of the business model by which The Villages built communities, and a public utility was able to serve the residential customers and collect the gas service revenues for 30 or 40 years. The Agreement The Villages was, after the completion of Fenney, unsure as to whether it would provide gas service to Bigham, or would continue its past practice of providing all electric homes. The Villages rebuffed Leesburg’s initial advances to extend gas service to The Villages’ new developments, including Bigham. Thereafter, The Villages undertook a series of discussions with Leesburg as to how gas service might be provided to additional Villages’ developments in a manner that would avoid what The Villages’ perceived to be the inequity of allowing a public utility to serve The Villages’ homes, with the public utility keeping the revenues from that service. Leesburg and The Villages continued negotiations to come to a means for extending gas service to The Villages’ developments, while allowing The Villages to collect revenues generated from monthly customer charges and monthly “per therm” charges. SSGC was formed as a natural gas construction company to engage in those discussions. SSCG was, by its own acknowledgement, “an affiliate of The Villages, and the de facto proxy for The Villages in this proceeding.” On January 3, 2018, Leesburg internally discussed how to manage the issue of contributions in aid of construction (“CIAC”). It appeared to Mr. Rogers that gas revenues would continue to be shared with The Villages after its infrastructure investment, with interest, was paid off, with Mr. Rogers questioning “is there a legal issue with them continuing to collect revenue after their capital investment is recovered? Admittedly that may not occur for 15 years.” A number of tasks to be undertaken by The Villages “justifying the continued revenue stream” were proposed, with Mr. Geoffroy stating that: While this may seem a large amount for very little infrastructure, I think it would probably be okay. Because [PGS] distribution is so close, and the Villages has used them previously, it would be relatively easy for the Villages to connect to [PGS] and disconnect from [Leesburg], at any point in the future. In order to get and retain the contract, this is what [Leesburg] has to agree to win the deal. Not sure anyone has rate jurisdiction on this anyway, other than [Leesburg]. Those discussions led to the development of the Agreement under which service to Bigham was ultimately provided. The Agreement was a formulaic approach to entice The Villages into allowing Leesburg to be the gas provider for the residents that were to come. The Agreement governs the construction, purchase, and sale of natural gas distribution facilities providing service to residential and commercial customers in The Villages’ developments. On February 12, 2018, the Leesburg City Commission adopted Resolution 10,156, which authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement on the Leesburg’s behalf. The Agreement was thereupon entered into between Leesburg and SSGC, with an effective date of February 13, 2018. Then, on February 26, 2019, the Leesburg City Commission adopted Ordinance 18-07, which enacted the Villages Natural Gas Rate Structure and Method of Setting Rates established in the Agreement into the Leesburg Code of Ordinances. The Agreement has no specific term of years, but provides for a term “through the expiration or earlier termination of [Leesburg]’s franchise from the City of Wildwood.” Mr. Minner testified that “the length of the agreement is 30 years from when a final home is built, and then over that overlay is the 30-year franchise agreement from the City of Wildwood.” However, SSGC’s response to interrogatories indicates that the Agreement has a 30-year term. Though imprecise, the 30-year term is a fair measure of the term of the Agreement. For the Bigham developments, i.e., the Agreement’s original “service area,” facilities are those installed into Bigham from the regulator station at the end of Leesburg’s new CR 501 distribution line, and include distribution lines along Bigham’s roads and streets, all required service lines, pressure regulator stations, meters and regulators for each customer, and other appurtenances by which natural gas will be distributed to customers. The Agreement acknowledges that Leesburg and SSGC “anticipate that the service Area will expand as The Villages® community grows, and thus, as it may so expand, [Leesburg and SSGC] shall expand the Service Area from time to time by written Amendment to this Agreement.” SSGC is responsible for the design, engineering, and construction of the natural gas facilities within Bigham. SSGC is responsible for complying with all codes and regulations, for obtaining all permits and approvals, and arranging for labor, materials, and contracts necessary to construct the system. Leesburg is entitled to receive notice from SSGC prior to the construction of each portion of the natural gas system, and has “the right but not the obligation” to perform tests and inspections as the system is installed. The evidence indicates that Leesburg has assigned a city inspector who is on-site daily to monitor the installation of distribution and service lines. SSGC has, to date, been using Hamlet as its contractor, the same company used by PGS to complete work at Fenney. Upon completion of each section in the development, SSGC provides Leesburg with a final inspection report and a set of “as-built” drawings. SSGC then conveys ownership of the gas distribution system to Leesburg in the form of a Bill of Sale. Upon the conveyance of the system to Leesburg, Leesburg assumes responsibility for all operation, maintenance, repairs, and upkeep of the system. Leesburg is also responsible for all customer service, emergency and service calls, meter reading, billing, and collections. Upon conveyance, Leesburg operates and provides natural gas service to Bigham through the system and through Leesburg’s facilities “as an integrated part of [Leesburg’s] natural gas utility operations.” In order to “induce” SSGC to enter into the Agreement, and as the “purchase price” for the system constructed by SSGC, Leesburg will pay SSCG a percentage of