Case Background
On July 22, 2020,
Gibson Place Utility Company, LLC (GPU, Gibson, or Utility) filed its
application for original water and wastewater certificates in Sumter County.
The area is in the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and is
not in a water use caution area.
Concurrent with
its application for original water and wastewater certificates, the Utility
also filed a petition for a temporary waiver of Rules 25-30.033(1)(p) and (q),
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), in order to bifurcate the certification
and rate setting aspects of the case. The Florida Public Service Commission
(Commission) granted Certificate Nos. 677-W and 577-S to GPU to provide water
and wastewater service in Sumter County, and granted its request for temporary
rule waiver.[1] In the
Order granting the waiver, the Commission required GPU to file a status
update every six months from the date of the Order as to: (1) the status of the
Utility's permitting with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) and the SWFWMD, and (2) the anticipated date of the commencement of the
Utility’s operations.
On July 27,
2021, GPU filed an application for an amendment of its service territory to
delete a portion of the territory that would be developed at a different pace
than the remaining territory. This request for territory deletion was granted. The territory that was deleted will serve
two separate areas, one consisting of high-density commercial customers, and
the other consisting of some commercial customers with mostly multi-family
residential units. The remaining territory, to be served by GPU, will consist
of single family age-restricted housing units. On April 25, 2022, Middleton
Utility Company, LLC (Middleton) filed an application for original water and
wastewater certificates to serve the territory deleted from GPU. Middleton and GPU have the same parent
company, Holding Company of The Villages, Inc. Staff’s recommendation regarding
Middleton’s application is scheduled to be presented at the December 6, 2022
Agenda Conference.
GPU filed the
required status reports on May 24, 2021, November 10, 2021, February 17, 2022,
and March 29, 2022. On April 19, 2022, GPU filed the supporting financial
information required to establish rates and charges. This recommendation
addresses the initial rates and charges for the Utility’s water and wastewater
services. The Commission has jurisdiction pursuant to Sections
367.031, 367.045, 367.081, 367.091 and 120.452, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
What are the appropriate water and wastewater rates
and return on investment for Gibson Place Utility Company, LLC?
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the
Commission make adjustments to the Utility’s proposed rate base calculations
and approve the resulting water and wastewater rates as calculated by staff and
shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B. The overall cost of capital should be 7.76 percent. A return on equity
(ROE) of 7.84 percent with a range of plus or minus 100 basis points
should also be approved. The approved rates 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, F.A.C. The Utility should be required
to charge the approved rates until authorized to change them by the Commission
in a subsequent proceeding. (Sewards, Hudson, Bethea)
Staff Analysis:
Projected Rate Base
Consistent with Commission practice in applications for
original certificates, rate base is identified only as a tool to aid in setting
initial rates and is not intended to formally establish rate base. Based on
GPU’s growth projections, the Utility anticipates operating at 80 percent of
its design capacity in 2026. The Utility’s proposed water and wastewater rate
base calculations, as well as staff adjustments, are described below.
The Utility proposed plant in service balances of $47,755,289
for water and $111,533,582 for wastewater. On June 30, 2022, GPU filed in this
docket an MFR Revised Schedule 5, and new Water Tariff sheet, reflecting the
Utility’s upcoming installation of mobile read water meters that are more
expensive than those included in the original filing.
Based on staff’s calculations, water plant in service should be increased by
$5,659,222 to account for the updated water meter costs. Staff does not have
any adjustments to GPU’s proposed wastewater balances. Therefore, staff
recommends a plant in service balance of $53,414,511 for water and $111,533,582
for wastewater.
The Utility proposed land balances of $151,008 for water
and $1,617,500 for wastewater. Staff does not have any adjustments to GPU’s
proposed balances. Therefore, staff recommends a land balance of $151,008 for
water and $1,617,500 for wastewater.
