BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Investigation into Florida ) Public Service Commission ) Docket No. 930945-WS Jurisdiction over SOUTHERN ) Filed: February 21, l995 STATES UTILITIES, INC. in ) Florida ) _____________________________________) POST HEARING FILING OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Submitted by: THOMAS C. PALMER, ESQ. Assistant County Attorney Office Collier County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 33962 Phone: (813) 774-8400 Fax: (813) 774-0225 BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Investigation into Florida ) Public Service Commission ) Docket No. 930945-WS Jurisdiction over SOUTHERN ) Filed: February 21, l995 STATES UTILITIES, INC. in ) Florida ) ______________________________________) COLLIER COUNTY'S STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Although this investigation by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) involves Southern States Utilities ("SSU") more then 150 water/wastewater utility systems in 26 of Florida's 67 counties, this Post-hearing Filing focuses almost exclusively on the facts and circumstances related to Collier County. The core issue in this proceeding in regard to Collier County is: Has SSU proven within the intent of subsection 367.171(7), Florida Statutes ("F"S") and subsection 367.021(11), F.S., either that: (a) SSU's used and useful water/wastewater utility facilities and land in Collier County provided service across the Collier County/Lee County boundary to SSU's facilities and land within Lee County, whereby SSU's utilities in Collier County and SSU's utilities in Lee County are a "combination of functionally related facilities and land"; or that: (b) SSU's used and useful water/wastewater utility facilities and land in Lee County provided service across the Collier County/Lee County boundary to SSU's facilities and land within Collier County, whereby such utilities in Lee County and such utilities in Collier County are a "combination of functionally related facilities and land". PRELIMINARY STATEMENT As written in the Prehearing Order No. PSC-95-0041-PHO-WS, issued in this Docket on January 10, l995, Collier County agrees with the following: *** 1. As to ISSUE No. 1, Collier County agrees with the position of Sarasota County as stated at page 7 of that Order. *** *** 2. As to ISSUE No. 2, Collier County Agrees with the position of Hillsborough as stated on page 11 of that Order.*** *** 3. As to ISSUE No. 3, Collier County agrees with the position of Polk County and Hernando County as stated on page 14 of that Order. *** *** 4. As to ISSUE No. 5, Collier County agrees with the position of Polk County and Sarasota County as stated at page 17 of that Order. *** *** Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, asserts that SSU has not proven that SSU's two water/wastewater utilities in Collier County provide "service" to SSU's two utilities in Lee County, by means of service that traverses the Collier County/Lee County border. SSU has not proven that SSU's utilities in Lee County provide service across the Collier County/Lee County boundary to SSU's utilities in Collier County. SSU has not proven that SSU's facilities and land in Collier County and SSU's facilities and land in Lee County combine into "functionally related facilities and land". SSU has not proven facts whereby the Commission can legally make a "finding" under subsection 367. 021(11), Florida Statutes ("F.S.") that SSU's utilities in Collier County are under the Commission's Chapter 367, Florida Statues, "multi-county jurisdiction" by application of subsection 367.171(7), F.S. SSU has not proven, as is is required to prove, that its Marco Island Utility in Collier County and its Marco Shores Utility in Collier County are administratively and operationally interrelated with at least one of SSU's water/wastewater utilities in Lee County: the Lehigh Utility or the Burnt Store Utility.*** As used throughout this Post Hearing Filing, all references to SSU's facilities and/or land refer only to its assets that are used and useful within the intent of subsection 367.171(7), F.S. and the Commission's rules and regulations. As used throughout this Post Hearing Filing, all references to service crossing and/or traversing the county boundary (border) between Collier County and Lee County is limited to service that traversed directly across that border. Such "service" does not refer to service, if any, between those two counties by any other manner or means. As used throughout this Post Hearing Filing, all references to SSU's Burnt Store Utility refer only to SSU's facilities and land that are located within Lee County. As used throughout this Post Hearing Filing, the words "multi-county jurisdictional" refer to any situation where any SSU utility comes under the Commission's Chapter 367 jurisdiction solely due to the combined effects of the application of subsection 367.171(7), F.S. and subsection 367.021(11), Florida Statutes. As used throughout this Post Hearing Filing, the word "finding" refers to a formal finding by the Commission in this proceeding, pursuant to subsection 367.021(11), F.S., that one SSU utility or more than one SSU utility comes under the Commission's Chapter 367 jurisdiction because the respective utility has met the requirements of subsection 367.171(7), F.S. and subsection 367.021(11), F.S. As used throughout this Post Hearing Filing, the words "adjacent SSU county" refers to only those cases where SSU owns and operates used and useful facilities and land in County A and concurrently in at least one (1) adjacent SSU county B. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. SSU, being the proponent of its assertions that its two (2) water/wastewater utilities in Collier County are PSC "multi-county" jurisdictional by application of subsection 367.171(7), F.S., must prove all relevant elements of its case by competent, substantial evidence in the record of this case. 2. Subsection 367.171 (7), F.S., provides, in relevant part, as follows: "Notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary, the commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all utility systems whose service traverses county boundaries, whether the counties involved are jurisdictional or nonjurisdictional...." 3. The word "traverses" as used in subsection 367.171(7), F.S., as applied to this proceeding, is limited to "service" that goes directly across a common county boundary that is between one county where SSU owns and operates at least one water/wastewater utility and an adjacent county where SSU then owns and operates at least one water/wastewater utility. Board of County  Commissioners v. Beard, 601 So.2d 590, 593 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1992). 4. In making a decision whether a specific utility system is PSC "multi-county jurisdictional" by application of subsection 367.171(7), F.S, the Commission properly focuses upon the statutory definition of "system" set out in subsection 367.021(11), F.S., which reads as follows: "System" means facilities and land used and useful in providing service, and, upon a finding by the commission, may include a combination of functionally related facilities and land. Board of County  Commissioners v. Beard, 601 So.2d 590, pp. 592, 593 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1992). 5. Subsection (8) of Section 367.171, F.S., reads: "Each county which is excluded from the provisions of this chapter shall regulate the rates of all utilities in that county which would otherwise be subject to regulation by the commission pursuant to s. 367.081(1), (2), (3), and (6). For this purpose the county or its agency shall proceed as though the county or the agency is the commission." 6. Collier County, now a jurisdictional county, may, choose to become a PSC nonjurisdictional county pursuant to subsection 367.171(1), F.S. 7. Collier County, by opting out of Chapter 367, F.S., pursuant to subsection 367.171(1), F.S., cannot thereby avoid the effect of a PSC "finding" of "multi-county" jurisdiction" over SSU's utilities in Collier County because Collier County cannot exclude itself from the effect of subsection 367.171(7), F.S. 8. As applied to Collier County, the effect of subsection 367.171(7), F.S, is that both of SSU's water/wastewater utilities in Collier County will come under exclusive Chapter 367 jurisdiction of the Commission if, as to each respective Collier County utility, the PSC makes the following findings based on competent, substantial evidence in the record: (a) Focusing on the definition of a "system" as set out in subsection 367.021(11), F.S., SSU has proven that SSU's Marco Island Utility and SSU's Marco Shores Utility are administratively and operationally interrelated with either of SSU's Lehigh Utility (or that part of SSU's Burnt Store Utility that is in Lee County) to such an extent that SSU's Collier County utilities and SSU's Lee County utilities constitute a "combination of functionally related facilities and land." (PSC Order No. PSC-93-1162-FOF-WU (Docket No. 930108-WU) issued August 10, l993, 93 FPSC 8:182 et. seq.). Board of County Commissioners  v. Beard, 601 So.2d 590, 593 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1992). (b) As to Collier County/Lee County, the required finding of a "combination of functionally related facilities and lands" must be based upon SSU "service", if any there be, that SSU has proven to have traversed the county boundary that separates Collier County and adjacent Lee County. Board of  County Commissioners v. Beard, 601 So.2d 590, 593 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. l992); PSC Order No. PSC-93-1162-FOF-WU. 9. If the PSC finds that the Marco Island Utility is under Chapter 367 PSC jurisdiction, the Commission will continue to have exclusive Chapter 367 jurisdiction over the Marco Island Utility after Collier County may become a PSC nonjurisdictional county pursuant to an "opt out" under Section 367.171 (1), F.S. 10. If the PSC finds that SSU's Marco Shores Utility is under Chapter 367 PSC jurisdiction, the Commission will continue to have exclusive Chapter 367 jurisdiction over the Marco Shores Utility after Collier County may become a PSC nonjurisdictional county pursuant an "opt out" under Section 367.171 (1), F.S. 11. Section 367.022, F.S., does not exempt any SSU water/wastewater utility from Chapter 367, F.S., regulation. 