the monthly customer charge and the “per therm” charge billed to Bigham customers. Leesburg will charge Bigham customers a “Villages Natural Gas Rate” (“Villages Rate”). The “per therm” charge and the monthly customer charge for each Bigham customer are to be equal to the corresponding rates charged by PGS. If PGS lowers its monthly customer charge after the effective date of the agreement, Leesburg is not obligated to lower its Villages Rate. Bigham customers, who are outside of Leesburg’s municipal boundaries and unable to vote in Leesburg municipal elections, will pay a rate for gas that exceeds that of customers inside of Leesburg’s municipal boundaries and those inside of Leesburg’s traditional service area. A preponderance of the evidence indicates that for the term of the agreement, The Villages will collect from 52 percent (per Mr. Minner at hearing) to 55 percent (per Mr. Minner in deposition) of the total gas revenues paid to Leesburg from Bigham customers. The specific breakdown of revenues is included in the Agreement itself, and its recitation here is not necessary. The mechanism by which The Villages, through SSGC, receives revenue from gas service provided by Leesburg, first to its “proxy” customer and then to its end-user customers, is unique and unprecedented. It has skewed both competitive and market forces. Nonetheless, PGS was not able to identify any statute or rule that imposed a regulatory standard applicable to municipal gas utilities that would prevent such an arrangement. The evidence establishes that, under the terms of the Agreement, Leesburg is the “natural gas utility” as that term is defined by statute and rule. The evidence establishes that SSGC is, nominally, a gas system construction contractor building gas facilities for Leesburg’s ownership and operation. The evidence does not establish that the Agreement creates a “hybrid” public utility. Extension of Service to the Bigham Developments Leesburg’s mains nearest to Bigham were at SR 44 at the Lake County/Sumter County line, a distance of approximately 3.5 miles from the nearest Bigham point of connection; and along CR 470, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles to the nearest Bigham point of connection. When the Agreement was entered, neither the Leesburg 501 line nor the Leesburg 468 line were in existence. At the time the Agreement was entered, Leesburg knew that PGS was the closest provider to the three Bigham developments. In order to serve Bigham, Leesburg constructed a distribution line from a point on CR 470 near the Coleman Prison northward along CR 501 for approximately 2.5 miles to the southern boundary between Bigham West and Bigham East. Leesburg constructed a second distribution line from the Lake County line on SR 44 eastward to its intersection with CR 468, and then southward along CR 468 to the Florida Turnpike, just short of the boundary with Bigham East, a total distance of approximately 3.5 miles. The Leesburg CR 468 line will allow Leesburg to connect with the Bigham distribution line and “loop” or “backfeed” its system to provide redundancy and greater reliability of service to Bigham and other projects in The Villages as they are developed. The new Leesburg CR 468 line runs parallel to the existing PGS CR 468 line along its entire CR 468 route, and crosses the PGS line in places. There are no Commission regulations that prohibit crossing lines, or having lines in close proximity. Nonetheless, having lines in close proximity increases the risk of, among other things, complicating emergency response issues where fire and police believe they are responding to one utility's emergency when it is the other’s emergency. Safety Although PGS was the subject of a Commission investigation and violation related to a series of 2013-2015 inspections, those violations have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Commission. Mr. Szelistowski testified that PGS has received no citations or violations from the Commission, either from a construction standpoint or an operation and maintenance standpoint, for the past three years. Mr. Moses testified that both PGS and Leesburg are able to safely provide natural gas service to customers in Sumter County. His testimony is credited. Given the differences in size, geographic range, nature, and density of areas served by the PGS and Leesburg systems, the prior violations are not so concerning as to constitute a material difference in the outcome of this case. All of the distribution and service lines proposed by Leesburg and PGS to serve and for use in the disputed territory are modern, safe, and state-of-the-art. Reliability As stated by Leesburg in its PRO, “[t]he reliability of a natural gas distribution system to serve a designated area depends on the nature, location and capacity of the utility's existing infrastructure, the ability of the utility to secure the necessary quantities of natural gas, and the ability of the natural gas utility to supply gas in a safe manner.” As set forth herein, the location of PGS’s existing infrastructure, vis-a-vis the disputed territory, weighs strongly in its favor. As to the other reliability factors identified by Leesburg, both parties are equally capable of providing reliable service to the disputed territory. Both PGS and Leesburg demonstrated that they have the managerial and operational experience to provide service in the disputed area. There was no evidence to suggest that end-user customers of either Leesburg or PGS, including PGS’s Fenney customers, are dissatisfied with their service. Regulatory Standards for Territorial Disputes Rule 25-7.0472 establishes the criteria for the resolution of territorial disputes regarding gas utilities. Rule 25-7.0472(2)(a) Rule 25-7.0472(2)(a) includes the following issues for consideration in resolving a territorial dispute regarding gas utilities: The capability of each utility to provide reliable natural gas service within the disputed area with its existing facilities and gas supply contracts. Leesburg currently obtains its natural gas supply from the Florida Gas Transmission (“FGT”) distribution system, and purchases natural gas through FGU, a not-for-profit joint action agency, or "co-op" for purchasing natural