GPU proposed an accumulated depreciation balance of
$3,438,665 for water and $12,114,001 for wastewater. Based on staff’s
calculations, accumulated depreciation for water should be increased by
$564,150 to account for the adjustment to plant in service discussed above.
Staff does not have any adjustments for wastewater. As such, staff recommends
an accumulated depreciation balance of $4,002,815 for water and $12,114,001 for
wastewater.
In its filing, GPU proposed contributions in aid of
construction (CIAC) balances of $20,167,016 for water and $45,442,029 for
wastewater. As discussed further below, staff has recommended an adjustment to
the plant capacity charges, as well as an updated meter installation charge
that was not included in GPU’s proposed CIAC calculation. As a result, staff
recommends an adjustment to increase CIAC by $5,352,043 for water and $304,025
for wastewater. Based on these adjustments, staff recommends CIAC balances of
$25,519,059 for water and $45,746,054 for wastewater.
The Utility proposed an accumulated amortization of CIAC
balance of $1,027,813 for water and $3,285,601 for wastewater. As discussed
further below, staff has recommended an adjustment to the plant capacity
charges, as well as an updated meter installation charge that was not included
in GPU’s proposed CIAC calculation. Additionally, using the depreciation rates
pursuant to Rule 25-30.140, F.A.C., staff has adjusted accumulated amortization
of CIAC to reflect the use of the proper accounts in determining amortization
rates for the plant capacity and main extension charges. As a result, staff
recommends adjustments to increase accumulated amortization by $1,509,405 for
water, and $2,795,268 for wastewater. Based on the adjustments above, staff
recommends accumulated amortization of CIAC balances of $2,537,218 for water
and $6,080,869 for wastewater.
GPU proposed a working capital allowance of $120,158 for
water and $259,389 for wastewater based on the one-eighth of the estimated
operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses methodology for each system. The
Commission has previously allowed this methodology in original certificate
cases as the O&M expenses are just an estimate.
Staff does not have any adjustments to the Utility’s proposed working capital
allowance. Therefore, staff recommends a working capital allowance of $120,158
for water and $259,389 for wastewater.
In total, the Utility proposed a rate base of $25,448,587
for water and $59,140,042 for wastewater. Based on the adjustments discussed
above, staff recommends that the rate base be increased by $1,252,433 for water
and $2,491,242 for wastewater. As such, staff recommends an adjusted rate base
of $26,701,020 for water and $61,631,284 for wastewater be approved. Rate base
calculations for the water and wastewater systems are shown on Schedule Nos.
1-A and 1-B, respectively. Staff’s adjustments are shown on Schedule No. 1-C.
Cost of Capital
GPU proposed an ROE of 7.88 percent, based on the leverage
formula in effect at the time of filing. However, staff recommends the
Utility’s ROE be based on the current leverage formula in effect.
Using the current leverage formula, staff recommends an ROE of 7.84 percent. As
such, staff recommends an overall cost of capital of 7.76 percent. The
appropriate ROE for GPU is 7.84 percent, with a range of plus or minus 100
basis points, as shown on Schedule No. 2.
Net Operating Income
The Utility projected net operating income (NOI) for the
water and wastewater systems of $1,982,444 and $4,607,009, respectively. Based
on the adjustments above, staff calculated an NOI of $2,072,064 for water and
$4,782,736 for wastewater. The calculated NOI for the water and wastewater
systems are shown on Schedule Nos. 3-A and 3-B, respectively.
Operation and Maintenance Expenses
GPU proposed total O&M expenses of $961,268 for water
and $2,075,109 for wastewater. Staff believes no adjustments are necessary and
therefore recommends O&M expenses of $961,268 for water and $2,075,109 for
wastewater.
Net Depreciation Expense
The Utility reflected depreciation expense, net of CIAC
amortization expense, of $760,015 for water and $2,653,855 for wastewater.