12. PSC Order No. PSC-93-1162-FOF-WU complies with the "traversing adjacent county boundary findings of fact" that are required by the Court of Appeals' judicial opinion styled Board  of County Commissioners v. Beard, 601 So.2d 590, (Fla. App. 1 Dist. l992). ARGUMENT SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES, INC., contends that under subsection 367.171(7), F.S., each of its approximately 150 + water/wastewater utilities in Florida provide "service" (as contemplated by the Legislature in subsection 367.171(7), F.S., that traversed various county boundaries whereby, based on the record in this case, the PSC may legally make a "finding" that the PSC has acquired exclusive Chapter 367, F.S., jurisdiction over all of SSU's existing and its yet to be acquired water/wastewater utility systems, whereby all Florida counties have lost all of their actual and potential Chapter 367 jurisdiction over SSU's water/wastewater utility systems. As to Collier County, SSU must prove, within the legislative intent of subsection 367.171(7), Florida Statutes ("F"S") and subsection 367.021(11), F.S., that SSU's two utilities in Collier County provided (or received) SSU "service" that has traversed the only legally relevant county boundary that can be traversed, namely, the county boundary that separates Collier County and Lee County, whereby the PSC can legally find, based on the record of this proceeding, that SSU's two utilities within Collier County and at SSU's two utilities in Lee County constitute a "combination of functionally related facilities and land"; in one word: a "system". SSU has not meet its burden of proof in regard to Collier County or, for that matter, any other county in Florida, except perhaps its Burnt Store Utility between Lee County and Charlotte County. IN THIS PROCEEDING, THE PSC SHALL BE REQUIRED TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT FINDING AS TO EACH RESPECTIVE SSU UTILITY THAT THE  PSC MAY FIND IS "MULTI-COUNTY JURISDICTIONAL." THE PSC MUST  PERFORM AN ANALYSIS AS TO EACH AND EVERY SSU UTILITY IN EACH  COUNTY UNDER REVIEW TO DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING:  (1) IS THE COUNTY UNDER REVIEW ADJACENT TO ANOTHER COUNTY IN  WHICH SSU OWNS AND OPERATES ANOTHER WATER/WASTEWATER UTILITY. IF  THE COUNTY UNDER REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO ANOTHER COUNTY WHERE  SSU OWNS AND OPERATES ANOTHER WATER/WASTEWATER UTILITY, THE  ANALYSIS SHALL CEASE AND A FINDING MUST BE MADE THAT THE COUNTY  UNDER REVIEW IS NOT MULTI-COUNTY JURISDICTIONAL.  (2) IF THE COUNTY UNDER REVIEW IS ADJACENT TO ANOTHER COUNTY  IN WHICH SSU OWNS AND OPERATES A WATER/WASTEWATER UTILITY, THE  PSC MUST DETERMINE, AS TO EACH SSU UTILITY IN THE COUNTY UNDER  REVIEW, WHETHER THE RESPECTIVE SSU UTILITY IN THE COUNTY UNDER  REVIEW PROVIDES OR RECEIVES "SERVICE" ACROSS ONE COMMON COUNTY  BOUNDARY INTO AND/OR FROM AT LEAST ONE SSU OWNED AND OPERATED  WATER/WASTEWATER UTILITY IN AN ADJACENT COUNTY.   (3) IF ANY SUCH ACROSS ADJACENT COUNTY BORDER SERVICE DOES  EXIST, THE PSC MUST THEN DETERMINE WHETHER THE REQUISITE  "SERVICE" EXISTS AT A MAGNITUDE WHEREBY THE UTILITY FACILITIES  AND LAND UNDER REVIEW IN THE COUNTY UNDER REVIEW AND THE SSU  FACILITIES AND LAND IN AT LEAST ONE (1) SSU ADJACENT COUNTY ARE  "FUNCTIONALLY RELATED".    (4) IN ORDER FOR THE REQUIRED "FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP" TO  EXIST, THE USED AND USEFUL FACILITIES AND LAND IN THE COUNTY  UNDER REVIEW MUST BE ADMINISTRATIVELY AND OPERATIONALLY  INTERRELATED WITH SSU'S USED AND USEFUL FACILITIES AND LAND IN AT  LEAST ONE SSU ADJACENT COUNTY. In PSC Order No. PSC-93-1162-FOF-WU, the facts that the PSC apparently considered to be most relevant when making a post Board of County Commissioners v. Beard, 601 So.2d 590, (1992) "multi-county jurisdiction" decision to decide whether SSU's utility facilities and lands in county A provided (or received) the required "service" that traversed the county boundary or boundaries to (or from) adjacent county B, are as follows: (a) Does the utility system in county A have offices or personnel located in county A, or must such services be provided by one or more SSU employee(s) who travel into county A from adjacent SSU county B? (b) Does the utility in county A have meter readers stationed in county A, or must SSU meter readers travel into county A from SSU adjacent county B? (c) Does the utility in county A have parts and supplies located in county A, or must SSU transport parts and supplies into County A from SSU adjacent county B? (d) Does the utility in county A have customer service representatives located in county A, or must SSU customer service personnel travel into county A from SSU adjacent county B? (e) Are testing samples transported from county A back to adjacent SSU county B, for subsequent transportation to some other location for the actual testing, such as to Jacksonville? (f) Are the customer deposits and customer payments received from end use customers receiving service within county A retained and handled in county A, or are the deposits and payments physically transported for handling into adjacent SSU county B? (g) Are collections of delinquent customer accounts for end use customers within county A handled in county A, or are they physically transported for collections to be made from adjacent SSU county B? In Order No. 24335 (Docket No. 910078-WS) (issued on 4-8-91) the PSC considered the following to be relevant facts, among others, when making its decision whether a utility that was serving in three (3) adjacent counties was "multi-county jurisdictional": (a) Were the rates of the utility the same in all three adjacent counties? (b) Did the operating expenses of that utility "vary materially" among the three counties? THE EVIDENCE IN THIS PROCEEDING SHOWS THAT: Neither of SSU's two utilities in Collier County is physically interconnected with either of SSU's two utilities in Lee County. SSU's Utilities in Collier County have large offices and full staffs of