gas. FGU's membership consists of city or governmental utility systems in Florida that distribute natural gas to end-user customers, or that use natural gas to generate electricity. FGU purchases and provides gas and manages interstate pipeline capacity for its members. FGU's members contractually reserve space in interstate transmission lines. FGU aggregates its members’ contracts into a single consolidated contract between FGU and the interstate pipelines and collectively manages its members’ needs through that contract. FGU has flexibility to transfer pipeline capacity from one member to benefit another member. Leesburg currently takes its natural gas through a "lateral" pipeline from the FGT transmission line. Gas travels through one of two gate stations, one in Haines Creek, and the other near the Leesburg municipal airport, both of which are located in Leesburg’s northeast quadrant. At the gate stations, transmission pressure is reduced to lower distribution pressure, and the gas is metered as it is introduced into Leesburg’s distribution system. The FGT transmission capacity is fully subscribed by FGU. Leesburg has not fully subscribed its lateral pipeline and has sole access to its lateral line capacity. Prior to the entry of the Agreement, and Leesburg/SSGC’s extension of distribution lines along CR 501 and CR 468, Leesburg’s distribution lines extended into Sumter County only along CR 470 to the Coleman Federal Prison. One other Leesburg line extended to the county line along SR 44, and then north to serve a residential area in Lake County. Leesburg argues that it has already extended lines, and is providing service to thousands of homes in Bigham, and that those facilities should be considered in determining whether it can “provide reliable natural gas service within the disputed area with its existing facilities.” PGS did not know of Leesburg’s intent to serve Bigham until late December 2017, when it observed PGS’s Fenney contractor, Hamlet, installing lines along CR 468, lines that it had not approved. PGS met with Leesburg officials in January 2018 to determine what was being constructed and to avoid a territorial dispute. PGS was directed by Leesburg to contact The Villages for details. PGS filed its territorial dispute on February 23, 2018, 10 days from the entry of the Agreement, and three days prior to the adoption of Ordinance 18-07. Construction of the infrastructure to serve Bigham occurred after the filing of the territorial dispute. Given the speed with which The Villages builds, hundreds of homes have been built, and gas facilities to serve have been constructed, since the filing of the territorial dispute. To allow Leesburg to take credit for its facilities in the disputed territory, thus prevailing as a fait accompli, would be contrary to the process and standards for determining a territorial dispute. The territory must be gauged by the conditions in the disputed territory prior to the disputed extension of facilities to serve the area. Leesburg’s existing facilities, i.e., those existing prior to extension to the disputed territory, were sufficient to serve the needs of Leesburg’s existing service area. The existing facilities were not sufficient to serve the disputed territory without substantial extension. 2. The extent to which additional facilities are needed. Both PGS and Leesburg have sufficient interconnections with transmission pipelines. Prior to commencement of construction at Bigham, the area consisted of undeveloped rural land. As discussed herein, the “starting point” for determining the necessity of facilities is the disputed territory property before the installation of site-specific interior distribution and service lines. To find otherwise would reward a “race to serve.” PGS demonstrated that it is capable of serving the disputed territory with no additional facilities needed. Its distribution mains are located directly adjacent to the disputed territory from the Fenney development from the west, and are contiguous to each of the Bigham developments from CR 468. The PGS CR 468 line was not constructed in specific anticipation of serving Bigham, and its cost is not fairly included in PGS’s cost to provide natural gas service to the disputed area presently and in the future. PGS’s existing distribution mains are capable of providing service to Bigham literally within feet of a point of connection. PGS’s cost to reach the disputed territory from its existing facilities in Fenney was estimated at $500 to $1,000. The cost of connecting the interior Bigham service lines to PGS’s CR 468 line is, at most, $10,000. PGS’s total cost of extending gas distribution lines to serve Bigham is, at most, $11,000. The evidence demonstrated that Leesburg required substantial additional facilities to serve the disputed territory. In order to meet the needs for reliable service to Bigham established in the Agreement, Leesburg constructed a new high-pressure distribution line from the existing CR 470 line north along CR 501 to Bigham for a distance of 2.5 miles at a cost of $651,475. The CR 501 line was constructed in specific anticipation of serving Bigham and is fairly included in Leesburg’s cost to provide natural gas service to the disputed area presently and in the future. In order to meet the needs for reliable service to Bigham established in the Agreement, Leesburg constructed a new high-pressure distribution line along SR 44 and CR 468 to Bigham for a distance of 3.5 miles at a cost of $560,732. The CR 468 segment of Leesburg’s line is adjacent and parallel to PGS’s existing CR 468 pipeline. Leesburg plans to connect the CR 468 line with the CR 501 line by way of a regulator station to create a system loop. Although Leesburg’s CR 468 pipeline is, ostensibly, not the primary distribution line for Bigham, it is directly related to the CR 501 line, and provides desired redundancy and reliability for Bigham, as well as infrastructure for the further expansion of Leesburg’s gas system to The Villages. Thus, the cost of extending Leesburg’s CR 468 line is fairly included in Leesburg’s cost as an “additional facility” to provide “reliable natural gas service,” to the disputed area presently and in the future. Leesburg’s total cost