Based on staff’s adjustments to rate base, corresponding adjustments should be
made to decrease net depreciation expense by $196,474 for water and $591,931
for wastewater. Additionally, GPU reflected amortization expense balance of
$10,681 for water and wastewater to reflect amortization of organization costs.
Organization costs are typically recorded in Accounts 301 and 351 and amortized
pursuant to Rule 25-30.140, F.A.C. As such, staff has reclassified organization
costs for water and wastewater as depreciation expense. These adjustments
result in net depreciation expense of $563,541 ($760,015 - $196,474 + $10,681)
for water and $2,061,924 ($2,653,855 - $591,931 + $10,681) for wastewater.
Amortization Expense
The Utility reflected amortization expense balance of
$10,681 for water and wastewater to reflect amortization of organization costs.
Organization costs are typically recorded in Accounts 301 and 351 and amortized
pursuant to Rule 25-30.140, F.A.C. As such, staff has reclassified the
organization costs for water and wastewater as depreciation expenses and
included them in its calculation of net depreciation expense above.
Taxes Other Than Income
In its filing, GPU included taxes other than income (TOTI)
expense of $803,972 for water and $1,832,839 for wastewater. GPU’s calculation
of proposed property tax expense for each system was based on the Sumter County
millage rate from 2020. In addition, staff discovered the Utility’s calculation
of net plant for water was understated. Staff recalculated the property tax
expense for each system using the most recent millage rate and net plant totals
and recommends an adjustment be made to increase property tax expense by
$65,428 for water and decrease property tax expense by $61,554 for wastewater. Staff
also made a corresponding adjustment to decrease regulatory assessment fees (RAFs)
by $2,455 for water and $23,015 for wastewater to reflect staff’s recommended
revenue requirement. Therefore, staff recommends a TOTI balance of $866,945 for
water and $1,748,270 for wastewater.
Revenue Requirement
The Utility’s projected revenues include O&M expenses,
net depreciation expense, taxes other than income, as well as a return on
investment. As a limited liability company, staff notes that GPU has no income tax
expense. The Utility proposed revenue requirements for water and wastewater of
$4,518,380 and $11,179,493 respectively. Staff recommends adjusted revenue
requirements of $4,463,817 for water and $10,668,039 for wastewater to be used
to set initial rates for service. The calculation of GPU’s projected water and
wastewater revenue requirements are shown on Schedule Nos. 3-A and 3-B,
respectively. Staff’s adjustments are shown on Schedule No. 3-C.
Rates and Rate Structure
Gibson
structured its proposed rates in accordance with Rule 25-30.033(2), F.A.C.,
which requires that a base facility and usage rate structure, as defined in
Rule 25-30.437(6), F.A.C., be utilized for metered service. The Utility’s
proposed rates were designed to generate the Utility’s requested revenue
requirements of $4,518,380 for its water system and $11,179,493 for its
wastewater system.
Staff’s
recommended water rates on Schedule No. 4-A reflect staff’s recommended revenue
requirement of $4,463,817 for the water system less projected miscellaneous
revenues of $69,904. Consistent with the Utility’s proposed rate structure,
staff recommends a traditional base facility charge (BFC) and gallonage charge
rate structure with an additional gallonage charge for discretionary usage for
residential water customers. Gibson proposed a discretionary threshold of 3,000
gallons for its residential water customers. The Utility proposed recovering 40
percent of the revenues through the BFC. Staff believes the Utility’s proposed
water rate structure is reasonable and consistent with the Commission’s
methodology in determining water rate structures.
Staff’s
recommended wastewater rates on Schedule No. 4-B reflect staff’s recommended
revenue requirement of $10,668,039 for the wastewater system less projected
miscellaneous revenues of $69,904. The Utility’s proposed wastewater rate
structure consists of a BFC, gallonage charge, and gallonage cap of 10,000
gallons for residential customers. The Utility proposed recovering 50 percent
of the revenues through the BFC. Staff believes the Utility’s proposed
wastewater rate structure is reasonable and consistent with the Commission’s
methodology in determining wastewater rate structures.