personnel located in Collier County. Neither SSU Utility in Collier County received service provided by any SSU employee(s) from Lee County who traversed the Collier County/Lee County border. Both SSU Utilities in Collier County have meters readers who are stationed in Collier County. No SSU meter readers from Lee County traversed the Collier County/Lee County boundary to read meters in Collier County. SSU transported no parts and/or supplies across the Collier County/Lee County from Lee County into Collier County. SSU transported no parts and/or supplies from Collier County across the Collier County/Lee County boundary into Lee County. SSU has a staff of customer service representatives located in Collier County. No SSU customer service personnel traveled from Lee County into Collier County to perform any customer service in Collier County. SSU's Lehigh Utility in Lee County has a staff of customer service representatives stationed at the Lehigh Utility site. The Lehigh Utility is not many miles away from SSU's Burnt Store Utility in Lee County, however, Burnt Store (in Lee County) receives its customer service from nonadjacent Sarasota County to the North, not from The Lehigh Utility and not from the relatively far away Collier County utilities. No testing samples from Collier County were transported from Collier County into Lee County; no testing samples from Lee County were transported into Collier County. Customer deposits and customer payments received from SSU's Collier County customers were retained and handled in Collier County. Such deposits or payments were not physically transported from Collier County into Lee County. Customer deposits and customer payments received from SSU's Lee County customers were retained and handled in Lee County. No such deposits or payments were transported from Lee County into Collier County. No evidence proves that SSU's collections of delinquent customer accounts from Collier County customers were transported from Collier County into Lee County. No collections of delinquent customer accounts from Lee County customers were transported into Collier County. Mr. Ludsen testified that SSU's operations personnel often cross county borders to operate and maintain plants that are located in different counties. Ludsen's exhibit FFL-4 shows that approximately 1 out of every 8 labor hours of SSU's operating personnel is associated with services that crossed one or another county boundary. SSU has not proven how many of those labor hours, if any, was expended by employees who, in the performance of such labor, traversed any single SSU county directly into any adjacent SSU county. SSU has not proven that any of SSU's Lee County operations personnel traveled from Lee County into Collier or that SSU's Collier County personnel traveled from Collier County into Lee County. SSU's lack of proof in this regard can be illustrated by looking at SSU's situation in Washington County, out in the panhandle. SSU has a utility in Washington County. Washington County has no adjacent SSU county. In l993 Washington County received 51 "out of Washington County" direct labor hours. SSU reads approximately 439 meters in Washington County. The meter readings data is recorded on sheets that are forwarded to Apopka in Orange County. No evidence proves that any service provided by SSU to its Washington County Utility was provided from any SSU facility located in any county adjacent to Washington County or that any service provided by SSU from its Washington County Utility was provided to any SSU facility from any adjacent SSU county because such proof would be impossible because Washington County is not an "adjacent" SSU county. Therefore, None of the "out of Washington County" direct labor hours could possibly have come from any adjacent SSU county. The same deficiencies in proof that apply to Washington County apply with equal force to Collier County vis-a-vis Lee County. Proof of direct labor hours does not prove that any service has traversed any adjacent county boundaries. In l993 Collier County received 749 direct labor hours from outside of Collier County and in 1994 Collier County received 664 direct labor hours from outside of Collier County. Being "out of Collier County labor hours", those hours, by definition, could not have been performed in Collier County. SSU has not proven that any of those out of Collier County direct labor hours traversed the Collier County/Lee County boundary. Therefore, the existence of those out of Collier County labor hours does not prove any administrative or operational relationship between SSU's utilities in Collier County and SSU's Utilities in Lee County. Insofar as the evidence shows, all of those labor hours could have been performed anywhere in Florida except within Collier County. There is no evidence that any such hours were performed in Lee County. In l993, Lee County received 5,088 direct labor hours from outside of Lee County. In 1994, Lee County received 413 direct labor hours from outside of Lee County, a great reduction from the number of 1993 direct labor hours. SSU has not proved that any of those out of Lee County labor hours traversed the Collier County/Lee County boundary. For all the evidence shows, all of those Lee County direct labor hours could have been performed anywhere in Florida except within Lee County. There is no evidence that any such hours were performed in Collier County. Mr. Denny testified that SSU operators based at SSU's utility called