of extending gas distribution lines designed as primary distribution or redundant capability to serve Bigham is a minimum of $1,212,207. In addition to the foregoing, Leesburg, in its response to interrogatories, indicated that it “anticipates spending an amount not to exceed approximately $2.2 million dollars for gas lines located on county roads 501 and 468.” Furthermore, Leesburg stated that “[a]n oral agreement exists [between Leesburg and SSGC] that the amount to be paid by Leesburg for the construction of natural gas infrastructure on county roads 468 and 501 will not exceed $2.2 million dollars. This agreement was made . . . on February 12, 2018.” That is the date on which Leesburg adopted Resolution 10,156, which authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement on Leesburg’s behalf. The context of those statements suggests that the total cost of constructing the gas infrastucture to serve Bigham could be as much as $2.2 million. PGS argues that Leesburg’s cost of connecting to the Sabal Trail transmission line should be included in the cost of serving the disputed territory. Leesburg began planning and discussions to connect to Sabal Trail as early as 2015, when the construction of Sabal Trail through the area became known. Leesburg entered into a contract for the Sabal Trail connection in February 2016. The Sabal Trail connection was intended to provide Leesburg with additional redundant capacity for its system independent of service to The Villages. The cost of constructing the Sabal Trail gate station is not fairly included in Leesburg’s cost to provide natural gas service to the disputed area presently and in the future. Rule 25-7.0472(2)(b) Rule 25-7.0472(2)(b) includes the following issues for consideration in resolving a territorial dispute regarding gas utilities: The nature of the disputed area and the type of utilities seeking to serve it. The area in dispute was, prior to the commencement of construction, essentially rural, with rapidly encroaching residential/commercial development. Although the area was generally rural at the time PGS installed its CR 468/US 301 distribution line, there was a well-founded expectation that development was imminent, if not by The Villages, then by another residential developer. The disputed territory is being developed as a master-planned residential community with associated commercial development. The Bigham developments are currently proximate to the Fenney development. Other non-rural land uses in the area include the Coleman Federal Prison and the American Cement plant. As indicated, Leesburg is a municipal gas utility, and PGS is a public gas utility. The utilities seeking to serve the disputed territory are both capable, established providers with experience serving mixed residential and commercial areas. There is nothing with regard to this factor that would tip the balance in either direction. 2. The degree of urbanization of the area and its proximity to other urban areas. As it currently stands, the disputed territory is bounded to its south and east by generally undeveloped rural property, to its south by rural property along with the Coleman Prison and American Cement plant, to its west by the Fenney development and additional undeveloped rural property, and to its north by low-density residential development. The disputed territory is characterized by residential areas of varying density, interspersed with commercial support areas. The nearest of the “town centers,” which are a prominent feature of The Villages development, is Brownwood Paddock Square, which is located north of SR 44, and a few miles north of Fenney and Bigham. The town center is not in the disputed territory. The terms “urban” and “rural” are not defined in Florida Administrative Code chapter 25-7, or in chapter 366. Thus, application of the common use of the term is appropriate. “Urban” is defined as “of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city.” Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/urban. “Rural” is defined as “of or relating to the country, country people or life, or agriculture.” Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/rural. The disputed territory was rural prior to the development of Bigham. The area is becoming more loosely urbanized as The Villages has moved into the area and is expected to experience further urban growth to the south and east. Fenney and Bigham are, aside from their proximity to one another, not currently proximate to other urban areas. There is nothing with regard to this factor that would tip the balance in either direction. 3. The present and reasonably foreseeable future requirements of the area for other utility services. Since the disputed territory is a completely planned development, there are requirements for basic utilities. Leesburg provides other utility services to the greater Leesburg MSA and the Villages Fruitland Park development, including electric, water, and sewer service, and has, or is planning to provide such services to other developments for The Villages in the area. Leesburg’s ability to provide other utility services to The Villages in addition to gas service is a factor in Leesburg’s favor. Rule 25-7.0472(2)(c) Rule 25-7.0472(2)(c) establishes that the cost of each utility to provide natural gas service to the disputed area presently and in the future is an issue for consideration in resolving a territorial dispute regarding gas utilities. Various costs are broken out in subparagraphs 1. through 9. of the rule, and will be addressed individually. However, it is clear, as set forth in the facts related to rule 25-7.0472(2)(a) above, that the cost of extending service into Bigham was substantially greater for Leesburg than for PGS. The individually identified costs include the following: Cost of obtaining rights-of-way and permits. There was no evidence to suggest that the cost of obtaining rights-of-way and permits for the construction of the gas infrastructure described herein varied between Leesburg and PGS. There is nothing with regard to this factor that would tip the balance in either direction. 2. Cost of capital. The parties stipulated that the issue of cost of capital is not applicable to this dispute. 