For an official paper copy, contact the Florida Public ServiceCommission at contact@psc.state.fl.us or call (850) 413-6770. There may be a charge for the copy.
State of Florida
Public Service
Commission
Capital Circle Office Center 2540 Shumard
Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
-M-E-M-O-R-A-N-D-U-M-
|
DATE: |
||
|
TO: |
Director, Division of the Commission Clerk & Administrative Services (Bayó) |
|
|
FROM: |
Office of the General Counsel (Fleming, Brown, Rodan) Division of Economic Regulation (Brady, Kaproth, Rieger, Winters) |
|
|
RE: |
Docket No. 021256-WU – Application for certificate to provide water service in Volusia and Brevard Counties by Farmton Water Resources LLC. Counties: Brevard and Volusia |
|
|
AGENDA: |
09/07/04 – Regular Agenda – Posthearing Decision – Participation is Limited to Commissioners and Staff |
|
|
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: |
||
|
FILE NAME AND LOCATION: |
S:\PSC\GCL\WP\021256.RCM.DOC |
|
Case Background
On December 20, 2002, Farmton Water Resources LLC (Farmton or utility) filed an Application for an Original Certificate to Provide Water Service in Volusia and Brevard Counties pursuant to section 367.031, Florida Statutes, and Rule 25-30.033, Florida Administrative Code. Volusia County (Volusia), Brevard County (Brevard), and the City of Titusville (Titusville) objected to the application, asserting that there is no need for service in the proposed service area, that the application is inconsistent with local comprehensive plans, and that the service proposed by the utility is exempt from Commission jurisdiction.
The service hearing on this matter was held on May 13, 2004, in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. A Prehearing Conference was held on May 17, 2004, in Tallahassee, Florida. The technical portion of the administrative hearing was held on June 22-23, 2004, in Tallahassee, Florida. The proposed service territory, as modified, consists of 50,000 acres, of which 10,000 acres are in Brevard County and 40,000 are in Volusia County. According to Farmton, there is no development currently planned for the proposed service territory. The utility will serve the Miami Tract Hunt Club, the Miami Corporation, and the Clark Cattle Station located within the proposed service territory. Farmton’s Application seeks a certificate for retail potable, fire protection, and bulk raw water service.
Stipulations
The Commission found that the following stipulations reached by the parties, noting that Volusia, Brevard, and Titusville took no position, were reasonable and accepted the stipulated matters set forth below.
The Commission has jurisdiction pursuant to sections 367.031, 367.045, 367.081, and 367.101 Florida Statutes.
Discussion of Issues
* * *
(2) The Florida Public Service Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction over each utility with respect to its authority, service, and rates.
(3) The regulation of utilities is declared to be in the public interest, and this law is an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of this purpose.
(4) This chapter shall supersede all other laws on the same subject, and subsequent inconsistent laws shall supersede this chapter only to the extent that they do so by express reference. This chapter shall not impair or take away vested rights other than procedural rights or benefits.
Farmton points out in its brief (Farmton BR 4-6) that the language of section 367.011 is very clear, and the courts have repeatedly interpreted the Commission’s regulatory jurisdiction over private utilities as broad, exclusive and preemptive. See, for example, Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d 368, 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (power and authority of the Public Service Commission is preemptive); Florida Power Corp. v. Seminole County, 570 So. 2d 105, 107 (Fla. 1991); (“While the authority given to cities and counties in Florida is broad, both the constitution and statutes recognize that cities and counties have no authority to act in areas that the legislature has pre-empted.”) The Commission, too, has interpreted its jurisdiction this way. In Order No. PSC-92-0104-FOF-WU, issued March 27, 1992, in Docket No. 910114-WU, In Re: Application of East Central Florida Services, Inc, for an original certificate in Brevard, Orange, and Osceola Counties, a case that is factually similar to this case, the Commission found that its jurisdiction pursuant to section 367.011 preempted the local governments’ claim to control the service area and certification process of a private water and wastewater utility.
The law on this issue is well-settled, and the local government intervenors appear to agree that section 367.011, Florida Statutes, provides the Commission jurisdiction over the certification of private utilities, but the intervenors still claim that other laws provide indirect local governmental control over certification as well. Brevard argues that under section 153.53(1), Florida Statutes[1], a water and sewer district created by county commissions has the authority to consent to construction of a water system within the district pursuant to section 153.86, Florida Statutes. [2] (Brevard BR 9) Brevard contends that the Commission cannot grant Farmton a certificate in this case because Farmton failed to apply for Brevard’s water district’s approval for construction of facilities and thus Farmton cannot meet the certification requirements in section 367.045, Florida Statutes, attached hereto as Attachment A. Titusville and Volusia also acknowledge the Commission’s jurisdiction, but they argue that the Commission is constrained in its exercise of that jurisdiction by the requirement of section 367.045(5)(b), Florida Statutes, which requires the Commission to consider compliance with local comprehensive plans when it grants a service area. (Titusville BR 3-4; Volusia BR 2-4) Titusville argues that the Commission should decline jurisdiction over Farmton, given the nature of Farmton’s proposal, the exemptions available, and the local comprehensive plans. Volusia contends that the Legislature intended the certification process to be a cooperative effort when land use issues or matters of particular concern to local governments are raised in certification proceedings. (Volusia BR 4)
None of these arguments effectively addresses the exclusive and preemptive language of section 367.011, Florida Statutes. While section 153.53, Florida Statutes, gives a local water and sewer district authority to approve construction of a water system within the district, that statute does not restrict the Commission’s certification authority. It deals with construction of facilities, not certification of a utility service area. Section 367.011(4), Florida Statutes, clearly states, that this chapter supersedes all other laws on the same subject. Chapter 153, Florida Statutes, was enacted before Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, and is therefore expressly superseded as a limitation on the Commission’s authority to regulate private utilities. Brevard’s attempt to invoke section 153.53, Florida Statutes, in creating a requirement for local government approval prior to certification is not contemplated either by the plain language of section 367.011, Florida Statutes, or by the certification requirements of section 367.045, Florida Statutes. Similarly, Titusville’s and Volusia’s attempt to limit the Commission’s certification authority by invoking section 367.045(5)(b), Florida Statutes, is misplaced. Section 367.045(5)(b), Florida Statutes, also provides that “the commission shall consider, but is not bound by, the local comprehensive plan of the county or municipality.” See, City of Oviedo v. Clark, 699 So. 2d 316, 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), where the court said:
We hold that the PSC correctly applied the requirements of section 367.045(5)(b). The plain language of the statute only requires the PSC to consider the comprehensive plan. The PSC is expressly granted discretion in the decision of whether to defer to the plan.
Based on the provisions of Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, court decisions, and prior Commission orders, staff believes that the Commission has exclusive preemptive jurisdiction over the certification of private utilities.
Issue 2: Is the service proposed by Farmton Water Resources LLC exempt from Commission jurisdiction?
* * *
(6) Systems with capacity or proposed capacity to serve 100 or fewer persons.
* * *
(12) The sale for resale of bulk water supplies of water or the sale or resale of wastewater services to a governmental authority or to a utility regulated pursuant to this chapter either by the commission or the county.
Issue 3: Has Farmton met the filing and noticing requirements pursuant to Rules 25-30.030 and 25-30.033, Florida Administrative Code?
Issue 4: Is there a need for service in Farmton’s proposed service territory and, if so, when will service be required?
Recommendation: Yes. There is a need for service. However, it is not known when all forms of service will be required. (Rieger)
While the City of Titusville and Brevard and Volusia Counties have taken the position that there is no need for service, Farmton believes that it has adequately outlined the current and future needs for potable water, fire flow, and bulk water services. (Farmton BR 11-15) The City of Titusville points out that for retail service, Farmton failed to obtain or present evidence to support its position, and that it camouflaged the lack of scientific study or basis by concocting a series of confusing assumptions to attempt to create the appearance of need. The potential customers for bulk raw water are identified as government utilities, which would be exempt from PSC regulation pursuant to section 367.022(12), Florida Statutes. For fire service, Titusville points out that Miami Corporation is the sole owner of the property, and it is unnecessary for a landowner, through a subsidiary, to charge itself for fire protection service. (Titusville BR 4-8) Brevard County believes that the utility’s request is excessive and that it failed to provide evidence to support a need for potable water service on the 10,000 acres within Brevard County. (Brevard BR 13) Volusia County believes that the testimony and exhibits in this case are noticeably lacking in substantial competent evidence regarding a clear need for service in this area because the area is an unpopulated wilderness without need for such services at this time or into the reasonably foreseeable future. (Volusia BR 5-7)
As reflected in the utility’s application, the proposed service area boundaries, which include approximately 50,000 acres within the counties of Volusia and Brevard, are generally contiguous with the property boundaries of its parent company, Miami Corporation. Farmton indicated that the existing and proposed retail potable service is and will be provided to customers across the proposed service area. The area includes commercial uses such as corporate headquarters, single family homes, and recreational buildings. (TR 180-192)
Farmton is seeking this certificate in part for long-range planning purposes to allow it to be prepared to provide service as and when needed to any residential, commercial or industrial development in the area. (EXH 3, p. 26-31) In order to manage the resources properly, Farmton witness Underhill believes that a certificate is necessary to control the withdrawal of water so that overpumping would not result in salt water intrusion and ruin the groundwater below the Farmton property. (TR 192-193)
Currently Farmton has three retail service customers that include the Miami Tract Hunt Club, the Miami Corporation, and the Clark Cattle Station. (TR 176-183) The retail potable water treatment facilities will be located near the proposed customers. The utility received a letter from Miami Hunt Club Inc., requesting service for its 260 member hunt club. (EXH 3, p. 133) Mr. Underhill testified that currently there has been no agreement reached to extend the hunting lease between the Miami Corporation and the 261 family members Miami Tract Hunt Club beyond May of 2006. (EXH 39) Four campgrounds are planned with twenty-five campsites each. Mr. Underhill indicated that as the need expands, the utility would be prepared to meet the needs. (TR 183-187, 194-201) He believes that there are significant needs that are already existing for potable water service. (TR 166-167) Although it is unclear what the future needs will be within the territory, Mr. Underhill states that there are absolutely no current plans by the landowner for further development, and as such, no plans for substantial changes in the number of persons receiving potable water service. He states that there are places in and surrounded by the proposed territory that may, in the near future, require or request potable water service. He suggested that there is likely to be a transition from the silviculture operations towards residential, commercial and industrial development of properties. In order to properly plan for the future, he believes that setting up a utility when those needs arise would not only be less efficient and ultimately more costly to customers, it would fragment the water resource management for the water demands within the area. (TR 167-168) While explaining various other needs for water service, Farmton witness Hartman stated that it is a tremendous benefit if water is provided for the health, safety, and welfare of the area. Mr. Hartman and Mr. Underhill both testified that there has been a customer request for water service from the Bell Ridge campgrounds, an enclave not owned by the Miami Corporation, which has 100 units. (TR 77-84, 187)
The fire protection service will also be provided across the Miami Corporation property. With two wells already existing, the total facilities necessary for the provision of the fire protection water supply will consist of the development and construction of 10 fire protection wells. The utility believes that these wells will enhance the fire fighting capabilities for Miami Corporation. (EXH 3, p. 31) Mr. Underhill recognized that when the existing fire wells were installed by Miami Corporation, a PSC certificate was not needed. However, he believes that a PSC certificate is necessary as part of the overall package of putting together all the needs and managing the resources properly. (TR 188-189)
The bulk raw water will be needed to supply non-potable water outside of the proposed service area. The utility believes that even though entities outside of the service area do not wish to be included in the service area at this time, the planning and development of Farmton will place the utility in the position to provide bulk raw water for their use in the future. (EXH 3, p. 26-31) Farmton anticipates that nearby water utilities will be in need of additional bulk raw water. This is because water supply forecasts from the SJRWMD indicate that resources may be stressed and alternative water supplies may be needed. (EXH 3, p. 34) Mr. Underhill believes that it is apparent that the bulk raw water need will increase as urban areas approach the area. (TR 167) Although there have been discussions with the City of Titusville, Mr. Underhill agreed that there are no contracts with Titusville or with any governmental or private entity. (TR 187)
Brevard witnesses Martens (TR 263) and Scott (TR 316) both testified that there is currently no existing or planned residential or commercial development proposed in the certificated area applied for by Farmton. Mr. Martens indicated that Brevard County has thousands of self-service potable water supply wells and he does not see that such facilities generate the need for a utility. (TR278) Titusville witness Grant also testified that there is no need for potable water service because much of the existing needs in the proposed service area can be met with the existing water supply sources and infrastructure and additional potable water demands based on future growth described in the application are purely speculative. Grant indicated that she works closely with each of the public water utilities in northern Brevard County, and is not aware of any presently existing demand for bulk water in the region. (TR 222-225)
Mr. Underhill believes that the intervenors’ statements that the service is not currently needed are clearly wrong in that there is demand for several types of service within the territory. (TR527) Mr. Hartman also disagreed with witness Grant about her statement that there is no need for a utility in this area. There are requests for service in the proposed area for a public water utility, and an investor-owned, raw, fire protection, and potable water utility provides many benefits for the area. Using East Central as an example, he provided a summary in which raw, fire, and potable water service are provided and the significant public benefit which was derived from those services. (EXH 31) He stated that raw water resources have been a significant and not a speculative need in the Titusville water service area for some 20 years. Neither the City of Cocoa nor Brevard County has offered to meet the raw water needs for Titusville. A component of Farmton’s application serves the regional need for raw water in an appropriate fashion while allowing for proper water resource stewardship. The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) witness Burklew testified that Titusville has applied to modify its existing consumptive use permit (CUP). (TR 425) Mr. Hartman believes that the fact that Farmton has offered to assist and help Titusville with its raw water supply problems is not a negative, but rather a very positive way to facilitate the appropriate and responsible development of water resources. (TR 471-473).