Venice Gardens (in Sarasota County) provided training "of operators located at Marco Island in the proper operation and maintenance of reverse osmosis equipment." (Denny PFT at p. 6). That evidence of training from Sarasota County to Collier County does not prove any administrative or operational relationship whatsoever between SSU's utilities in Collier County and SSU's utilities in Lee County. Mr. Denny, like all of SSU's other witnesses, does not distinguish between services that traversed the Collier County/Lee County Border from service that came into Collier County from nonadjacent counties, such as Orange County. Mr. Denny, like all of SSU's other witnesses, does not distinguish between service that traversed the Collier County/Lee County Border from services that went out of Collier County into nonadjacent counties, such as Polk County. For example, Mr. Denny testified that a tanker truck from the Marco Island Utility was provided "within the last 12 months" to one of SSU's Polk County Utilities to haul effluent within Polk County. (Denny PFT at p. 14 and repeated in his rebuttal testimony at p. 3). Polk County is not adjacent to Collier County. That truck service from Collier County to Polk County did not "traverse" the Collier County/Lee County border to provide any "service" to SSU's utilities in Lee County. Mr. Denny shows that some training was conducted in Collier County and was attended by some SSU employees from who knows where. Mr. Denny did not prove that any SSU employee from Lee County attended any of such training in Collier County. Moreover, Mr. Denny did not prove that any of that training was conducted at either of SSU's utilities in Collier County. Insofar as the record proves, all such training may have been conducted at motels on Marco Island Beaches. SSU has not proven how any such training constituted "service" to either of SSU's utilities in Collier County, or, for that matter, to any other SSU utility. Mr. Denny's does not prove that any training was "service" at all, or, in particular, was "service" that traversed the Collier County/Lee County border. The fact that SSU sent some of its employees from who knows where to Collier County for training does not prove that any administrative or operational relationship exists between SSU's Collier County utilities and SSU's utilities in adjacent Lee County any more than the fact that some SSU employees traveled from who knows where to Tallahassee (Leon County) to attend training proves that any functional relationship existed between SSU's utility in Washington County and any SSU county adjacent to Washington County. Moreover, since SSU owns no utility in Leon County, SSU employee training conducted in Tallahassee could prove that any administrative or operational relationship existed between any SSU facility in Leon County and any SSU county adjacent to Leon County. The record is totally lacking of evidence proving any administrative interrelationship between SSU's utilities in Collier County and SSU's utilities in Lee County. As regards Collier County, the only evidence in the record that may indicate a miniscule amount of operational relations between SSU's Collier County utilities and SSU's Lee County utilities is as follows: 1. On only one emergency situation while SSU's Lehigh Utility (Lee County) was experiencing high trihalomethene levels, a piece of "ammoniation equipment" and an unspecified number of SSU's operations personnel - perhaps no more than two (2) - traveled from Collier County to the Lehigh Utility. The operations personnel instructed one or more of SSU's Lehigh Utility's employees how to use that equipment. 2. Six times or so each year "the electrician based in Marco Island travels to Venice Gardens (Sarasota County), Deep Creek (Charlotte County), Burnt Store (Charlotte/Lee Counties), and Lehigh (Lee County) to assist in electrical installations, repairs, and emergencies." (Denny PFT at p. 6). SSU did not prove how many times out of a given number of trips its "circuit rider" electrician may have stopped to work at either of SSU's two utilities in Lee County. SSU has not proven that the operating expenses of the Marco Island Utility and/or the Marco Shores Utility do not vary materially from the operating expenses of SSU's Lehigh Utility and/or the Burnt Store Utility. Such operating expenses may vary materially as the record proves: SSU's licensed Operators located in Collier County are paid a higher wage than SSU's other licensed operators throughout Florida. SSU's Marco Island Utility is not financed under SSU's statewide financing system, but has two (2) special private Industrial Development Bond financings. SSU's Lehigh Utility is not financed under SSU's statewide financing system, but has one (1) special private Industrial Development Bond financing. SSU's Marco Island Utility has special insurance coverage because that particular utility is subject to increased risks from a property damage standpoint. SSU purchases property damage insurance from a speciality carrier for its Marco Island Utility. The Marco Island Utility has a reverse osmosis plant, which must be manned twenty-four (24) hours per day. SSU's two Utilities in Collier County do not have the same rates and changes, as follows: (a) SSU's Marco Shores Utility charges SSU's uniform rates. (b) SSU's Marco Island Utility charges rates that are different from SSU's uniform rates. The Marco Island Utility's rates were established in a stand alone rate case