3. Amortization and depreciation. The parties stipulated that the issues of amortization and depreciation are not applicable to this dispute. 4. through 6. Cost-per-home. The cost-per-home for extending service to homes in Bigham includes the costs identified in rule 25-7.0472(2)(c)4. (labor; rate per hour and estimated time to perform each task), rule 25-7.0472(2)(c)5. (mains and pipe; the cost per foot and the number of feet required to complete the job), and rule 25- 7.0472(2)(c)6. (cost of meters, gauges, house regulators, valves, cocks, fittings, etc., needed to complete the job). The cost-per-home for Leesburg and SSGC is $1,800 (see ruling on Motion to Strike). In addition, Leesburg will be installing automated meters at a cost of $72.80 per home. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the PGS cost-per-home is $1,579, which was the cost-per-home of extending service in the comparable Fenney development. The cost-per-home is a factor -- though slight -- in PGS’s favor. 7. Cost of field compressor station structures and measuring and regulating station structures. None of the parties specifically identified or discussed the cost of field compressor station structures and measuring and regulating station structures in the Joint Pre- hearing Stipulation or their PROs. Thus, there is little to suggest that the parties perceived rule 25-7.0472(2)(c)7. to be a significant factor in the territorial dispute. As a result, there is nothing with regard to this factor that would tip the balance in either direction. 8. Cost of gas contracts for system supply. None of the parties specifically identified or discussed the cost of the respective gas contracts for system supply in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation or their PROs. Thus, there is little to suggest that the parties perceived rule 25-7.0472(2)(c)8. to be a significant factor in the territorial dispute. As a result, there is nothing with regard to this factor that would tip the balance in either direction. 9. Other costs that may be relevant to the circumstances of a particular case. There was considerable evidence and testimony as to the revenues that would flow to SSGC under the 30-year term of the Agreement. SSGC's revenues under the Agreement are not relevant as they are not identified as such in rule 25-7.0472, and are not directly related to the rates, which will likely not exceed PGS’s regulated rate. Rule 25-7.0472(2)(d) Rule 25-7.0472(2)(d) includes that the Commission may consider “other costs that may be relevant to the circumstances of a particular case.” This factor is facially identical to that in rule 25-7.0472(2)(c)9., but is, nonetheless, placed in its own rule section and must therefore include costs distinct from those to provide natural gas service to the disputed area presently and in the future. Cost of service to end-user customers. Due to the nature of the Agreement, Leesburg will charge a “Villages Rate” that will be equal to the fully regulated PGS rate.4/ Thus, as a general rule, the cost of service to end-user customers will be the same for PGS and Leesburg. There is nothing with regard to this factor that would tip the balance in either direction. 2. Uneconomic duplication of facilities. Neither section 366.04(3), nor rule 25-7.0472, pertaining to natural gas territorial disputes, expressly require consideration of “uneconomic duplication of facilities” as a factor in resolving territorial disputes. The Commission does consider whether a natural gas territorial agreement “will eliminate existing or potential uneconomic duplication of facilities” as provided in rule 25-7.0471. A review of Commission Orders indicates that many natural gas territorial dispute cases involve a discussion of uneconomic duplication of facilities because disputes are frequently resolved by negotiation and entry of a territorial agreement. In approving the resultant agreement, the Commission routinely considers that the disposition of the dispute by agreement avoids uneconomic duplication of facilities. See In re: Petition to Resolve Territorial Dispute with Clearwater Gas System, a Division of the City of Clearwater, by Peoples Gas System, Inc., 1995 Fla. PUC LEXIS 742, PSC Docket No. 94-0660-GU; Order No. PSC-95-0620- AS-GU (Fla. PSC May 22, 1995)(“[W]e believe that the territorial agreement is in the public interest, and its adoption will further our longstanding policy of avoiding unnecessary and uneconomic duplication of facilities. We approve the agreement and dismiss the territorial dispute.); In re: Petition by Tampa Electric Company d/b/a Peoples Gas System and Florida Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation for Approval of Territorial Boundary Agreement in Hillsborough, Polk, and Osceola Counties, 1999 Fla. PUC LEXIS 2051, Docket No. 990921-GU; Order No. PSC-99-2228-PAA-GU181 (Fla. PSC Nov. 10, 1999)(“Over the years, CUC and PGS have engaged in territorial disputes. As each utility expands its system, the distribution facilities become closer and closer, leading to disputes over which is entitled to the unserved areas. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth new territorial boundaries to reduce or avoid the potential for future disputes between CUC and PGS, and to prevent the potential duplication of facilities.”); In re: Joint Petition for Approval of Territorial Agreement in DeSoto County by Florida Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Sebring Gas System, Inc., 2017 Fla. PUC LEXIS 163, Docket No. 170036-GU; Order No. PSC-17-0205-PAA-GU (Fla. PSC May 23, 2017)(“The joint petitioners stated that without the proposed agreement, the joint petitioners’ extension plans would likely result in the uneconomic duplication of facilities and, potentially, a territorial dispute . . . . [W]e find that the proposed agreement is in the public interest, that it eliminates any potential uneconomic duplication of facilities and will not cause a decrease in the reliability of gas service.”). There are Commission Orders that suggest the issue of uneconomic duplication of facilities is an appropriate field of inquiry in a territorial dispute even when it does not result in a territorial agreement. See In re: Petition to Resolve Territorial