Volusia witness Marwick testified that the south-central portion of Volusia County has never been included within any of the groundwater simulation models used by either the SJRWMD or the Volusia Water Alliance (Volusia County). However, she also indicated that if there is any need for service, Volusia County through the Water Authority of Volusia (WAV), will incorporate the area and its water supply demands into the regional water supply plan. WAV was created in 2003 to oversee the management of Volusia County’s water supply. (TR 365-367) However, Mr. Hartman believes that as long as Farmton’s service area contains the impacts of water withdrawals within the service area, then the importance of the Farmton area being included in a simulation model is not great, but is rather informational to update those models. (TR 469-470)
St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) witness Burklew testified that the SJRWMD has not received an application for a CUP from Farmton. (TR 425) At the hearing, he agreed with the premise that a utility must be certificated by the PSC prior to obtaining a CUP. (TR 431)
Mr. Underhill testified that until such time as there are customers for whom the construction of water facilities would be needed, there is no reason for Farmton to apply for water management district (WMD) permits. He indicated that the utility will certainly do so as soon as requests for services are made. He reaffirms that it does not change the fact of Farmton’s need to plan for the provision of such services and for the appropriate, efficient, and effective management with the least environmental and resource impacts. He believes that Farmton is in the best position to do that. He points out that section 367.031, Florida Statutes, specifically provides that a utility should obtain a PSC certificate before it obtains a CUP. (TR 521-522)
Staff believes that the utility’s application complies with section 367.045(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which requires an examination of the need for service in the requested area. This is consistent with Commission practice dealing with a large service area owned by a single entity. In East Central, the Commission stated:
We are concerned with the size of the proposed certificated territory in this case, some 300,000 acres, and the configuration of the facilities within that territory. Clearly, the need for service is not pervasive throughout the territory. This concern, however, is not cause to deny certification. We do not think it is in the public interest at this time to carve up a vast territory, which is all owned by one entity, so as to certificate only scattered portions thereof. Instead, we forewarn ECFS that pursuant to Section 367.111(1), Florida Statutes, we may delete any part of a utility’s certificated territory, whether or not there has been a demand for service, within five years of authorizing that service.
Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing, we find that there is a need for water service in the proposed certificated territory.
Order No. PSC-92-0104-FOF-WU, at pp. 20-21
Based on the record, staff recommends that there appears to be a need, although limited, for potable water service, fire protection service, and bulk service in the proposed service area; however, it is not known when all forms of service will be required. Though the evidence shows that the need for service is not pervasive throughout the territory, when considering all three services, staff believes that the utility has proven that the need exists in both Brevard and Volusia Counties. Consistent with the Commission finding in East Central, it is not in the public interest to carve up the Farmton territory, which is owned by the utility’s parent company, and certificate only a portion of the territory.
Issue 5: Is Farmton’s application inconsistent with Brevard County’s or Volusia County’s comprehensive plans?
Recommendation: Yes. Farmton’s application appears to be inconsistent with the comprehensive plans, pursuant to section 367.045(5)(b), Florida Statutes, but in light of the evidence presented in this case, that inconsistency should not cause the Commission to deny the utility’s application. (Rieger)
Position of the Parties
Farmton witness Landers testified that Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, supersedes Chapter 163, with respect to the regulation of privately owned utilities. He testified that a PSC application would never be inconsistent with a comprehensive plan because the definition of development pursuant to section 380.04, Florida Statutes, contained in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and the county comprehensive plans, does not define a PSC service territory as development. Therefore, the creation of a PSC regulated water utility and designation of a service territory is not development subject to comprehensive plan regulation. He testified that the comprehensive planning process is a tool to manage, not prohibit, growth and development. Each county has a comprehensive plan that sets forth rules on how a landowner or developer can develop land and those plans can be amended pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The development process includes a number of approvals that are required to meet the specifics of a particular development and, in most cases, having a central water system is a prerequisite to having a substantial commercial or residential development. Filing an application with the PSC is the correct first step in the process. He also testified that a PSC certificate does not, in itself, stimulate development or create any impacts on natural resources. (Farmton BR 15-16, TR 102-108, 110-115, 124, 133)
Brevard County Comprehensive Plan
Brevard County’s position is that Farmton’s application is inconsistent with its comprehensive plan because Farmton has not applied for the approval of the County Commission in either its capacity as governing body of the County or the Brevard County Water and Sewer District. Policy 3.4 of the Potable Water Element of the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan provides that newly proposed service areas, expanding restricted service areas, or PSC regulated service areas must be reviewed and approved by Brevard County and Farmton has not sought that approval. Ordinance No. 03-032, which was created pursuant to Section 153, Florida Statutes, provides that the Brevard County Water and Sewer District makes the determination as to whether to approve the construction of a water or sewer system. (TR 254-256, 281-287, 313-316, 356)
Brevard County’s comprehensive plan contains several objectives that address urban sprawl. Objective 4 recognizes the importance of protecting agricultural land because the industry benefits the economy, reduces the extent of urban sprawl and the costs of providing public facilities and services, provides environmental benefits, and provides open space and visual beauty. Objective 5 of the comprehensive plan states that Brevard County shall maximize the use of existing facilities to discourage urban sprawl. (TR 263, 314)
Brevard witnesses Martens and Scott testified that potable water service should not be extended into agricultural areas of Brevard unless the Board of County Commissioners has a chance to discuss the potential land use implications and deems it to be in the public interest. Mr. Scott also testified that it is inefficient to attempt to provide centralized potable water service in an area that can only be used for agriculture. The granting of a certificated area to provide water services in an agricultural area could set up an attempt at leapfrog development unless the system were limited to providing bulk raw water to other retail water providers in areas outside of the proposed certificated area. (TR 263, 281-287, 315-316, 324-329, 351-356; EXH 14, 15, and 16)
Witness Scott testified that the utility’s application for a certificate is not in violation of the Brevard’s comprehensive plan, but he believes that Brevard needs to review a proposed PSC regulated service territory and deem it consistent with its comprehensive plan prior to the PSC granting approval. However, witness Scott is not aware of any violation of the comprehensive plan case law in regards to what Farmton proposes. He agrees that there are certain development planning advantages for large tracts of land owned by single landowners. (TR 330-344, 347-362)
Farmton witness Landers agreed with the concept that from a planning standpoint, urban sprawl is undesirable. However, he disagreed with the premise that a central water system in a nonurban, rural, forested, uninhabited area would be the first step towards urban sprawl. He believes that urban sprawl occurs largely because of fragmented land ownership and the first step to urban sprawl has already been taken by allowing residential development to occur on small acreage. This is supported by DCA technical memos on the subject. (Composite EXH 37) He believes that it is the large land owners, like Farmton, who have the potential to best manage their property. (TR 119-128, 130)
Mr. Landers testified that the Brevard County policy on water service areas provides that although Brevard is not permitted to extend services into the agricultural areas, Brevard will accept facilities and provide utilities in agricultural areas. This policy does not prohibit others from establishing districts through which water service can be provided; in fact, it actually establishes a mechanism through which they can do so. It appears to him that these rules provide support for establishment of water service territories rather than absolutely prohibiting them. While he maintains that the PSC has ultimate jurisdiction over the granting of a water service territory, this would appear to establish basic grounds for Farmton to establish a water service territory. (TR 557-561) Therefore, it is Mr. Landers’ opinion that Farmton’s request is consistent with those provisions of the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan because a water service territory, in and of itself, is neither a land use nor development as defined by Florida’s planning statutes and rules, and any development that would require or greatly benefit from central water service can be pursued and potentially implemented. Mr. Landers states that the Brevard witnesses suggest that the land use plan can be amended to allow other uses than those currently allowed on any property. To him, this reference identifies a right that all land owners have under Florida’s Growth Management statutes and rules, a right to seek an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. It is Mr. Landers’ opinion that designation of a water services territory will not in and of itself generate sprawl and that the Brevard plan contains numerous anti-sprawl policies, as required by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Using East Central, as an example, he argues that a properly pursued and approved amendment to the future land use map would not constitute sprawl. (TR 562-575, 574-575)
Farmton witness Hartman stated that Brevard County’s referenced comprehensive plan policy could be appropriate if Brevard County has taken back jurisdiction from the PSC and if the applicant was solely in Brevard County. However, since the application is a multi-county application, Mr. Hartman maintains that this portion of the policy statement does not apply. If Farmton wishes to establish their service area, it is fully capable of doing so through the same process. Mr. Hartman believes that the PSC has the exclusive authority to certificate water utilities and not Brevard County, especially when there is a multi-county utility involved. (TR 466-467)
Volusia County Comprehensive Plan
Volusia County’s position is that Farmton’s application is inconsistent with the guiding goals, policies, and objectives of Volusia’s comprehensive plan, including the Future Land Use Element. Volusia’s major concern is unplanned or harmful urban growth in areas not contiguous to existing urban areas and the preservation of its natural resources. (Volusia BR 7-17)
Volusia witnesses Thomson and Marwick stated that the proposed application to establish a water utility is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for Volusia County, and that the policies in the plan limit the provision of water and sewer service to urban future land use designations except for limited circumstances where a bona fide threat to the health, safety, and welfare can be established or if the comprehensive plan is amended to change the land use designation. The Future Land Use Plan Categories that encompass the area in the Farmton application do not include urban land use. The land use designations within Farmton’s proposed service territory are Environmental System Corridor (ESC), Forestry Resource (FR), and Agricultural Resource (AR). The witnesses testified that central water service is not required for nonurban areas and, to date, Volusia has not considered any changes to its plan to establish urban land uses within the Farmton service area to justify the creation of a utility. Furthermore, they point out that the application does not address a need that could be considered consistent with the plan. These land use designations are not intended to support uses which will require an extensive, central water service system as proposed by Farmton. (TR 368-370, 385-386, 394-398; EXH 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29)
Witness Thomson agreed that comprehensive plans can be modified over time. Although designating a service area would not impact natural resources, the action to do so would be inconsistent with the plan under Chapter 163. Mr. Thomson agreed that Volusia would not lose any of that authority and that certification by the PSC does not have any force or effect over any development proposal. However, it would play into the decision making process. In reference to urban sprawl, Mr. Thomson points out that there is no strict definition of sprawl, although under the Department of Community Affairs Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, there are seven categories or indicators of urban sprawl. Mr. Thomson did not agree that the Volusia County service area was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan because of interlocal agreements with municipalities to provide service to unincorporated areas. (TR 404-415) He acknowledged that as far as he knew, Volusia has never taken any action against a utility that proposed to receive a certificate from the PSC. Also, he agreed that large tracts of land being owned by single landowners provide positive opportunities for planning purposes. (TR 420-421)
It is Farmton Witness Lander’s opinion that the future land use element is not as restrictive as claimed, and that significant uses that would benefit from central water services are permitted under the plan. These provisions of the land use element do not prohibit the establishment of a water service territory as regulated by the PSC, and the establishment of a water service territory is not, in and of itself, a “land use” or “development” as defined by the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan or State Statute. The use of a residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) is consistent with the ESC, FR, and AR land use categories. Therefore, development that would require and could be supported by central water service is permitted in the Volusia County comprehensive plan upon Farmton’s lands.