The
Utility’s proposed rates also include water and wastewater bulk service rates.
The bulk service rates are for Middleton Utility Company, LLC (Middleton), an
adjacent utility that plans to become certificated and purchase and resell
water and wastewater treatment from Gibson.
The Utility designed the bulk service rates based on common plant and expenses shared
by Gibson and Middleton. The Utility included RAFs in the calculation of its proposed
bulk service rates.
Section
367.145(1), F.S., states in part:
The Commission shall set by rule a
regulatory assessment fee that each utility must pay once a year…the amount of
the regulatory assessment fee shall not exceed 4.5 percent of the gross
revenues of the utility derived from intrastate business, excluding sales
for resale made to a regulated company. (emphasis added)
It is
Commission practice to include an allowance for RAFs in a utility’s rate
calculation, thereby allowing the utility the opportunity to recover the
expense through rates. If the Commission approves Middleton’s application, it
would be a regulated utility. As a result, pursuant to Section 367.145(1),
F.S., Gibson cannot recover RAFs through the bulk rate it proposes to assess
Middleton. Therefore, staff’s recommended bulk service water and wastewater
rates exclude an allowance for RAFs.
Gibson
designed its bulk service water and wastewater rates based on the meter sizes
that will provide service to Middleton. In accordance with the standards
provided by the American Water Works Association (AWWA), which the Commission
has historically accepted, an 8-inch meter is defined as 80 equivalent
residential connections (ERCs) and a 12-inch meter is defined as 215 ERCs. Gibson
plans to utilize three 8-inch meters and five 12-inch meters to serve
Middleton, which equates to a total of 1,315 [(3 x 80) + (5 x 215)] ERCs under
AWWA standards. However, Middleton is proposing to provide services to 6,862
ERCs at build out, which is substantially more than the ERCs based on the meter
sizes. This disparity between the calculation of the metered ERCs and the
number of ERCs behind the meter of the bulk customer could result in
subsidization of Middleton’s customer base by Gibson’s customer base. Because a
bulk service rate based solely on the size of the meters would not accurately
measure the demand placed upon the Utility's system by Middleton, staff
believes Middleton should be billed based on the number of ERCs behind the
meter. The Commission has previously found it appropriate to go behind the
meter to bill for services.[8]
In order to
equitably distribute cost among the customers to be served by Gibson,
Middleton’s ERCs, behind the meter, should be equated to an ERC in accordance
with Gibson’s defined ERC. Based on the demographics of Gibson’s and
Middleton’s customer bases, Gibson proposed an ERC defined as 80 gallons per
day (gpd) while Middleton proposed an ERC defined as 225 gpd. Middleton’s
proposed ERC is a factor of 2.8125 (225 gpd/80 gpd) more than Gibson’s proposed
ERC. Gibson’s rates are designed at its 80 percent design capacity. When Gibson
is at 80 percent design capacity, Middleton will be at approximately 18 percent
design capacity and serving 1,108 ERCs. As a result, the appropriate number of
ERCs to be used for Middleton in designing rates is 3,116 (1,108 ERCs x
2.8125).
Typically,
when designing a bulk service rate using the number of connections behind the
meter, the BFC is a lump sum of all of the appropriate ERCs behind the meter
times the rate for the 5/8” x 3/4” meter size. Usually, in those instances, the
connections are existing and active. With a lump sum BFC, based on all 3,116
ERCs, Middleton would be paying for all ERCs from the onset with not all
connections having taken place. As a result, staff is recommending the bulk
service rate for Middleton be billed on a per ERC basis rather than a lump sum
rate for the 3,116 ERCs. The bulk service rate on a per ERC basis will make
Middleton similarly situated as the other customer classes wherein Middleton
will only be billed for an actual connection. In addition, it avoids Gibson
collecting excessive revenues when fewer ERCs are being served than what a lump
sum BFC would include.