Dispute with South Florida Natural Gas Company and Atlantic Gas Corporation by West Florida Natural Gas Company, 1994 Fla. PUC LEXIS 1332, Docket No. 940329-GU; Order No. PSC-94-1310-S-GU (Fla. PSC Oct. 24, 1994)(“On March 31, 1994, West Florida filed a Petition to Resolve a Territorial Dispute with South Florida and Atlantic Gas On August 26, 1994, West Florida, South Florida, and Atlantic Gas filed a Joint Petition for Approval of Stipulation, which proposed to resolve the territorial dispute by West Florida's purchase of the Atlantic Gas facilities . . . . We believe that approval of the joint stipulation is in the public interest because its adoption will avoid unnecessary and uneconomic duplication of facilities.”). The evidence in this case firmly establishes that Leesburg’s extension of facilities to the Bigham developments, both through the CR 501 line and the CR 468 line, constituted an uneconomic duplication of PGS’s existing gas facilities. As set forth in the Findings of Fact, PGS’s existing gas line along CR 468 is capable of providing safe and reliable gas service to the Bigham developments at a cost that is negligible. To the contrary, Leesburg extended a total of roughly six miles of high-pressure distribution mains to serve the Bigham developments at a cost of at least $1,212,207, with persuasive evidence to suggest that the cost will total closer to $2,200,000. This difference in cost, even at its lower end, is far from de minimis, and constitutes a significant and entirely duplicative cost for service. Leesburg argues that if uneconomic duplication of facilities is a relevant factor, “the evidence of record demonstrates that the City will suffer significant financial impact if it is not permitted to continue to serve the Bigham Developments.” The fact that Leesburg, with advance knowledge and planning, was able to successfully race to serve Bigham, incurring its “financial impact” after the territorial dispute was filed, does not demonstrate either that PGS meets the standards to prevail in this proceeding, or that PGS should be prevented from serving development directly adjacent to its existing facilities in the disputed territory. Rule 25-7.0472(2)(e) Rule 25-7.0472(2)(e) establishes that customer preference is the “tie-breaker” if all other factors are substantially equal. The Villages is the “customer” for purposes of the selection of the provider of natural gas service to Bigham. There is no dispute that The Villages, as the proxy for the individual end-user customers, has expressed its preference to be served by Leesburg. The direct financial benefit to The Villages, and Leesburg’s willingness to enter into a revenue sharing plan -- a plan that, if proposed by PGS, would likely not be allowed by the Commission in its rate- setting capacity -- no doubt plays a role in that decision. Gas service to end-user customers living in in Bigham will be a revenue-generating venture for The Villages if served by Leesburg, and will not if served by PGS. Leesburg and SSGC have suggested that customer preference should occupy a more prominent role in the dispute since gas service, unlike electric, water, and sewer services, is an optional utility service. SSGC argued that since The Villages expressed that it would forego providing gas service to its developments if PGS is determined to be entitled to serve -- a position oddly presaged by Mr. Geoffroy in his September 27, 2017, email with Leesburg (see paragraph 35) -- and “in consideration of the business practices, size, track record of success, and economic import of The Villages,” the preference of The Villages for service from Leesburg should “be a significant factor in the resolution of this dispute.” Neither of those reasons can serve to elevate customer preference from its tie-breaker status as established by rule.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Andrew M. Brown, Esquire Ansley Watson, Esquire Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen Suite 2000 201 North Franklin Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esquire Frank Kruppenbacher, P.A. 9064 Great Heron Circle Orlando, Florida 32836 For Respondent South Sumter Gas Company: John L. Wharton, Esquire Dean Mead & Dunbar 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Floyd Self, Esquire Berger Singerman, LLP Suite 301 313 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For Respondent City of Leesburg: Jon C. Moyle, Esquire Karen Ann Putnal, Esquire Moyle Law Firm, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not the agency may, pursuant to Section 525.06, F.S. enter an assessment for sale of substandard product due to a violation of the petroleum inspection laws and also set off that amount against Respondent's bond.
Findings Of Fact Frank Hampton, d/b/a Hampton's Gulf Station, has operated at 2610 North Myrtle Avenue, Jacksonville, for many years and has had no prior complaints against it by the Petitioner. Respondent is in the business of selling kerosene, among other petroleum products. The facts in this case are largely undisputed. On November 28, 1990, Bill Ford, an inspector employed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, visited the Respondent's premises to conduct an inspection of the petroleum products being offered for sale to the public. Ford drew a sample of "1-K" kerosene being offered for sale, sealed it, and forwarded it to the agency laboratory in Tallahassee where John Anderson, under the supervision of Nancy Fischer, an agency chemist, tested it to determine whether the sample met agency standards. The testing revealed that the sampled kerosene contained .21% by weight of sulfur. This in excess of the percentage by weight permitted by Rule 5F- 2.001(2) F.A.C. for this product, but it would qualify as "2-K" kerosene. A "Stop Sale Notice" was issued, and on the date of that notice (November 30, 1990) the tank from which the test sample had been drawn contained 3887 gallons of product. It was determined from Respondent's records that 4392 gallons had been sold to the public since the last delivery of 5500 gallons on November 16, 1990. The product was sold at $1.58 per gallon. The calculated retail value of the product sold was determined to be in excess