According to Witness Landers, the Volusia County comprehensive plan identifies a right that all land owners have under Florida’s growth management statutes and rules, to seek an amendment to the comprehensive plan. The fact that Farmton is the owner of a very large tract of currently rural land provides a very special land management opportunity that has been recognized by the State of Florida. Witness Landers believes that Farmton’s ownership and proposed water utility provides an opportunity to manage a land and water resource in order to preserve the rural, environmental and agricultural resources as desired by Volusia County while providing a sound basis for such innovative development as rural villages or new towns. He believes that the resulting preservation of environmentally sensitive areas is consistent with the goals of Volusia’s comprehensive plan, as well as consistent with the rural land planning strategy that DCA lays out in its Technical Memos (Composite EXH 37) and later actions concerning urban sprawl.
Witness Landers argued that Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, does not enable local governments to regulate private utility certificated service areas through the comprehensive planning process. He also argued that the Planned Development Cluster provision for lands in Volusia County’s plan contradicts Witness Thomson’s assertions on this topic. He believes that this is due to the fact that Volusia County has determined all areas not within another governmental utility service area, as its service area. It is clear to him that being in the Volusia service area does not mean that Volusia would actually serve the area. There is no classification in the land use or zoning for a certificated territory by the PSC. Therefore, Mr. Landers believes a certificate by itself should not constitute “development” in Volusia County, and that Farmton is proceeding in proper order with the initial authority for certifying a water service territory with the PSC. (TR 576-589)
Farmton witness Underhill stated that both the comprehensive plan and water supply plan are documents that are regularly reviewed to reflect changes to growth patterns and demand as part of responsible planning. He notes that since water is an essential prerequisite to development it would seem that planning for water resources prior to anyone requesting a PUD, DRI, or other change, would be a logical step to ensure availability of water as and when needed. (TR 519-521)
DCA witness James testified that the DCA believes that the utility’s proposal is inconsistent with several goals, objectives, and policies of Volusia and Brevard Counties and the City of New Smyrna Beach Comprehensive Plans. She points out that the utility services are proposed in an area that is completely rural with some of these areas containing natural resources that are environmentally sensitive, and the proposed services may result in urban sprawl development patterns. (TR 442-443) At the hearing, witness James agreed that the granting of a PSC certificate was in and of itself not inconsistent with the comprehensive plans of Brevard and Volusia Counties, and that it was not development or land use. She indicated that her concern was that a certificate could be part of a possible domino-effect that could lead to a certain type of development even though the counties would retain the power and authority of comprehensive plan enforcement. In reference to urban sprawl and its effect on the environment, she had no knowledge of any case where the granting of a certificate led directly to urban sprawl or harmed the environment. (TR 445-448)
Mr. Hartman stated that, in his experience, there is no correlation between a PSC certificate and urban sprawl or that the utility element of the Comprehensive Plan under Chapter 9J-5, would preclude certification in and of itself. In reference to the countywide service areas, to his knowledge the countywide generalized service area has not had an impact on other entities as they may expand or modify their utility service areas. (TR 504-507)
Staff Summary
Based on the evidence, staff believes that Farmton’s request to provide water service in the proposed service territory appears to be inconsistent with portions of the Brevard County comprehensive plan. Policy 3.4 of the Brevard County comprehensive plan provides that newly proposed service areas, expanding restricted service areas, or PSC regulated service areas must be reviewed and approved by Brevard County. The Brevard County witness agreed that Farmton’s application to the PSC is not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, but also testified that the County must review and approve Farmton’s proposal prior to the PSC granting its approval. The testimony is not clear whether that provision contemplates that the Brevard needs to review a proposed PSC regulated service territory and deem it consistent with the Brevard’s comprehensive plan prior to the PSC granting approval. Assuming that Brevard County is the authority on the provisions of its comprehensive plan, the granting of a PSC certificate to Farmton prior to Brevard County reviewing and approving the Farmton proposal appears to be inconsistent with the Brevard County’s comprehensive plan.
With respect to the Volusia County comprehensive plan, the policies in the plan limit the provision of water and sewer service to urban future land use designations except for limited circumstances where a bona fide threat to the health, safety, and welfare can be established or if the comprehensive plan is amended to change the land use designation. The land use categories that encompass the area in the Farmton application include Environmental System Corridor (ESC), Forestry Resource (FR), and Agricultural Resource (AR), none of which are considered urban areas. Therefore, Farmton’s application appears to be inconsistent with the portion of the Volusia County plan that limits the provision of water service to urban areas.
Staff believes, however that, consistent with the Commission’s finding in East Central, the planning process, as detailed in the comprehensive plans for Brevard and Volusia Counties, does not supersede PSC authority pursuant to section 367.011, Florida Statutes. In East Central, the Commission said:
Section 367.011(1), Florida Statutes, states that this Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over each utility with respect to its authority, service, and rates. Section 367.011(4), Florida Statutes, states that Chapter 367 supersedes all other laws on the same subject and that subsequent inconsistent laws shall supersede Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, only to the extent they do so by express reference. Chapter 163 does not make express reference to Chapter 367. Section 163.3211, Florida Statutes, specifically states, “Nothing in this act is intended to withdraw or diminish any legal powers or responsibilities of state agencies or change any requirement of existing law that local regulations comply with state standards or rules.”
In consideration of the above, we do not think that ECFS’s certification is inconsistent with Chapter 163.
Order No. PSC-92-0104-FOF-WU, at p. 26
The evidence presented clearly shows that a county’s control over development is not reduced with the issuance of a certificate. The counties’ hands are not tied when it comes to enforcement of their own comprehensive plans if and when rezoning is needed. Certification by the PSC does not deprive the counties of any authority they have to control urban sprawl on the Farmton properties. This includes Brevard County’s right to maximize the use of existing facilities to discourage urban sprawl and the use of Ordinance No. 03-032 to approve the construction of a water or sewer system, and Volusia County’s concerns over the construction of water facilities in nonurban areas. Therefore, staff is persuaded that the issuance of a PSC certificate does not result in urban sprawl or harm to the environment.
In conclusion, staff recommends that, although Farmton’s application or the PSC’s granting of a certificate to Farmton appears to be inconsistent with provisions of the Brevard and Volusia County comprehensive plans, pursuant to Section 367.045(5)(b), Florida Statutes, in light of the evidence presented in this case, that inconsistency should not cause the Commission to deny the utility’s application. City of Oviedo, 699 So. 2d at 318.
Issue 6: Will the certification of Farmton result in the creation of a utility which will be in competition with, or duplication of, any other system?
Recommendation: No. The utility will not be in competition with, or duplication of, any other system. (Rieger)
Farmton believes that there is little evidence that the creation of a utility will be in competition with, or duplication of any system operated by the three local governments. Although there was some testimony that local governments might be able to provide service to the Farmton properties in the future, the Commission has held that it cannot determine whether a proposed system will be in competition with or a duplication of another system when such other system does not exist. (Farmton BR 23-25) Brevard County believes that it has facilities that can provide service to the Miami Corporation property and any utility, including the Brevard County utilities department, can provide the limited type of service required by the one campsite in Brevard County. (Brevard BR 13-14) Titusville points out that Farmton never requested service from any of the surrounding local governmental entities and that bulk service will be duplicative with Titusville’s planned bulk facility. (Titusville BR 10) Volusia County suggests that if Farmton’s application is approved, it would create a situation where Volusia County and Farmton were both legally designated as the service providers, creating competition and confusion. It would also create a duplication of service, as Volusia is able, authorized, and expected to eventually extend its existing system through the adjacent City of Edgewater. (Volusia BR 17-19)
Titusville provides water service within five miles of Farmton. (TR 281) Brevard County is within two miles (TR 271) and Volusia County via the City of Edgewater, is less than one mile (TR 379) from the proposed Farmton territory.