proceeding before the PSC in Docket No. 920655-WS. (c) SSU's Lehigh Utility has rates that are different from SSU's uniform rates and from the Marco Island Utility's rates. CONCLUSION There is no evidence that proves that SSU's two (2) utilities in Collier County are administratively interrelated with either of SSU's two utilities in Lee County. Administrative interrelationships that exist between either of the two Collier County utilities and counties that are not adjacent to Collier, such as Orange County, do not prove that there existed any administrative "service" that traversed the Collier County/Lee County boundary. A one time emergency loan of a piece of specialized equipment along with perhaps no more than (2) two of SSU's instructional personnel from Collier County, plus SSU's Marco Island "traveling the circuit" electrician does not come close to the proof needed to prove that SSU's two utilities in Collier County are operationally interrelated with either of SSU's two utilities in Lee County whereby the PSC can legally "find" that those four (4) utilities are a "system" that is a "combination of functionally related facilities and land", as the Florida Legislature requires in subsection 367.021(11), Florida Statutes. SSU has not proven that any land in Collier County is administratively or operationally interrelated with any SSU land or facilities in Lee County. SSU has not proven that any land in Lee County is administratively or operationally interrelated with any SSU land or facilities in Collier County. SSU's analogy that its Apopka Offices (in Orange County) are the hub of a wheel with spokes going out in several directions is fundamentally flawed as an attempt to prove that the statutorily required "service" has traversed various adjacent Florida county boundaries within the intent of subsection 367.171(7), F.S. As to Collier County, the required "service" cannot be shown by any amount of administrative matters between Collier County to and/or from Orange County or to and from any other county that is not adjacent to Collier County. As to Collier County the only relevant "service" is service, if any such service existed, that traversed the boundary between Collier County and Lee County. See Board of County Commissioners v. Beard, 601 So.2d 590, 593 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. l992). The only analogy that can satisfy the requirement of "traversing county boundaries" is a link (as in a chain) between adjacent SSU counties. Board of County Commissioners v. Beard, 601 So.2d 590, 593 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. l992). SSU is attempting in this proceeding to do what the Court in Beard said SSU could not do. SSU's attempt to prove that Washington County is a PSC "multi-jurisdictional" county is an example that shows SSU's misunderstanding of the intent expressed in subsection 367.171(7), F.S. The Commission's Order No. PSC-93-1162-FOF-WU proves that the Commission knows that a "finding" of "multi-county jurisdiction" requires that the relevant "service" must have traversed adjacent county boundaries. That order notes that: "...company-wide relationships between facilities in noncontiguous counties are not necessary...to establish the Commission's jurisdiction." What is necessary is proof that substantial "service" has traversed adjacent county boundaries. The requisite service was clearly proven to have existed in the St. Johns case. The facts in the St. Johns case resemble SSU's Collier County/Lee County situation about as much as the crystal clear Wakulla River resembles the muddy Mississippi. Based on the record evidence in the instant proceeding, the most directly relevant, operative text of the PSC's Order PSC-93-1162-FOF-WU in SSU's St. Johns' County case would have to be amended to read as follows, with Collier County being substituted for St. Johns County, and Duval County and Putnam County (adjacent) being substituted for Lee County: "The Palm Valley and Remington Forest Marco Island and Marco  Shores facilities in St. Johns Collier County consist solely of land and the treatment and distribution plant-plus no offices or and personnel are located in Collier County to serve at either both of the two Collier County sites. All services to those facilities are provided by Southern States' facilities in Collier  County Duval, Putnam, Volusia and, in many administrative respects, ultimately Orange County. Counties. St. Johns Collier County is adjacent to Lee County. Duval and Putnam County. The central office for operations conducted in Collier St. Johns County is at the Woodmere Marco Island facility (PSC certificate No. 124-S) in Collier Duval County, which is a 25-minute long drive from the Lehigh Utility Palm Valley and a 35-minute longer drive from Burnt Store. Remington Forest. Personnel who provide operations and maintenance services to the Marco Island and Marco Shores St. Johns County water plants are located in Collier County. Collier County personnel report from  the Marco Island Office to the Woodmere office daily and do not consider any that Lee County facility to be their home plant., traveling from there daily to the facilities in St. Johns County. All Collier County Meter readers also are based in Collier Duval County. and travel to each of the St. Johns County plants two days each month to read the meters. All parts and supplies needed for repair and maintenance of the Collier County distribution plant are stored at Collier County