of $1,000.00, and the agency permitted the seller to post a bond for $1,000.00 (the maximum legal penalty/bond) on December 3, 1990. The assessment is reasonable and conforms to the amount of assessments imposed in similar cases. On this occasion, Respondent had purchased the kerosene in question from a supplier which is not its usual wholesale supplier. This was the first time Respondent had ever ordered from this supplier and it is possible there was some miscommunication in the order, but Respondent intended to order pure "1-K" kerosene. Respondent only purchased from this supplier due to the desperate need in the community for kerosene during the unusually cold weather that occurred during the fall of 1990. Respondent ordered "1-K" kerosene and believed that "1-K" had been delivered to it by the new wholesale supplier up until the agency inspector sampled Respondent's tank. After posting bond, Respondent originally intended to send the unused portion of "2-K" kerosene back to its supplier, but instead was granted permission by the agency to relabel the remaining product so that the label would correctly reflect that the product was "2-K." Respondent accordingly charged only the lesser rate appropriate to "2-K" kerosene for sale of the remaining 3887 gallons.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Cnsumer Services enter a final order approving the $1,000.00 maximum penalty and offsetting the bond against it. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 20th day of June, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: FRANK HAMPTON HAMPTON VILLA APARTMENTS 3190 WEST EDGEWOOD AVENUE JACKSONVILLE, FL 32209 CLINTON COULTER, JR. ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES (LEGAL) MAYO BUILDING, ROOM 510 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800 HONORABLE BOB CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE THE CAPITOL, PL-10 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0810 RICHARD TRITSCHLER, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 515 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner William Lineberger, doing business as Jet Oil Company, has, since 1950, continuously used the brand name "Jet" for identifying gasoline sold by him in the State of Florida. At one time, petitioner owned or operated some thirteen stations in various locations in Florida. Since 1980, he has operated only three stations, all located in Pinellas County-- two in St. Petersburg and one in Pinellas Park. Pursuant to Chapter 525, Florida Statutes, the respondent Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services first issued petitioner a liquid fuel brand name registration for the name "JET" in 1973. Pursuant to Chapter 495, Florida Statutes, the Florida Secretary of State issued petitioner mark registration number 922,820 on August 11, 1980, for the mark "JET" as a trademark and a service mark to be used in connection with gasoline and oil product convenience store items. Kayo Oil Company (Kayo) is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Conoco, Inc. Kayo operates a chain of retail gasoline and convenience stores in 22 states. It has approximately 465 locations concentrated mainly in the southeast portion of the country, with 38 locations in Florida, including one in Pinellas Park. Kayo currently has plans for further expansion in Florida. It's fixed asset base in Florida is approximately $10 million. The typical Kayo retail gasoline outlet in Florida has four multiple product dispensers, sells 500 to 600 different convenience items inside an 800 to 1600 square foot building, markets fast food products and employs a color scheme of black on yellow on its signage and building facade. Conoco, Inc. first began using the "JET" trade name in Europe in the 1960's when it acquired a large chain of European retail gasoline outlets selling under that brand name. It currently operates about 2,000 units under the brand name "JET" in Europe. In the United States, Kayo has used various trade names in the operation of its outlets, including "Kayo" and "JET". In the early 1980's, Kayo made the decision to standardize the name it traded under throughout the United States, and selected the name "JET". In most instances, it accomplished the conversion of its stations from "Kayo" to "JET", with the black on yellow color scheme, during the period from the early 1980's through 1984. The intervenor initially sought to obtain from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services the liquid fuel brand name "JET". That request was denied for the reason that "JET" had been previously registered to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Department issued to the intervenor the liquid fuel brand name registration, "JET +" on April 27, 1981. Kayo is required to display the "JET +" liquid fuel brand name on its dispensers or pumps. 1/ With the exception of two of its Florida locations, Kayo uses the word "JET" on its street and building signage. At its Pinellas Park and Clearwater stations, it has retained the name "Kayo". Being an independent brand marketer, Kayo attempts to dedicate the majority of its signage to display the price of gasoline, as opposed to the gasoline brand name. It is Kayo's marketing philosophy that the consumer is more influenced by low prices and location than by the fuel brand name. In 1984, the physical appearance of petitioner's three stations did not resemble the physical appearance of the typical Kayo station in Florida. Subsequent to 1984, petitioner did some remodeling work at its Pinellas Park station which included yellow and black signage and the name "JET" in black block letters on a yellow background, resembling Kayo's style of lettering on both its pump decals and its signage in areas outside Pinellas County. The yellow pages of the St. Petersburg telephone directory lists both Kayo's Pinellas Park station and petitioner's Pinellas Park station under the heading of Jet Oil Company. In February or March of 1987, a local cigarette supplier attempted to deliver and present an invoice for cigarettes ordered by Kayo to one of petitioner's facilities. This occurred again with the same supplier in March of 1987. In January of 1987, a Motor Fuel Marketing Complaint against the "Jet" business at 7091 Park Boulevard was filed with the Division of Consumer Services, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Although this is the address of the Kayo station in Pinellas Park, the Consumer Services Consultant, Division of Consumer Services, forwarded the complaint to "Jet Oil Company" at 7879 - 49th Street North, the petitioner's station, for a response. Petitioner presented evidence that other instances of confusion between its stations and Kayo stations had occurred with respect to bills, bank inquiries, and a newspaper article. Also, on one occasion, petitioner was ordered by the Pinellas Park police to close its stations because a bomb threat had been made against Jet Oil. Petitioner did not produce any evidence that the source of any of the incidents related was attributable to the liquid fuel brand names utilized by it or the intervenor.