Farmton witness Hartman testified that no other system serves the proposed area, and it is his opinion that the proposed utility will not be in competition with or duplicate the services of any other water utility system. (TR 69) Even if there were such systems in the area, the existence of the facilities owned by Farmton currently providing those services would mean that service by any other entity would be a clear duplication of Farmton’s existing service, and would be extremely inefficient. (TR 34)
Brevard County witness Martens testified that the County Commission has enacted an ordinance (EXH 15) that requires any water provider or supplier to obtain the consent of the County Commission to construct facilities. Farmton has not sought consent under this provision. (TR 255-256) Martens contends that if Farmton were to build a water treatment facility, it would be a duplication of the Brevard system at the Mims plant, to the extent that the Mims Plant has excess capacity. (TR 266) In reference to Titusville’s proposed raw water lines from a wellfield in northern Brevard County duplicating county services, he pointed out that the district has acknowledged Titusville’s application to construct. (TR 269-270) Mr. Martens did indicate that Brevard County has been exceeding its consumptive use permit (CUP) with the SJRWMD for more than two years. (TR 279-280) He did not think that Brevard had an obligation to serve the unincorporated areas of the county, although it has a right to do so under the comprehension plan consideration. Mr. Martens agreed that if facilities were already in place at Farmton, Brevard’s proposal to provide service would be a duplication of service. He also indicated that it is customary for the developer to build the facilities and dedicate them to the county for operation and maintenance. (TR 289-291, 295-296, 302)
Mr. Hartman points out that Brevard County does not provide either raw water service, fire protection service, or potable water service to the proposed certificate area. In addition, Brevard has not provided facilities, costs, specific plans, nor included the area within the Brevard’s active utility operations area. Farmton’s proposed service area is outside of the established North Brevard water system service area and therefore would not use such capacity. (TR 467-469) He notes that Brevard County has not planned for and has not developed the cost of service to provide services for Farmton customers, and that the Farmton area and development of water resources does not adversely impact Brevard’s existing water system or the expansions planned by Brevard. He believes that Mr. Martens has not testified that Brevard County could or would have facilities to serve countywide or to serve systems that are not planned for at this time by county utilities. (TR 478-482)
Witness Grant testified that Titusville is well positioned to meet the potable water needs of any communities in the vicinity of its service area that are not served by Brevard or another municipality. However, the urbanizing areas of northern Brevard County, that are not in the City of Titusville’s service area, are in the Brevard County service area. Titusville does not have plans to expand its service area in the near term, because there is not an unmet need for potable water service in northern Brevard County at the present time. (TR 222) She points out that if a need for potable water supplies developed in that area, Titusville is in a very good position to meet those needs. Brevard County would also be in a good position to supply the need in the proposed service area in northern Brevard County. Titusville and Brevard have a history of working cooperatively to ensure that water supply needs are met. She believes that when a need arises, Titusville and Brevard will work cooperatively with any developers to determine which utility can best meet the water supply needs and reach an appropriate agreement. (TR 224) Titusville has a CUP application pending with the SJRWMD for the construction of a wellfield in northern Brevard County. Ms. Grant stated that Titusville’s application does not ask to increase pumping; however, it does identify another wellfied from which Titusville can draw water. She indicated that Titusville also purchases potable water from the City of Cocoa. Given its excess water treatment plant capacity, she believed that it would be cheaper for Titusville to obtain raw water rather than its current arrangement with Cocoa. (TR 226-232)
Mr. Hartman points out that Titusville’s water treatment plant is several miles away and would require a costly duplication of pipelines for service, and such service could not be as efficient or effective as service provided by Farmton. In addition, Brevard County does not have the Water Use Permit capacity or facilities to provide the services currently needed. (TR 477, 490)
Farmton witness Drake notes that Titusville’s service area does not include the Farmton area. He pointed out that Ms. Grant’s statement that Titusville will meet all its projected needs, is contradicted by the fact that it has applied to the SJRWMD for a new wellfield in order to meet projected demands. Mr. Drake does not agree that Titusville is in a good position to meet the potable water needs of northern Brevard County, which includes the Farmton area. He believes that it is unlikely that Titusville could provide potable water at a reasonable cost to customers in northern Brevard County when the potable water would have to be pumped from Titusville’s plant, versus it being pumped and treated locally. The proposal to meet the needs for water service in this area would therefore be very costly, many times the costs which service by Farmton would entail. (TR 535-537)
In reference to Titusville’s SJRWMD application status, it is Mr. Drake’s opinion that Farmton would be the far superior provider of water because it has significantly more land area in which to develop groundwater supplies, and has a vested interest in limiting adverse impacts to its lands, wetlands and silviculture operations. This includes the permitted wetland mitigation banks that are on the property. (TR 538-540)
Volusia County witness Marwick testified that while the Miami Corporation has not demonstrated a need for a potable water distribution system and treatment facilities, if such a need is ever demonstrated, Volusia utilities, through WAV, is prepared to serve the area. (TR 366- 367) She did note that Volusia County requires developers to provide and dedicate potable water and wastewater systems within any new development to Volusia County. (TR 378-380)
Mr. Hartman suggests that Farmton’s water use would be contained primarily on-site and would not impact any of Volusia’s systems. The City of Edgewater would not be impacted and the cones of influence would not overlap. Volusia County does not have a system in its southeastern area of the county, and the closest county system is over 10 miles away. Volusia County also does not have any plans for service to the Farmton area. (TR 482-484) Mr. Hartman stated that the Brevard and Volusia County ordinances and their active utility service areas do not apply in this case. (TR 490-494) Mr. Hartman points out that while witnesses from Brevard, Titusville, and Volusia have suggested their ability to provide service as and when there is need to this area, none proposed to provide the raw water, fire protection or potable water service to Farmton. None have planned to serve the area, none have the availability to serve the area, and none have budgeted to serve the area. (TR 507-508)
In East Central, the Commission addressed the issue of competition or duplication of proposed systems, stating:
We cannot determine whether a proposed system will be in competition with or a duplication of another system when such other system does not exist. We do not believe Section 367.045(5)(a), Florida Statutes, requires this Commission to hypothesize which of two proposed systems might be in place first and, thus, which would compete with or duplicate the other. Engaging in such speculation would be of little use.
Order No. PSC-92-0104-FOF-WU, at p. 22
Based on the testimony provided by Brevard and Volusia County, and the City of Titusville, those entities do not have existing facilities within the proposed Farmton service territory. Although Volusia County indicated that it is prepared to serve the Farmton territory if a need is demonstrated, no testimony was provided to show that it has the capacity or plans to do so. The nearest Brevard County water facility, Mims, is two miles away, but is exceeding its CUP. Titusville’s service area is five miles away from Farmton’s proposed service area. In addition, none of the intervenors adequately address the need for raw water, fire protection, or retail potable water service. When considering the three services, staff believes that the utility has shown that it can best provide the required water service in its proposed service territory in both Brevard and Volusia Counties. Miami Corporation is already providing a limited amount of water to the hunt club as well as several other Miami Corporation facilities.
While both Volusia and Brevard Counties testified that they would serve or have a right to provide water service throughout each of their respective counties, these statements of intent are insufficient to demonstrate that Farmton’s proposal would be in competition with, or duplication of those systems. Consistent with the Commission’s findings in East Central, since the intervenors have not demonstrated that they have existing facilities in place to serve Farmton, staff recommends that the utility’s application complies with section 367.045(5)(a), Florida Statutes, in that it will not be in competition with, or duplication of any other system.
Issue 7: Does Farmton have the financial ability to serve the requested territory?
According to Farmton’s application, Farmton is a limited liability corporation, incorporated in Delaware on February 26, 2002, and registered to do business in Florida on March 20, 2002. Because Farmton is a limited liability corporation, it has no corporate officers or directors. Farmton’s application further states that Farmton Management LLC is its sole member and owner. Farmton Management LLC is owned by the Miami Corporation, which has owned and managed the land and water resources in Farmton’s proposed service area for over 75 years. (EXH 3, pp. 1-2, 6 and EXH 40)
In its application, Farmton indicated that, because it cannot receive utility revenue from existing customers until the Commission approves its rates and charges, there is no detailed balance sheet, statement of financial condition, or operating statement available for Farmton. (EXH 3, p. 11) Instead, Farmton filed financial statements for Farmton Management LLC. which indicate that Farmton Management LLC had $1,247,917 of member capital as of March 31, 2004. (EXH 3, p. 135 and EXH 2, p. 9)
The original financial statement for Farmton Management LLC was accompanied by an affidavit from Farmton Management LLC which indicated that it will provide or assist Farmton in securing necessary funding to meet all reasonable capital needs and any operating deficits on an as and when needed basis. (EXH 3, p. 136) Since Farmton Management LLC’s assets come from its member’s capital, staff requested that Farmton provide a similar pledge of financial support from the Miami Corporation. Farmton Witness Underhill provided an affidavit to that effect as EXH 40. Mr. Underhill is Vice President of Operations for Farmton. (TR 157-158) He has also been Director of Operations of the Farmton property for the Miami Corporation for the last 25 years. (TR 162). Mr. Underhill further testified that the basis for his position that the Miami Corporation has the ability to provide for any of Farmton’s capital needs is the value of the land which Miami Corporation owns free and clear. (TR 194) In addition, Mr. Underhill testified that Farmton has no expectations of any need for capital improvements, as there is no anticipated development of any significance within the proposed service territory. The only possibility of significant capital expenditures is for bulk raw water services. However, under Farmton’s proposed service availability policy, a substantial amount of the capital cost will be paid by the proposed customer. Mr. Underhill believes that if any additional capital costs exist, those costs can easily be met from funding provided by Farmton’s parent. (TR 170)
In its Brief, Farmton noted that none of the protestants provided any evidence at hearing in support of the position that Farmton has not established financial ability. (Farmton BR 25) In its Brief, Titusville did not factually dispute that Farmton had financial ability. Instead, Titusville argued that Farmton’s filing on financial ability was deficient because:
· Farmton did not provide a detailed financial statement required by Rule 25-30.033(1)(r), Florida Administrative Code, even though it has been in existence for over a year.
· Rule 25-30.033(1)(r), Florida Administrative Code, does not allow for the substitution of a parent’s financial statement for that of the utility.
· The one page summary of Farmton Management LLC’s assets and liabilities is not sufficiently detailed to make a determination of financial ability.
· The affidavits of support provided by Farmton’s parents are not competent evidence because they are hearsay and not enforceable.
In support of Titusville’s argument that the one page summary of the assets and liabilities of Farmton’s parent company is not sufficiently detailed for the PSC to determine whether Farmton, or its parent, has the financial ability to operate the water systems proposed in the application in a safe and reliable manner, it cited Order No. PSC-01-0992-PAA-WU, issued April 20, 2001, in Docket No. 001049-WU, In Re: Application for original water certificate in Charlotte County by Little Gasparilla Water Utility, where the PSC conducted a detailed review of a recent tax return, balance sheet, and profit and loss statement. (Titusville BR 11-12)
The requirement for a showing of financial ability for Farmton’s application falls under Rule 25-30.033(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, not Rule 25-30.033(1)(r), Florida Administrative Code. With respect to the detailed financial statement required by Rule 25-30.033(1)(r), Florida Administrative Code, Farmton’s application contained a statement that it has no detailed balance sheet, statement of financial condition, or operating statement because it cannot charge for service until the Commission approves its rates and charges. (EXH 3, p. 11). Although at least one fiscal year has passed since Farmton was established, Farmton’s authority to charge for service is still pending before the Commission.
With respect to the substitution of a parent’s financial statement for that of the utility, it has been Commission practice to accept a statement of the parent’s financial ability in original certificate cases where the utility has not yet established a financial history.[3] In addition, the Commission has traditionally recognized the vested interest of a parent in the financial stability of the utility.[4] Farmton provided a statement of assets and liabilities of Farmton Management LLC which indicated that the parent has sufficient assets, without debt, to cover over half of the capital cost of constructing the utility facilities. (EXH 2, p. 9) In addition, Witness Underhill testified that the value of the land, which Miami Corporation owns free and clear, should demonstrate that it has the financial ability to provide for any of Farmton’s capital needs. (TR 194)
Rule 25-30.033(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, is silent on the specific information necessary for a showing of financial ability. In the order cited by Titusville, the evidence of financial ability was a corporate tax return along with a balance sheet and profit and loss statement for a utility that was already in existence and charging rates. As noted, Farmton has provided an explanation why it does not yet have a financial statement. (EXH 3, p. 11)
In its brief, Titusville asserts that the affidavits of Farmton’s parent companies are not competent evidence of a commitment to provide financial support to Farmton. Therefore, Titusville asserts that the affidavits cannot be used as evidence of the matters asserted in the documents because hearsay evidence cannot be considered except to corroborate other non-hearsay evidence. Titusville argues that Farmton failed to offer any non-hearsay evidence of financial commitments by its parent companies. (Titusville BR 12-13) Staff notes that the affidavits corroborate Farmton Witness Underhill’s testimony at the hearing. Mr. Underhill, employed by Miami Corporation as the Director of Operations for Farmton, provided testimony that Farmton does have the financial ability to provide service and stated that Farmton Management, LLC has ample resources to fund the utility’s needs and has pledged to do so. (TR 162, 169-171)
As noted, Brevard’s position is that Farmton Water Resources, LLC is a limited liability company with no directors or officers and it has produced no financial statements or [tax] returns. The only evidence on financial ability is a third party’s representation that Farmton would receive financial backing. (Brevard BR 2) Staff agrees with Brevard that Farmton is a limited liability company. With respect to Brevard’s remaining statements, staff believes they have been addressed above.
Based upon the financial statement provided for Farmton Management LLC, the pledges of financial support by Farmton’s parent and grandparent, and the corporate longevity and holdings of the Miami Corporation, staff recommends that Farmton has demonstrated the financial ability to serve the requested territory.
Issue 8: Does Farmton have the technical ability to serve the requested territory?