In order to
determine the per ERC bulk service rates for Middleton, Gibson provided a bulk
service revenue requirement which isolated the common plant and expenses shared
by Gibson and Middleton. Staff adjusted the revenue requirement consistent with
adjustments to the overall Gibson revenue requirement and removed RAFs as
stated previously. Staff used the ERCs for Gibson as well as the 3,116 factored
ERCs for Middleton to determine the BFC for one Gibson ERC based on common
plant and expenses. In turn, the BFC was then multiplied by 2.8125 to determine
the per ERC rate to be billed for one ERC for Middleton. The Gibson rates for
residential and general service customers were determined by removing the
revenues that will be generated from Middleton from the overall revenue
requirement. In future rate proceedings, Gibson will need to continue to
provide a separate revenue requirement which distinguishes the common plant and
expenses shared by Gibson and Middleton to design the bulk service rates for
Middleton.
For billing purposes, Gibson has indicated it would be
able to obtain the monthly ERCs for Middleton. In addition, if Middleton
develops more quickly than projected, staff’s proposed rate structure would
account for the additional demand Middleton’s customers have placed on Gibson’s
system. Further, if Gibson does not come in for a rate proceeding, staff’s
annual report surveillance will allow monitoring of the Utility’s earning
levels for potential overearnings in the event Middleton’s development is
faster than anticipated.
Conclusion
Staff recommends that the Commission make adjustments to
the Utility’s proposed rate base calculations and approve the resulting water
and wastewater rates as calculated by staff and shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and
4-B. The overall cost of capital
should be 7.76 percent. A return on equity (ROE) of 7.84 percent with a
range of plus or minus 100 basis points should also be approved. The approved
rates 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,
F.A.C. The Utility should be required to charge the approved rates until
authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 2:
What are the appropriate miscellaneous service
charges for Gibson Place Utility Company, LLC?
Recommendation:
The appropriate miscellaneous service charges are
shown on Schedule No. 4-C and should be approved. The Utility should file
revised tariff sheets to reflect the Commission-approved charges. The approved
charges should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped
approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. Gibson
should be required to charge the approved miscellaneous service charges until
authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
(Bethea, Hudson)
Staff Analysis:
Section
367.091, F.S., authorizes the Commission to establish miscellaneous service
charges. Gibson’s request was accompanied by its reason for requesting the
charges as well as the cost justification required by Section 367.091(6), F.S.
The purpose of these charges is to place the burden for requesting or causing these
services on the cost causer rather than the general body of ratepayers.
Premises Visit and
Violation Reconnection Charges
The Utility requested initial
connection, normal reconnection, violation reconnection, and premise visit
charges of $46.05 during normal business hours. Additionally, Gibson requested
that its violation reconnection charge for its wastewater system be actual cost
pursuant to Rule 25-30.460(1)(c), F.A.C. It should be noted that Gibson’s
request for initial connection and normal reconnection charges do not conform
to the miscellaneous service charges rule. Effective June 24, 2021, Rule
25-30.460, F.A.C., was amended to remove initial connection and normal
reconnection charges.[9] The
definitions for initial connection charges and normal reconnection charges were
subsumed in the definition of the premises visit charge. Therefore, Gibson’s
proposed initial connection and normal reconnection charges are obsolete based
on the revised rule.
The
Utility’s cost justification for its requested premises visit and water
violation reconnection charge is shown below in Table 2-1. Staff believes the
premises visit and water violation reconnection charges are reasonable and
should be approved pursuant to Rule 25-30.460, F.A.C. Gibson’s requested
wastewater violation reconnection charge should be actual cost pursuant to Rule
25-30.460(1)(c), F.A.C.