Woodmere in Duval County and must be are not transported from Duval Lee County when needed in Collier St. Johns County. Testing samples collected at the Collier St. Johns County facilities are not transported back to Lee Duval County to be tested at the laboratory located in Jacksonville. Palm Valley Marco Island and Remington Forest Marco Shores customers are served by customer service representatives located in the Collier Duval County Woodmere office who also write service orders and dispatch the necessary operations personnel, usually from Putnam Collier County to the site to handle the problem in Collier County. Receipt of customer deposits, and collections on delinquent accounts are also handled in Collier Duval County, not Lee County. The local administrative personnel for the Collier St. Johns County plants are located in Collier County. both Duval and Volusia Counties. In addition, all of Southern States' facilities, including the two in St. Johns Collier County, are ultimately managed and operated from the services such as budgeting, personnel management, purchasing, billing and collection, strategic and operational planning, accounting, engineering, and environmental permitting and compliance are performed on a company-wide basis by departments and personnel located in the central office in Orange County. Those company-wide relationships between facilities in noncontiguous counties are not necessary, however, to establish the commission's jurisdiction. We conclude that no the administrative and operational interrelationship exists between the Southern States' facilities in Collier St. Johns County and Lee Duval County to adequately support a finding by the Commission that they constitute a combination of functionally related facilities--a "system". Because the service provided by this system does not traverses the Collier County/Lee County boundaries, we declare that the Commission does not have has exclusive jurisdiction over Southern States Utilities, Inc's water/wastewater facilities (Marco Shores  Utility or Marco Island Utility) in Collier St. Johns County pursuant to Section 367.171(7), Florida Statutes." PROPOSED ORDER AS TO COLLIER COUNTY SSU had the burden to prove that its Marco Island Utility and its Marco Shores Utility were administratively and operationally interrelated with either Southern States' Lehigh Utility in Lee County or its Burnt Store Utility in Lee County. PSC Order No. PSC-93-1162-FOF-WU, (Docket No. 930108-WU) at 93 FPSC 8:182 et seq. See Board of County Commissioners v. Beard, 601 So.2d 590, 593 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1992). In making our decision whether or not each specific utility is any county under review is PSC "multi-county jurisdictional" by application of subsection 367.171(7), F.S, we properly focus upon the statutory definition of "system" as set out in subsection 367.021(11), Florida Statutes. A finding by the Commission of a "combination of functionally related facilities and lands" in regard to Collier County and adjacent Lee County must be based upon Southern States having proven that its service has traversed the county boundary that separates Collier County and Lee County. Lee County is the only county adjacent to Collier County in which SSU owns and operates a utility. SSU's owns two (2) water/wastewater utility systems in Collier County: the Marco Shores Utility and the Marco Island Utility. SSU owns two (2) water/wastewater utilities in Lee County: the Lehigh Utility (Lehigh Acres) and the Burnt Store Utility. Neither of SSU's utilities in Collier County is physically interconnected with either of SSU's utilities in Lee County. SSU's Marco Island Utility and SSU's Marco Shores Utility are physically close to one another. Both are located in southwest Collier County. SSU's Lehigh Utility is in the north half of Lee County and the part of the Burnt Store Utility that is within Lee County is close to and/or adjacent to the northern boundary of Lee County. SSU's two Lee County utilities are physically closer to each other than the Lehigh Utility is to both Southern States' utilities in Collier County. The Lehigh Utility is physically closer to Collier County than the Burnt Store Utility. On one occasion only, while the Lehigh Utility was experiencing high trihalomethene levels, a piece of ammoniation equipment and an unspecified number of Southern States' operations personnel traveled from Collier County to the Lehigh Utility. Those operations personnel instructed some Lehigh employees how to use that equipment. Six times or so each year one electrician based at the Marco Island Utility traveled from Collier County to Venice Gardens (Sarasota County), Deep Creek (Charlotte County), Burnt Store (Charlotte/Lee Counties), and Lehigh (Lee County) to assist in electrical installations, repairs, and emergencies. The evidence does not indicate whether those trips were scheduled or whether they were taken on an as needed basis. The evidence does not show how many times, if at all, that electrician performed any work at either of the two utilities in Lee County. The Commission in Order PSC-93-1162-FOF-WU, determined that such activities constitute operational "service" within the intent of subsection 367.171(7), Florida Statutes. The Marco Island and Marco Shores facilities in Collier County consist of land and the treatment and distribution plant-plus offices and personnel located in Collier County to serve both of the two Collier County sites. All