Recommendation: Yes. The utility has the existing and potential technical ability to serve all the needs of the requested territory. (Rieger)
Farmton witnesses Underhill, Drake, and Hartman, testified that Farmton has the technical ability to provide the service proposed in its application. In addition to Mr. Underhill’s extensive experience in managing water resources and knowledge of those issues, the services of Hartman & Associates, as consulting engineers, and other regulatory experts will be enlisted to assist in operating the utility. The same personnel who have operated the water facilities for many years in the past will continue to operate those in the future, simply working for the utility instead of the landowner. The utility will employ competent, experienced persons in utility areas for those purposes. Farmton believes that since there was no evidence to the contrary, the Commission should find that it has sufficient technical ability to serve the requested territory. (Farmton BR 26-27, TR 34, 56-57, 143, 164, 169, 189-190, 202)
Titusville believes that there is not competent substantive evidence that Farmton has the technical ability to operate the utility in a manner that will provide safe and reliable water service. According to the evidence, Farmton’s only experience is with agricultural operations. It has no experience with the types of potable water facilities identified in the application. Farmton’s vice president of operations has no experience managing a public water utility. (Titusville BR 14, TR 190) Pursuant to Ordinance 03-032, Brevard County believes that by failing to apply to the District board for consent and construction plan approval, the PSC cannot find that Farmton has the technical ability to provide potable water service. (Brevard BR 11-13) Volusia County takes no position.
The utility has represented that it will employ competent, experienced persons for the technical purposes of operating a utility. With the continued services of Hartman and Associates, coupled with the existing experience of the Farmton employees, staff sees no indication that a high level of technical ability cannot be maintained by the utility. Also, as was pointed out in Issue 5, certification does not deprive the counties of any authority. This includes Brevard County’s use of Ordinance No. 03-032 to approve the construction of a water or sewer system. Staff has no reason to believe that the utility will not adhere to that ordinance when it is appropriate for it to do so. Therefore, staff recommends that the utility has the existing and potential technical ability to serve all the needs of the requested territory. This is consistent with Commission decisions in other original certificate applications.[5]
Issue 9: Does Farmton have sufficient plant capacity to serve the requested territory?
Titusville points out that Farmton has requested the PSC to certificate a 50,000 acre territory. However, the wells proposed are small and not interconnected, and therefore will not provide sufficient capacity to serve the territory. (Titusville BR 14-15) Brevard County believes that there is no dispute that Brevard County has enacted Ordinance 03-32 creating a water and sewer district, and that Farmton has not applied to the District for consent to construct facilities. (BR 10) Volusia County took no position in the matter.
Staff is persuaded by Farmton’s position for this issue. Mr. Hartman testified that Farmton either has or is taking appropriate measures to ensure sufficient plant capacity to provide the proposed service. (TR 34-35) Pursuant to section 367.031, Florida Statutes, a utility must obtain a certificate of authorization from the Commission prior to being issued a permit by the DEP for the construction of a new water or wastewater facility or prior to being issued a consumptive use or drilling permit by a water management district. Staff believes that Farmton is correct in pursuing a certificate from the Commission prior to approaching the DEP, WMD, Brevard County, or any other entity that may require authorization to construct the facilities necessary to provide water service. Staff believes that the utility has shown that it is has the financial and technical ability to efficiently provide sufficient existing and potential capacity for all services needed in the proposed service area. In reference to Brevard County’s Ordinance 03-032, it was pointed out in Issue 5 that certification does not deprive the counties of any authority they have to oversee urban sprawl on the Farmton properties. This includes Brevard County’s use of Ordinance No. 03-032 to approve the construction of a water or sewer system. Staff believes that the utility will adhere to that ordinance when it is appropriate for it to do so. Therefore, staff recommends that Farmton has sufficient existing and potential capacity for all services needed in the proposed service area.
Issue 10: Has Farmton provided evidence that it has continued use of the land upon which the utility treatment facilities are or will be located?
Recommendation: Yes. The Commission approved the stipulation that Farmton has provided evidence that it has continued use of the land upon which the utility treatment facilities are or will be located. If the Commission grants Farmton’s request for a certificate, Farmton should be required to file an executed and recorded copy of its proposed long-term lease with the Miami Corporation within 30 days of the date of Commission vote. (Brady)
Staff Analysis: Rule 25-30.033(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code, requires evidence that the utility owns the land upon which the utility treatment facilities are, or will be, located or a copy of an agreement which provides for the continued use of the land. Parties have stipulated, noting that Volusia, Brevard, and Titusville took no position, that Farmton has provided evidence that it has continued use of the land upon which the utility treatment facilities are or will be located. (TR 7-8) If the Commission grants Farmton’s request for a certificate, the utility should be required to file an executed and recorded copy of its long-term lease with the Miami Corporation within 30 days of the Commission’s vote.
Issue 11: Is it in the public interest for Farmton to be granted a water certificate for the territory proposed in its application?
Recommendation: Yes. When considered as a whole, it is in the public interest to grant Farmton Certificate No. 622-W to provide water service to the territory described in Attachment C . (Brady)
To implement the above statutes, Rule 25-30.033(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, requires a statement showing the financial and technical ability of the applicant to provide service, the need for service in the proposed service area, the identity of any other utilities within the proposed service area that could potentially provide service, and the steps the applicant took to ascertain whether such other service is available.
In Issue 4, staff recommended that, although it was uncertain when all types of service would be required, the utility’s application did comply with section 367.045(1)(b), Florida Statutes, with regard to the need for service in the requested area. Staff’s recommendation is consistent with Commission practice when dealing with a large service area owned by a single entity. Staff relied upon East Central where, concerned about the size of the proposed service area and the non-pervasive extent of facilities, the Commission nonetheless concluded that it was not in the public interest to carve up a vast territory and certificate only scattered portions of it. Based upon the testimony in this docket, staff recommended that there appears to be a need, although also limited and non-pervasive, for service in Farmton’s proposed service area. Consistent with the Commission’s finding in East Central, staff recommended that it was not in the public interest to certificate only a portion of the territory owned by Farmton’s parent.
In Issue 5, staff recommended that, while the certificate application appeared to be inconsistent with portions of the Brevard and Volusia County comprehensive plans, pursuant to section 367.045(5)(b), Florida Statutes, the inconsistency did not rise to the level that would cause the Commission to deny the utility’s application. After an examination of the evidence presented, staff concluded that the issuance of a certificate of authorization by the Commission does not reduce a county’s ability to enforce its comprehensive plans to control development, limit urban sprawl, and protect its environment because the counties still have control over the construction of facilities.
In Issue 6, staff recommended that the utility will not be in competition with, or duplication of, any other system. While both the Volusia and Brevard County witnesses testified that they would serve, or have a right to provide service, throughout each of their respective counties, staff believes these statements of intent are insufficient to demonstrate that Farmton’s proposal would be in competition with, or duplicate, those systems. Staff’s recommendation was consistent with the Commission’s findings in East Central, that competition and duplication pursuant to section 367.045(5)(a), Florida Statutes, cannot be determined where another entity has not demonstrated it has existing facilities in place to serve the proposed service area.
In Issues 7 and 8, staff recommended the utility had demonstrated the financial and technical ability to provide service pursuant to section 367.045(1)(b), Florida Statutes. As demonstration of financial ability, staff cited the financial statements provided for Farmton’s parent, the corporate longevity and holdings of Farmton’s grandparent, and the pledges of financial support by both entities as sufficient demonstration of financial ability. As demonstration of technical ability, staff cited the utility’s intent to continue the technical services of Hartman and Associates, along with the existing experience of the Farmton employees, as adequate representation that the utility will employ competent and experienced persons for purposes of operating a utility.
In Issue 9, staff recommended that, since Farmton has demonstrated the financial and technical ability to efficiently provide for any existing or future services needed in the proposed service area, it has the means to pursue the steps necessary to obtain sufficient plant capacity. Pursuant to section 367.031, Florida Statutes, a utility must obtain a certificate of authorization from the Commission prior to being issued a construction permit by the DEP or being issued a CUP by the WMD. Staff believes that Farmton is correct in pursuing a certificate from the Commission prior to approaching the DEP, the WMD, Brevard County, or any other entity from whom Farmton may need authorization to construct the facilities necessary to provide service.
In summary, staff recommends that Farmton has demonstrated: 1) that there is a need for service; 2) that the application will not be in competition with, or duplication of, any other system; and 3) that it has the financial and technical ability to provide for service along with the ability to pursue the steps necessary to obtain sufficient plant capacity. In addition, staff recommends that granting a certificate to Farmton will not deprive the counties of their ability to control development under their comprehensive plans or ordinances. As such, staff believes that Farmton has proven that its application is in the public interest. Staff, therefore, recommends that the Commission issue Farmton Water Resources LLC Certificate No. 622-W to serve the territory described in Attachment C and to charge the rates approved by the Commission in subsequent Issues.
Issue 12: What is the appropriate return on equity for Farmton?
Recommendation: The Commission approved the stipulation that the return on equity should be based on the current leverage graph formula in effect at the time of the Commission vote in this proceeding. Based on that formula, return on equity for Farmton of 11.40%, with a range of plus or minus 100 basis points, should be approved. (Brady)
Parties have stipulated, noting that Volusia, Brevard, and Titusville took no position, that the appropriate leverage graph formula for determining Farmton’s return on equity should be the formula in effect at the time of the Commission vote. This will be the leverage graph formula contained in Order No. PSC-04-0587-PAA-WS, issued June 10, 2004, in Docket No. 040006-WS, In Re: Water and wastewater industry annual reestablishment of authorized range of return on common equity for water and wastewater utilities pursuant to Section 367.081(4)(f), F.S.
Farmton has projected a capital structure of 40% equity and 60% debt. Therefore, staff recommends that a return on equity for Farmton of 11.40%, with a range of plus or minus 100 basis points, is consistent with the current leverage graph formula found in Order No. PSC-04-0587-PAA-WS and a 40% equity ratio, and should be approved.
Issue 13: What are the appropriate potable water, fire protection, and bulk raw water rates and charges for Farmton?
Recommendation: If Farmton is granted an original water certificate, the rates and charges contained in the staff analysis are reasonable and should be approved. Farmton should be required to file revised tariff sheets containing the rates and charges approved by the Commission within 30 days from Commission vote. The tariff should be effective for services rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, Florida Administrative Code. Farmton should be put on notice that it is required to charge the rates and charges in its approved tariff until authorized to change by the Commission. (Brady, Winters)
Rate Base Farmton’s projected rates are based on the rate base calculations shown on Schedule No. 1. The projected rate base for retail potable water, fire protection, and bulk raw water services is $7,616, $495, and $1,773,568, respectively, based on the utility’s projected costs at 80% of the design capacity of Phases I and II, which is expected to be reached in 2009 or eight (8) years from start-up. (EXH 3, p. 87)
Staff recommends that Farmton’s projected rate base for retail potable water, fire protection, and bulk raw water services are reasonable and should be approved. Projected rate base is established only as a tool to aid the Commission in setting initial rates and is not intended to formally establish rate base. This is consistent with Commission practice in applications for original certificates. If the Commission approves service availability charges other than those proposed by Farmton and recommended by staff in Issue 14, the projected CIAC balances, rate base, revenue requirements, and rates will need to be adjusted to reflect that decision.
Cost of Capital Farmton’s projected capital structure, shown on Schedule 2, consists of 40% equity and 60% debt. Farmton had originally proposed cost of capital of 9.00% based on a return on equity of 11.10%. (EXH 3, p. 89) As discussed in Issue 12, the stipulated return on equity is 11.40% pursuant to the current leverage graph formula in Order No. PSC-04-0587-PAA-WS. The utility’s projected cost of debt is 7.60%, which staff believes is reasonable. (EXH 3, p. 89) Therefore, staff recommends that the utility’s initial rates should reflect an overall cost of capital of 9.12% based on 40% equity at 11.40% and 60% debt at 7.60%.
Return on Investment The projected return on investment is shown on Schedule 3 as net operating income. Based on the projected rate base for each system in Schedule 1 and the projected overall cost of capital of 9.12%, staff’s recommended return on investment for retail potable water, fire protection, and bulk raw water is $695, $45, and $161,749, respectively.
Revenue Requirements The projected revenue requirement, operating and maintenance expenses, depreciation and amortization, and taxes other than income are shown on Schedule 3. The utility’s proposed operating and maintenance expenses at 80% of design capacity, including purchased power, contractual services, and rent royalties for use of the land, appear reasonable. As a limited liability company, Farmton has no income tax expense. (TR 216-217, EXH 41, and EXH 2, p. 6) Therefore, staff recommends that revenue requirements for retail potable water, fire protection, and bulk raw water services of $8,164, $4,192, and $553,403, respectively, are reasonable and should be approved.