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's request for a hearing challenging the issuance of the "JET +" registration to the intervenor be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of July, 1987, 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 July, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Early on the morning of September 3, 1982, Mr. Robert W. Taylor, a driver for Fleetwing Petroleum Company, loaded his truck at the Marathon Oil Company Refinery terminal in Tampa, Florida, for the Triangle Refineries, Inc., with 2,001 gallons of super-unleaded gasoline, 2,000 gallons of unleaded regular gasoline, and 3,501 gallons of regular leaded gasoline. The super-unleaded was loaded into Compartment 1 of four compartments on the trailer, which holds a maximum of 2,500 gallons. On the previous day, this trailer had been used by another driver, Floyd Mills; and before loading the trailer at the terminal, he, Taylor, personally flushed out the tanks to insure no contamination. After completing the loading procedure, Mr. Taylor drove directly to the Hardee's station at 24203 Highway 60 E, Lake Wales, Florida, where it was loaded into the station's tanks. The delivery consisted of 3,501 gallons of regular gas, 2,000 gallons of unleaded gas, and 2,001 gallons of super-unleaded gas, as reflected on the delivery log for that date. This was somewhat unusual, since it was the first time Mr. Taylor had ever taken super-unleaded to that station. The receipt for delivery, executed by Walter Winslett, Jr., on September 3, 1982, shows that the quantities and qualities described above were received. During a routine inspection of the Hardee station on September 29, 1982, Mr. Willis Aldridge, an inspector with the Florida Department of Agriculture, took samples of all the gas at the station, including the regular, the unleaded, and the Super-unleaded. These samples, taken in the normal manner, were sealed inside a case with a lead wire seal, identified, and sent off to the lab at Tallahassee. Several days later, on October 5, 1982, Mr. Aldridge received a phone call from the Department of Agriculture laboratory in Tallahassee advising him that the super-unleaded product taken from the Hardee station exceeded the lead tolerance and that he should immediately stop its sale. Thereafter, the following day, he went back to the Hardee station, where talking with the manager, Mr. Winslett, he told him what the problem was, issued a stop sale notice for that grade gas, and sealed the pump dispensing it. Mr. Winslett stated this one load of super-unleaded was the only one he had ever received. The Stop Sale Notice identifies, inter alia, the product, the brand name, the pump number, and the amount still in the tank. This last figure is determined by sticking a gauging stick into the tank. Since this was the first time the station had carried super-unleaded, 2,001 gallons had been delivered, and 998 gallons remained, that meant that slightly over 1,000 gallons had been sold of that product. At this point, Mr. Aldridge advised the station operator he could either give up what was in the ground or pay a penalty on the amount sold to a maximum of $1,000. Since this grade gasoline was selling at that time for $1.32 a gallon, the value of the gasoline still in the ground was greater than the penalty. When the Stop Sale Notice was issued on October 6, 1982, Fleetwing officials requested a few days to consider their options, and on October 14, 1982, advised Mr. Aldridge that they elected to post bond in the penalty amount ($1,000) and would meet him at the station the next morning. When he arrived, Mr. Aldridge met with Mr. C. W. May, Jr., a representative of Fleetwing Petroleum, who posted the required bond, and the remaining 998 gallons of super- unleaded were released. The product in question was tested at the Florida Department of Agriculture Lab Complex in Tallahassee under the supervision of Mr. Ben W. Bowen, of the Lab Testing Section. The tests seen on the super-unleaded sample, utilizing the American Society of Testing and Materials standards adopted by the State of Florida, revealed this particular sample contained 0.15 gram of lead per gallon. Two tests were utilized. An initial field test was used to scrutinize the samples as they came in. If any sample failed this test, a second test utilizing the X-ray florescence method is used. Since the maximum allowed is 0.05 gram per gallon, this sample had three times the lead limit and was therefore subject to confiscation. The effects of using excessively leaded gasoline in cars designed to burn unleaded gas are: (1) the calalytic converter will be ruined, and (2) damage to the engine with continued use. Replacement of a catalytic converter could run to several hundred dollars. The contaminated gasoline was the property of, and offered for sale by, the Respondent, Fleetwing Corporation. The pumps used for dispensing were identified as to type of gasoline and bore the Fleetwing logo.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be required to forfeit $500 of the $1,000 bond posted and the unforfeited $500 be returned to the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard C. May, Esquire 4110 South Florida Avenue Suite B Lakeland, Florida 33803 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