services to those facilities are provided by Southern States' facilities in Collier County. The central office for operations conducted in Collier County is at the Marco Island facility in Collier County, which is a long drive from the Lehigh Utility and a longer drive from Burnt Store. Personnel who provide operations and maintenance services to the Marco Island and Marco Shores plants are located in Collier County. Collier County personnel operate from the Marco Island Office and there is no proof that they consider any Lee County facility to be their home base of operations. All Collier County meter readers are based in Collier County. All parts and supplies needed for repair and maintenance of Collier County distribution plant are stored at Collier County and are not transported from Lee County. Testing samples collected at the Collier County facilities are not transported to Lee County. Testing samples collected at the Lee County facilities are not transported to Collier County. Customers of the Marco Island Utility and The Marco Shores Utility are served by customer service representatives located in the Collier County office, who also write service orders and dispatch the necessary operations personnel from Collier County to handle all Collier County problems. Receipt of customer deposits and collections on delinquent accounts are also handled in Collier County, not Lee County. The local administrative personnel for both Collier County plants are located in Collier County. In addition, all of Southern States' facilities, including both in Collier County, are ultimately managed and operated as to budgeting, personnel management, purchasing, billing and collection, strategic and operational planning, accounting, engineering, and environmental permitting and compliance on a company-wide basis by departments and personnel located in Southern States' central office in Orange County. Those company-wide relationships between facilities in noncontiguous counties are not necessary, however, to establish the commission's jurisdiction. Indeed, they are irrelevant in proving whether the required "service" had traversed the Collier County/Lee County border. Southern States' two utilities in Collier County do not charge the same rates. The Marco Shores Utility (Collier County) and the Burnt Store Utility (Lee and Charlotte Counties) charge SSU's uniform rates. The Marco Island Utility charges rates that are different from SSU's state-wide uniform rates and are different from the Lehigh Utility. The Marco Island Utility's rates were established in a stand alone rate case before the Commission in Docket No. 920655-WS. The Lehigh Utility charges rates that are different from the uniform rates and from the rates charged by The Marco Island Utility. There is no proof whether or not the operating expenses of the Marco Island Utility and the Marco Shores Utility vary materially from the operating expenses of the Lehigh Utility and the Burnt Store Utility. Southern States' licensed operators located in Collier County are paid a higher wage than SSU's other licensed Operators throughout Florida. The Marco Island Utility is not financed under Southern States' statewide financing system, but has two special private Industrial Development Bond financings. The Lehigh Utility is not financed under statewide financing system, but has one special private Industrial Development Bond financings. The Marco Island Utility has special insurance coverage because that utility is subject to increased risks from a property damage standpoint whereby Southern States purchases property damage insurance from a speciality carrier for its Marco Island Utility. Finally, The Marco Island Utility has a reverse osmosis plant, which must be manned 24 hours each day of the year. Collier County's statutory rights to be able to elect to regulate water and wastewater utilities are important rights of a Florida county. Collier County, now under the jurisdiction of the Commission, has statutory authority to opt out of the Commission's regulation and thereby acquire Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, jurisdiction over Southern States' Marco Island Utility, Southern States' Marco Shores Utility, and more than a dozen other utilities in Collier County that are currently under the Commission's Chapter 367 jurisdiction. Because "service" does not traverse the Collier County/Lee County boundaries, we declare that the Commission does not have exclusive jurisdiction over Southern States Utilities, Inc's water/wastewater facilities (Marco Shores Utility or Marco Island Utility) in Collier County pursuant to Section 367.171(7), Florida Statutes." We conclude that no administrative interrelationship whatsoever exists between Southern States' facilities in Collier County and its facilities in Lee County. We conclude that the insignificant operational relationship that occurred on two unscheduled occasions between Collier County and Lee County does come close to supporting a finding by the Commission that the Southern States' Collier County Utilities and its Lee County utilities are a combination of functionally related facilities--a "system". RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21st day of February, l995. __________________________ Thomas C. Palmer, Esq. Florida Bar No. 189459 Assistant County Attorney Collier County Attorney's Office 3301 East Tamiami Trail Building F, 8th Floor Naples, FL. 33962 Phone:(813) 744-8400 Fax: (813) 774-0225