Rates and Rate Structure Staff’s recommended rates for retail potable water, fire protection and bulk raw water service, shown on Schedule 4, are based on the utility’s proposed revenue requirements, adjusted to reflect the stipulated return on equity addressed in Issue 12. (EXH 41, EXH 2, pp. 2, 6) The recommended monthly retail potable water rates for residential and general service customers include a base facility charge based on meter size and a uniform charge per 1,000 gallons of usage. Farmton’s Exhibit 41 included a separate base facility charge of $83.00 per month for each 2” well used by the hunt camp based on expected demand at each well. Farmton Witness Hartman clarified that it was Farmton’s intent to bill based on meter size and not ERCs. (TR 74) Therefore, staff recommends that the hunt camp customers should be billed using the base facility charge based on meter size, and not a charge based on demand (per ERC). (EXH 41) The proposed rates for fire protection include a monthly base facility charge per well. (EXH 2, p. 2) The proposed bulk raw water rate structure includes an annual base charge per 0.5 MGD of committed capacity, a take or pay gallonage charge per 1,000 gallons of committed capacity, and a gallonage charge for usage above the committed capacity. (EXH 2, p. 6)
Miscellaneous Service Charges Rule 25-30.460, Florida Administrative Code, defines four categories of miscellaneous service charges. Farmton’s proposed miscellaneous service charges, shown on Schedule 4, are consistent with this rule and should be approved. (EXH 3, p. 158)
If Farmton is granted an original water certificate, staff recommends that the rates and charges contained in the staff analysis are reasonable and should be approved. Farmton should be required to file revised tariff sheets containing the rates and charges approved by the Commission within 30 days from Commission vote. The tariff should be effective for services rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, Florida Administrative Code. Farmton should be put on notice that it is required to charge the rates and charges in its approved tariff until authorized to change by the Commission.
Issue 14: What are the appropriate service availability charges for Farmton?
Recommendation: Farmton’s proposed service availability policy and charges as set forth within the staff analysis are consistent with the guidelines of Rule 25-30.580, Florida Administrative Code, and should be approved. The charges should be effective for connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets. (Brady)
Farmton believes the appropriate service availability charges are those contained in EXH 3. (Farmton BR 32) Titusville believes that the service availability charges in Farmton’s initial application are inappropriate because Farmton never sought to include the changes in EXH 41 in its application. (Titusville BR 17) Brevard and Volusia have no position.
Farmton originally requested approval of the following service availability charges. (EXH 3, pp. 68, 229)
Service System Capacity Charge CIAC Level
Retail potable, per ERC (350 GPD) $ 356.65 75%
Fire protection, per well $2,640.00 100%
Bulk raw water, per ERC (350 GPD) $ 421.51 60%
per Gallon $ 1.20443
Retail Potable Service
Farmton’s proposed system capacity charge for retail potable water service of $356.65 per ERC is based on the estimated capital costs for construction of its retail potable water wells and associated facilities. (EXH 3, p. 48) Farmton’s proposed service availability policy and charges will result in contributions-in-aid-of-construction (CIAC) for retail potable water service in the amount of 75% of its capital cost. (EXH 3, p. 68) According to its proposed service availability policy, Farmton will be responsible for the construction and ownership of all proposed water facilities, including all wells, treatment, and distribution facilities up to the point of delivery of service to the customer. (EXH 3, p. 228)
Fire Protection
Farmton’s proposed system capacity charge for fire protection service of $2,640 per well is based on the estimated capital costs for the construction of the wells and associated facilities. (EXH 3, p. 55) Farmton proposes to recover 100% of the cost of its fire protection facilities through CIAC. (EXH 3, p. 68) According to its proposed service availability policy, Farmton will be responsible for construction and ownership of all proposed fire protection wells and facilities up to the point of delivery of service to the customer. (EXH 3, p. 228)
Bulk Raw Water
Farmton’s proposed system capacity charge for bulk raw water service of $421.51 per ERC ($1.20443 per gallon) is based on the estimated capital costs for its bulk raw water wells and facilities. (EXH 3, p. 62) Farmton proposes to collect 60% of its capital costs in CIAC. According to its proposed service availability policy, Farmton will be responsible for construction and ownership of all wells and facilities up to the point of delivery of service to the customer. The point of delivery for raw bulk water is described to be at the boundary of the Farmton’s service territory. The customer will be responsible for construction and ownership of all facilities beyond the point of delivery. (EXH 3, p. 228)
Titusville has taken the position that Farmton’s service availability charges are inappropriate because it never sought to amend its application to include the revisions in EXH 41. (Titusville BR 17) Farmton argued that Titusville did not provide any evidence or witness, nor did it elicit any evidence on cross-examination in support of its position that Farmton’s service availability charges were inappropriate. (Farmton BR 32)
Staff believes that neither EXH 38 nor EXH 41 modify Farmton’s proposed service availability charges. EXH 38 redistributed the capital costs for retail potable service based upon a different meter configuration than originally proposed. However, the total capital cost upon which service availability charges were calculated remained unchanged. EXH 41 removed income tax expense from the revenue requirement, but the capital costs and ERCs used to calculate service availability charges were not changed.
Although the proposed system capacity charge for fire protection is designed to allow Farmton to recover 100% of its capital investment associated with those assets, Farmton also proposes to limit the collection of CIAC to 60% of its investment in bulk raw water facilities. In the aggregate, Farmton’s projected CIAC level at design capacity for retail potable water, fire protection, and bulk raw water facilities is expected to be approximately 60%. (EXH 3, pp. 93-95, 104)
Accordingly, staff recommends that Farmton’s proposed service availability policy and charges as set forth within the staff analysis are consistent with the guidelines of Rule 25-30.580, Florida Administrative Code, and should be approved. The charges should be effective for connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets.
Issue 15: What is the appropriate Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) rate for Farmton?
Recommendation: The Commission approved the stipulation that the AFUDC should be based on the current leverage graph formula in effect at the time of the Commission vote in this proceeding. Based on that formula, an annual AFUDC rate of 9.12% and a discounted monthly rate of 0.7596837% should be approved and applied to the qualified construction projects beginning on or after the date the certificate of authorization is issued. (Brady)
The parties have stipulated, noting that Volusia, Brevard, and Titusville took no position, that the appropriate leverage graph formula for determining Farmton’s return on equity should be the formula in effect at the time of the Commission vote. As noted in Issue 12, the leverage graph formula in Order No. PSC-04-0587-PAA-WS generates a return on equity of 11.40% at Farmton’s proposed 40% equity ratio. This return on equity results in an annual AFUDC rate of 9.12% and a discounted monthly rate of 0.7596837%. Staff recommends these rates be approved and applied to the qualified construction projects beginning on or after the date the certificate of authorization is issued.
Issue 16: Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation: Upon the expiration of the appeal period, if no party timely appeals the order, upon staff’s verification that the utility has filed an executed and recorded copy of its lease and upon the filing and staff’s approval of the revised tariff sheets, this docket should be closed administratively. (Fleming, Brown, Rodan)
Staff Analysis: Upon the expiration of the appeal period, if no party timely appeals the order, upon staff’s verification that the utility has filed an executed and recorded copy of its lease and upon the filing and staff’s approval of the revised tariff sheets, this docket should be closed administratively.
ATTACHMENT A
367.045 Certificate of authorization; application and amendment procedures.—
(1) When a utility applies for an initial certificate of authorization from the commission, it shall:
(a) Provide notice of the actual application filed by mail or personal delivery to the governing body of the county or city affected, to the Public Counsel, to the commission, and to such other persons and in such other manner as may be prescribed by commission rule;
(b) Provide all information required by rule or order of the commission, which information may include a detailed inquiry into the ability of the applicant to provide service, the area and facilities involved, the need for service in the area involved, and the existence or nonexistence of service from other sources within geographical proximity to the area in which the applicant seeks to provide service;
(c) File with the commission schedules showing all rates, classifications, and charges for service of every kind proposed by it and all rules, regulations, and contracts relating thereto;
(d) File the application fee required by s. 367.145; and
(e) Submit an affidavit that the applicant has provided notice of its actual application pursuant to this section.
(2) A utility may not delete or extend its service outside the area described in its certificate of authorization until it has obtained an amended certificate of authorization from the commission. When a utility applies for an amended certificate of authorization from the commission, it shall:
(a) Provide notice of the actual application filed by mail or personal delivery to the governing body of the county or municipality affected, to the Public Counsel, to the commission, and to such other persons and in such other manner as may be prescribed by commission rule;
(b) Provide all information required by rule or order of the commission, which information may include a detailed inquiry into the ability or inability of the applicant to provide service, the need or lack of need for service in the area that the applicant seeks to delete or add; the existence or nonexistence of service from other sources within geographical proximity to the area that the applicant seeks to delete or add, and a description of the area sought to be deleted or added to the area described in the applicant's current certificate of authorization;
(c) Provide a reference to the number of the most recent order of the commission establishing or amending the applicant's rates and charges;
(d) Submit an affidavit that the utility has tariffs and annual reports on file with the commission;
(e) File the application fee required by s. 367.145; and
ATTACHMENT A
(f) Submit an affidavit that the applicant has provided notice of its actual application pursuant to this section.
(3) If, within 30 days after the last day that notice was mailed or published by the applicant, whichever is later, the commission does not receive written objection to the notice, the commission may dispose of the application without hearing. If the applicant is dissatisfied with the disposition, it may bring a proceeding under ss. 120.569 and 120.57.
(4) If, within 30 days after the last day that notice was mailed or published by the applicant, whichever is later, the commission receives from the Public Counsel, a governmental authority, or a utility or consumer who would be substantially affected by the requested certification or amendment a written objection requesting a proceeding pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57, the commission shall order such proceeding conducted in or near the area for which application is made, if feasible. Notwithstanding the ability to object on any other ground, a county or municipality has standing to object on the ground that the issuance or amendment of the certificate of authorization violates established local comprehensive plans developed pursuant to ss. 163.3161-163.3211. If a consumer, utility, or governmental authority or the Public Counsel requests a public hearing on the application, such hearing must, if feasible, be held in or near the area for which application is made; and the transcript of such hearing and any material submitted at or before the hearing must be considered as part of the record of the application and any proceeding related thereto.
(5)(a) The commission may grant or amend a certificate of authorization, in whole or in part or with modifications in the public interest, but may not grant authority greater than that requested in the application or amendment thereto and noticed under this section; or it may deny a certificate of authorization or an amendment to a certificate of authorization, if in the public interest. The commission may deny an application for a certificate of authorization for any new Class C wastewater system, as defined by commission rule, if the public can be adequately served by modifying or extending a current wastewater system. The commission may not grant a certificate of authorization for a proposed system, or an amendment to a certificate of authorization for the extension of an existing system, which will be in competition with, or a duplication of, any other system or portion of a system, unless it first determines that such other system or portion thereof is inadequate to meet the reasonable needs of the public or that the person operating the system is unable, refuses, or neglects to provide reasonably adequate service.
(b) When granting or amending a certificate of authorization, the commission need not consider whether the issuance or amendment of the certificate of authorization is inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan of a county or municipality unless a timely objection to the notice required by this section has been made by an appropriate motion or application. If such an objection has been timely made, the commission shall consider, but is not bound by, the local comprehensive plan of the county or municipality.
ATTACHMENT A
(6) The revocation, suspension, transfer, or amendment of a certificate of authorization is subject to the provisions of this section. The commission shall give 30 days' notice before it initiates any such action.
History.--ss. 5, 27, ch. 89-353; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 95, ch. 96-410.
ATTACHMENT B
25-30.030 Notice of Application.
(1) When a utility applies for a certificate of authorization, an extension or deletion of its service area, or a sale, assignment or transfer of its certificate of authorization, facilities or any portion thereof or majority organizational control, it shall provide notice of its application in the manner and to the entities described in this section.
(2) Before providing notice in accordance with this section, a utility shall obtain from the Commission a list of the names and addresses of the municipalities, the county or counties, the regional planning council, the Office of Public Counsel, the Commission’s Director of the Commission Clerk and Administrative Services, the appropriate regional office of the Department of Environmental Protection, the appropriate water management district, and privately-owned water and wastewater utilities that hold a certificate granted by the Public Service Commission and that are located within the county in which the utility or the territory proposed to be served is located. In addition, if any portion of the proposed territory is within one mile of a county boundary, the utility shall obtain from the Commission a list of the names and addresses of the privately-owned utilities located in the bordering counties and holding a certificate granted by the Commission. The utility’s request for the list shall include a complete legal description of the territory to be requested in the application that includes:
(a) A reference to township(s), range(s), land section(s) and county; and
(b) A complete and accurate description of the territory served or proposed to be served in one of the following formats. The description may reference interstates, state roads, and major bodies of water. The description shall not rely on references to government lots, local streets, recorded plats or lots, tracts, or other recorded instruments.
1. Sections: If the territory includes complete sections, the description shall only include the township, range, and section reference. If the territory includes partial sections, the description shall either identify the subsections included or excluded.
2. Metes and bounds: A point of beginning which is referenced from either a section corner or a subsection corner, such as a quarter corner. The perimeter shall be described by traversing the proposed territory and closing at the point of beginning. The description shall include all bearings and distances necessary to provide a continuous description.
(3) The notice shall be appropriately styled:
(a) Notice of Application for an Initial Certificate of Authorization for Water, Wastewater, or Water and Wastewater Certificate;
(b) Notice of Application for an Extension of Service Area;
(c) Notice of Application for Deletion of Service Area;
ATTACHMENT B
(d) Notice of Application for a Transfer of Water, Wastewater, or Water and Wastewater Certificate(s); or
(e) Notice of Application for a Transfer of Majority Organizational Control.
(4) The notice shall include the following:
(a) The date the notice is given;
(b) The name and address of the applicant;
(c) A description, using township, range and section references, of the territory proposed to be either served, added, deleted, or transferred; and
(d) A statement that any objections to the application must be filed with the Director, Division of the Commission Clerk and Administrative Services, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870, no later than 30 days after the last date that the notice was mailed or published, whichever is later.
(5) Within 7 days of filing its application, the utility shall provide a copy of the notice by regular mail to:
(a) The governing body of the county in which the utility system or the territory proposed to be served is located;
(b) The governing body of any municipality contained on the list obtained pursuant to subsection (2) above;
(c) The regional planning council designated by the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1288(2);
(d) All water or wastewater utilities contained on the list(s) obtained pursuant to subsection (2) above;
(e) The office of Public Counsel;
(f) The Commission’s Director of the Commission Clerk and Administrative Services;
(g) The appropriate regional office of the Department of Environmental Protection; and
(h) The appropriate Water Management District.
(6) No sooner than 21 days before the application is filed and no later than 7 days after the application is filed, the utility shall also provide a copy of the Notice, by regular mail or personal service, to each customer, of the system to be certificated, transferred, acquired, or deleted.
ATTACHMENT B
(7) The Notice shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the territory proposed to be served, added, deleted, or transferred. The publication shall be within 7 days of filing the application.
(8) A copy of the notice(s) and list of the entities receiving notice pursuant to this rule shall accompany the affidavit required by Sections 367.045(1)(e) and (2)(f), F.S. The affidavit shall be filed no later than 15 days after filing the application.
(9) This rule does not apply to applications for grandfather certificates filed under Section 367.171, F.S., or to applications for transfers to governmental authorities filed under Section 367.071, F.S., or to name changes.
Specific Authority: 350.127(2), 367.121(1) FS. Law Implemented: 367.031, 367.045, 367.071 FS. History–New 4-5-81, Formerly 25-10.061, 25-10.0061, Amended 11-10-86, 1-27-91, 11-30-93.
ATTACHMENT B
25-30.033 Application for Original Certificate of Authorization and Initial Rates and Charges.
(1) Each application for an original certificate of authorization and initial rates and charges shall provide the following information:
(a) The applicant’s name and address;
(b) The nature of the applicant’s business organization, i.e., corporation, partnership, limited partnership, sole proprietorship, association, etc.;
(c) The name(s) and address(es) of all corporate officers, directors, partners, or any other person(s) or entities owning an interest in the applicant’s business organization;
(d) Whether the applicant has made an election under Internal Revenue Code § 1362 to be an S corporation;
(e) A statement showing the financial and technical ability of the applicant to provide service, and the need for service in the proposed area. The statement shall identify any other utilities within the area proposed to be served that could potentially provide service, and the steps the applicant took to ascertain whether such other service is available;
(f) A statement that to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, the provision of service will be consistent with the water and wastewater sections of the local comprehensive plan as approved by the Department of Community Affairs at the time the application is filed, or, if not consistent, a statement demonstrating why granting the certificate of authorization would be in the public interest;
(g) The date applicant plans to begin serving customers;
(h) The number of equivalent residential connections (ERCs) proposed to be served, by meter size and customer class. If development will be in phases, separate this information by phase;
(i) A description of the types of customers anticipated, i.e., single family homes, mobile homes, duplexes, golf course clubhouse, commercial, etc.;
(j) Evidence, in the form of a warranty deed, that the utility owns the land upon which the utility treatment facilities are or will be located, or a copy of an agreement which provides for the continued use of the land, such as a 99-year lease. The Commission may consider a written easement or other cost-effective alternative. The applicant may submit a contract for the purchase and sale of land with an unexecuted copy of the warranty deed, provided the applicant files an executed and recorded copy of the deed, or executed copy of the lease, within 30 days after the order granting the certificate;
ATTACHMENT B
(k) One original and two copies of a sample tariff, containing all rates, classifications, charges, rules, and regulations, which shall be consistent with Chapter 25-9, F.A.C. Model tariffs are available from the Division of Economic Regulation, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850;
(l) A description of the territory to be served, using township, range and section references as specified in subsection 25-30.030(2), F.A.C.;
(m) One copy of a detailed system map showing the proposed lines, treatment facilities and the territory proposed to be served. The map shall be of sufficient scale and detail to enable correlation with the description of the territory proposed to be served;
(n) One copy of the official county tax assessment map, or other map showing township, range, and section with a scale such as 1'' = 200' or 1'' = 400', with the proposed territory plotted thereon by use of metes and bounds or quarter sections, and with a defined reference point of beginning;
(o) A statement regarding the separate capacities of the proposed lines and treatment facilities in terms of ERCs and gallons per day. If development will be in phases, separate this information by phase;
(p) A written description of the type of water treatment, wastewater treatment, and method of effluent disposal;
(q) If subsection (p) above does not include effluent disposal by means of reuse, a statement that describes with particularity the reasons for not using reuse;
(r) A detailed financial statement (balance sheet and income statement), certified if available, of the financial condition of the applicant, that shows all assets and liabilities of every kind and character. The income statement shall be for the preceding calendar or fiscal year. If an applicant has not operated for a full year, then the income statement shall be for the lesser period. The financial statement shall be prepared in accordance with Rule 25-30.115, F.A.C. If available, a statement of the source and application of funds shall also be provided;
(s) A list of all entities, including affiliates, upon which the applicant is relying to provide funding to the utility, and an explanation of the manner and amount of such funding, which shall include their financial statements and copies of any financial agreements with the utility. This requirement shall not apply to any person or entity holding less than 10 percent ownership interest in the utility;
(t) A cost study including customer growth projections supporting the proposed rates, charges and service availability charges. A sample cost study, and assistance in preparing initial rates and charges, are available from the Division of Economic Regulation;
ATTACHMENT B
(u) A schedule showing the projected cost of the proposed system(s) by uniform system of accounts (USOA) account numbers pursuant to Rule 25-30.115, F.A.C., and the related capacity of each system in ERCs and gallons per day. If the utility will be built in phases, this shall apply to the first phase;
(v) A schedule showing the projected operating expenses of the proposed system by USOA account numbers, when 80 percent of the designed capacity of the system is being utilized. If the utility will be built in phases, this shall apply to the first phase; and
(w) A schedule showing the projected capital structure including the methods of financing the construction and operation of the utility until the utility reaches 80 percent of the design capacity of the system.
(2) The base facility and usage rate structure (as defined in subsection 25-30.437(6), F.A.C.) shall be utilized for metered service, unless an alternative rate structure is supported by the applicant and authorized by the Commission.
(3) A return on common equity shall be established using the current equity leverage formula established by order of this Commission pursuant to Section 367.081(4), F.S., unless there is competent substantial evidence supporting the use of a different return on common equity.
(4) Utilities obtaining initial certificates pursuant to this rule are authorized to accrue allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC) for projects found eligible pursuant to subsection 25-30.116(1), F.A.C.
(a) The applicable AFUDC rate shall be determined as the utility’s projected weighted cost of capital as demonstrated in its application for original certificate and initial rates and charges.
(b) A discounted monthly AFUDC rate calculated in accordance with subsection 25-30.116(3), F.A.C., shall be used to insure that the annual AFUDC charged does not exceed authorized levels.
(c) The date the utility shall begin to charge the AFUDC rate shall be the date the certificate of authorization is issued to the utility so that such rate can apply to the initial construction of the utility facilities.
Specific Authority 350.127(2), 367.045(1), 367.121, 367.1213 FS. Law Implemented 367.031, 367.045, 367.1213 FS. History–New 1-27-91 Amended 11-30-93.
ATTACHMENT C
Farmton Water Resources, LLC.
Water Territory
ALL OF SECTIONS 13 AND 14
THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTIONS 15 AND 22
ALL OF SECTIONS 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 AND 36.
ALL OF SECTIONS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 5
LESS AND EXCEPT THE EAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼; AND THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 6
LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST ½ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼; AND THE WEST ½ OF THE EAST ½ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼; AND THE EAST ¾ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼; AND THE WEST ½ OF THW SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼; AND THE WEST ¾ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼; AND THE WEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼; AND THE WEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼; AND THE EAST ½ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 7
LESS AND EXCEPT THE EAST ½ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼; AND THE EAST ½ OF THE WEST ½ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼; AND THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 8
LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTH ½ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 16
LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PART OF SECTION 18 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 33 EAST, VOLUSIA COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N.89°23'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,486.51 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°21'39"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 515.09 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN S.89°33'37"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 521.14 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°32'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 150.63 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°20'51"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 515.94 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°21'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 160.55 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PART OF SECTION 18 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 33 EAST, VOLUSIA COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N.89°23'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,487.87 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°44'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 253.23 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN N.89°51'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°44'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.76 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°59'51"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 50.01 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°44'27"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 101.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ATTACHMENT C
LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PART OF SECTION 18 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 33 EAST, VOLUSIA COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N.89°23'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,643.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°52'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,185.77 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN N.89°16'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.07 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°40'06"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 99.13 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°33'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°52'09"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 98.89 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PART OF SECTION 18 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 33 EAST, VOLUSIA COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N.89°23'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,704.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°20'35"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,482.69 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN N.89°18'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 52.32 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°22'15"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 99.28 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°28'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.10 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°20'35"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 99.13 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PART OF SECTION 18 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 33 EAST, VOLUSIA COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N.89°23'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,916.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°55'35"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 883.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN N.89°29'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.19 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°50'18"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.39 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°23'11"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.04 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°55'35"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PART OF SECTION 18 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 33 EAST, VOLUSIA COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N.89°23'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,099.62 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°01'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 763.77 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN N.89°29'50"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.22 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°01'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 105.02 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°35'52"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.22 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°01'27"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 104.89 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PART OF SECTION 18 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 33 EAST, VOLUSIA COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N.89°23'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,343.64 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°14'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,359.09 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN N.89°11'54"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 53.60 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°38'10"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 104.13 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°35'27"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 52.50 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°14'33"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.77 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PART OF SECTION 18 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 33 EAST, VOLUSIA COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N.89°23'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,011.48 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°14'00"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,059.93 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN N.89°11'46"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 98.01 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°53'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 105.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°37'56"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 97.38 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°14'00"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 104.52 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST ½ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼; AND THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 19
LESS AND EXCEPT THE EAST ½ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 20
ATTACHMENT C
LESS AND EXCEPT A PORTION OF SECTION 21, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 33 EAST, VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN S.01°54'33"E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 21 FOR A DISTANCE OF 996.18 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°54'21"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 364.58 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN S.01°54'36"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,325.86 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE, RUN S.89°30'18"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,316.67 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°18'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 266.34 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°42'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 497.23 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°57'48"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,047.99 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°11'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,816.46 FEET TO A POINT IN THE AFOREMENTIONED EAST LINE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST ½ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 22
LESS AND EXCEPT THE EAST 12 CHAINS OF THE SOUTH 10 CHAINS OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼; AND THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼; AND THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 23
LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST ½ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 27
TOGETHER WITH THE EAST ½; THE EAST ½ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼; AND ALL THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 30, LYING EAST OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER
TOGETHER WITH ALL OF THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ LYING NORTH OF THE ABANDONED FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD; THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼; AND THE SOUTH 13.67 CHAINS OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ LYING NORTH AND EAST OF THE RIVER IN SECTION 31
TOGETHER WITH ALL OF SECTIONS 32, 33, 34 AND 35 LYING NORTH OF THE ABANDONED FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 34 LYING NORTH OF THE ABANDONED FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
ALL OF SECTION 36.
TOWNSHIP 20 SOUTH, RANGE 33 EAST VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA
ALL OF SECTIONS 1, 12, 13 AND 24
ALL OF SECTIONS 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, AND 33
LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST ½ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼; AND THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ LYING WITHIN THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; AND THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ LYING NORTH OF THE SOUTHERLY RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; AND THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 30
ATTACHMENT C
ALL OF SECTION 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19 AND 20
TOWNSHIP 20 SOUTH, RANGE 34 EAST AND TOWNSHIP 21 SOUTH, RANGE 34 EAST, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND TOWNSHIP 21 SOUTH, RANGE 33 EAST, VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA
ALL OF SECTIONS 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 25, 26, 27; A PORTION OF SECTION 13 AND 24 VOLUSIA COUNTY AND A PORTION OF SECTION 37 OF THE PLAT OF INDIAN RIVER PARK SUBDIVISION OF THE BERNARDO SEQUI GRANT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 33 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS.
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 20 SOUTH, RANGE 34 EAST THENCE N78°15'40"E, A DISTANCE OF 2,203.90 FEET; THENCE S18°04'14"E, A DISTANCE OF 5,203.03 FEET; THENCE S78°28'51"W, A DISTANCE OF 650.12 FEET; THENCE S18°04'14"E, A DISTANCE OF 650.06 FEET; THENCE N78°28'51"E, A DISTANCE OF 650.12 FEET; THENCE S18°04'14"E, A DISTANCE OF 650.06 FEET; THENCE S78°28'51"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,300.24 FEET; THENCE S18°04'14"E, A DISTANCE OF 5,850.53 FEET; THENCE N78°28'51"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,300.24 FEET; THENCE S18°04'14"E, A DISTANCE OF 650.06 FEET; THENCE S78°28'51"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,300.24 FEET; THENCE S18°04'14"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,300.12 FEET; THENCE S78°28'51"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,300.24 FEET; THENCE S18°04'14"E, A DISTANCE OF 650.06 FEET; THENCE N78°28'51"E, A DISTANCE OF 2,600.48 FEET; THENCE S18°04'14"E, A DISTANCE OF 650.06 FEET; THENCE S78°28'51"W, A DISTANCE OF 21,437.63 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 37, TOWNSHIP 21 SOUTH, RANGE 33 EAST; THENCE N09°25'57"W, A DISTANCE OF 3,351.19 FEET; THENCE S89°42'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 4,129.52 FEET; THENCE N00°57'50"W, A DISTANCE OF 5,354.01 FEET; THENCE N01°00'59"W, A DISTANCE OF 5,235.95 FEET; THENCE N01°22'29"W, A DISTANCE OF 2,576.62 FEET; THENCE N78°15'40"E, A DISTANCE OF 10,900.37 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24.
FARMTON WATER RESOURCES LLC Schedule No. 1
Schedule of Rate Base
At 80% of Design Capacity
|
DESCRIPTION |
POTABLE WATER
|
FIRE PROTECTION
|
BULK RAW WATER
|
TOTAL
|
|
Utility Plant in Service |
$ 45,650 |
$ 26,400 |
$ 5,520,300 |
$ 5,592,350
|
|
Accumulated Depreciation
|
$ (18,441) |
$ (9,655) |
$ (1,173,178) |
$ (1,201,274)
|
|
Contributions-in-aid-of-Construction (CIAC)
|
$ (34,238) |
$ (26,400) |
$ (3,312,180) |
$ (3,372,818) |
|
Accumulated Amortization of CIAC
|
$ 13,831 |
$ 9,655 |
$ 703,907 |
$ 727,393 |
|
Working Capital Allowance
|
$ 814 |
$ 495 |
$ 34,719 |
$ 36,028 |
|
RATE BASE |
$ 7,616 |
$ 495 |
$ 1,773,568 |
$ 1,781,679
|
FARMTON WATER RESOURCES LLC Schedule No. 2
Schedule of Cost of Capital
At 80% of Design Capacity
|
DESCRIPTION |
AMOUNT |
WEIGHT |
COST RATE |
WEIGHTED COST
|
|
Common Equity |
$ 712,672 |
40.0% |
11.40% |
4.56%
|
|
Long and Short-Term Debt |
1,069,008 |
60.0% |
07.60% |
4.56%
|
|
Customer Deposits |
|
00.0% |
00.00% |
0.00%
|
|
Totals |
$1,781,680 |
100.0% |
|
9.12%
|
|
Range of Reasonableness |
High |
Low |
|
|
|
Return on Common Equity |
12.40% |
10.40% |
|
|
|
FARMTON WATER RESOURCES LLC |
Schedule No. 3 |
|
Schedule of Operating Revenues |
|
|
At 80% of Design Capacity |
|
|
DESCRIPTION |
POTABLE WATER |
FIRE PROTECTION |
BULK RAW WATER |
TOTAL
|
|
Operating Revenues |
$ 8,164 |
$ 4,192 |
$ 553,403 |
$ 565,759
|
|
Operating and Maintenance |
$ 6,512 |
$ 3,960 |
$ 277,750 |
$ 288,222
|
|
Net Depreciation Expense |
$ 590 |
$ -0- |
$ 89,005 |
$ 89,595
|
|
Taxes Other Than Income |
$ 367 |
$ 187 |
$ 24,899 |
$ 25,453
|
|
Income Taxes |
$ -0- |
$ -0- |
$ -0- |
$ -0-
|
|
Total Operating Expense |
$ 7,469 |
$ 4,147 |
$ 391,654 |
$ 403,270
|
|
Net Operating Income |
$ 695 |
$ 45 |
$ 161,749 |
$ 162,489
|
|
Water Rate Base |
$ 7,616 |
$ 495 |
$ 1,773,568 |
$ 1,781,679
|
|
Rate of Return |
9.12% |
9.12% |
9.12% |
9.12% |
|
FARMTON WATER RESOURCES LLC |
Schedule No. 4 |
|
Schedule of Rates and Charges |
|
RETAIL POTABLE WATER SERVICE
GENERAL AND RESIDENTIAL SERVICE
MONTHLY
|
Meter Size: |
Base Facility Charge bbA |
|
5/8" x 3/4" |
$ 3.58 |
|
1” |
8.95 |
|
1.5" |
17.90 |
|
2” |
28.64 |
|
3" |
57.28 |
|
4" |
89.50 |
|
6" |
179.00 |
|
8" |
286.40 |
|
|
|
|
All Meter Sizes |
Gallonage Charge |
|
Per 1,000 gallons |
$ 0.64 |
FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE
MONTHLY
|
All Meter Sizes |
Base Facility Charge |
|
Monthly Flat Rate (per well) |
$ 29.11 |
BULK RAW WATER SERVICE
ANNUALLY
|
All Meter Sizes |
Charges and Rates |
|
Base Charge (per 0.5 MGD) |
$ 54,473.40 |
|
Take or Pay Gallonage Charge (per 1,000 gallons demand capacity) |
$0.3043 x Committed Capacity |
|
Gallonage Charge per 1,000 gallons used above commitment |
$ 0.3043 |
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE CHARGES
|
Initial Connection Fee |
$ 15.00 |
|
Normal Reconnection Fee |
$ 15.00 |
|
Violation Reconnection Fee Premises Visit Fee (In lieu of disconnection) |
Actual Cost $ 10.00
|
[1] 153.53 Establishment of districts in unincorporated areas.--
(1) Subject to this law, the board of county commissioners of any county may establish one or more districts as it shall in its discretion determine to be necessary in the public interest. Any such district shall consist of only unincorporated contiguous areas of such county, comprising part but not all of the areas of such county. As used herein, "unincorporated areas" shall mean all lands outside of the incorporated boundaries of towns, cities, or other municipalities of the state whether existing under the general law or special act and shall include any lands, areas, or property within the district of any special tax districts, school district, or any other public corporations or bodies politic of any nature whatsoever, except municipalities.
History.--s. 4, ch. 59-466; ss. 1, 2, ch. 70-433; s. 1, ch. 76-148; s. 1, ch. 77-102; s. 865, ch. 95-147.
[2] 153.86 District approval of construction of water and sewage facilities.—
No sewage disposal plant or other facilities for the collection and treatment of sewage or any water treatment plant or other facilities for the supply and distribution of water, shall be constructed within any district unless the district board shall give its consent thereto and approve the plans and specifications therefor; subject, however, to the terms and provisions of any resolution authorizing any bonds and agreements with bondholders.
History.--s. 37, ch. 59-466.
[3] See, Order No. PSC-02-0179-FOF-WS, issued February 11, 2002, in Docket No. 010859-WS, In re: Application for original. certificate to operate water and wastewater utility in Sumter County by North Sumter Utility Company, L.L.C., and Order No. PSC-01-1916-FOF-WS, issued September 24, 2001, in Docket No. 990696-WS, In re: Application for original certificates to operate a water and wastewater utility in Duval County and St. Johns Counties by Nocatee Utility Corporation
[4] See, Order PSC-03-0787-FOF-WS, issued July 2, 2003, in Docket No. 020991-WS, In re: Application for transfer of majority organizational control of Service Management Systems, Inc., holder of Certificates Nos. 517-W and 450-S in Brevard County, from Petrus Group, L.P. to IRD Osprey, LLC d/b/a Aquarina Utilities, and Order PSC-03-0518-FOF-WS, issued April 18, 2003, in Docket No. 020382-WS, In re: Application for transfer of facilities and Certificate Nos. 603-W and 519-S in Polk County from New River Ranch, L.C. d/b/a River Ranch to River Ranch Water Management, LLC.
[5] PSC-02-0179-FOF-WS, issued February 11, 2002, in Docket No. 010859-WS, In re: Application for original certificate to operate a water and wastewater utility in Sumter County by North Sumter Utility Company, L.L.C., PSC-96-0124-FOF-WU, issued January 24, 1996, in Docket No. 950120-WU, In re: Application for certificate to provide water service in Manatee and Sarasota Counties by Braden River Utilities, Inc.