Table
2-1
Premises Visit and Water Violation
Reconnection Charge Cost Justification
|
Field Labor
|
$34.92
|
|
Administrative Labor
|
$11.13
|
|
Total
|
$46.05
|
Source: Utility’s Cost Justification
Late Payment Charge
The Utility requested a $5.50
late payment charge to recover administrative and supply costs for processing
late payment notices. The Utility’s cost justification for its requested late
payment charge is shown below on Table 2-2. Staff believes the requested late
payment charge is reasonable and should be approved.
Table 2-2
Late Payment Cost Justification
|
Labor
|
$4.59
|
|
Supplies/Postage
|
$.75
|
|
Mark Up for RAFs
|
.26
|
|
Calculated Total
|
$5.60
|
|
Requested Charge
|
$5.50
|
Source:
Utility’s Cost Justification
Nonsufficient
Funds Charges (NSF)
The Utility requested NSF
charges pursuant to Section 68.065, F.S. Staff believes that Gibson should be
authorized to collect NSF charges consistent with Section 68.065, F.S., which
allows for the assessment of charges for the collection of worthless checks,
drafts, or orders of payment. As currently set forth in Section 68.065(2),
F.S., the following NSF charges may be assessed:
1) $25, if the face value does not exceed $50,
2) $30, if the face value exceeds $50 but does
not exceed $300,
3) $40, if the face value exceeds $300,
4) or 5 percent of the face amount of the
check, whichever is greater.
The
Utility’s proposed and staff’s recommended miscellaneous service charges are
shown below in Tables 2-3 and 2-4.
Table
2-3
Utility Proposed Miscellaneous Service Charges
|
|
Normal
Hours
|
After
Hours
|
|
Initial Connection Charge
|
$46.05
|
N/A
|
|
Normal Reconnection Charge
|
$46.05
|
N/A
|
|
Violation Reconnection Charge
|
Actual
Cost
|
Actual
Cost
|
|
Premises Visit Charge
|
$46.05
|
N/A
|
|
(in lieu of disconnection)
|
|
|
|
Late Payment Charge
|
$5.50
|
|
NSF Charges
|
Pursuant
to Section 68.065, F.S.
|
Table
2-4
Staff Recommended Miscellaneous Service Charges
|
|
Normal
Hours
|
After
Hours
|
|
Violation Reconnection Charge - Water
|
$46.05
|
Actual
Cost
|
|
Violation Reconnection Charge -Wastewater
|
Actual
Cost
|
Actual
Cost
|
|
Premises Visit Charge
|
$46.05
|
N/A
|
|
Late Payment Charge
|
$5.50
|
|
NSF Charges
|
Pursuant
to Section 68.065, F.S.
|
The appropriate miscellaneous service charges
are shown in Schedule No. 4-C and should be approved. The Utility should file
revised tariff sheets to reflect the Commission-approved charges. The approved
charges should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped
approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. Gibson
should be required to charge the approved miscellaneous service charges until
authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 3:
Should the meter tampering charge requested by
Gibson Place Utility Company, LLC be approved?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Utility’s requested meter tampering
charge of actual cost should be approved. The approved charge should be
effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the
tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. Gibson should be required to charge
the approved charge until authorized to change it by the Commission in a
subsequent proceeding. (Bethea, Hudson)
Staff Analysis:
Rule 25-30.320(2)(i), F.A.C., provides that a customer’s service may be
discontinued without notice in the event of tampering with the meter or other
facilities furnished or owned by the Utility. In addition, Rule
25-30.320(2)(j), F.A.C., provides that a customer’s service may be discontinued
in the event of an unauthorized or fraudulent use of service. The rule allows Gibson to require the customer to reimburse the Utility for all changes in
piping or equipment necessary to eliminate the illegal use and to pay an amount
reasonably estimated as the deficiency in revenue resulting from the customer’s
fraudulent use before restoring service.
Based on the above, the Utility’s requested meter
tampering charge of actual cost should be approved. The approved charge should
be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the
tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. Gibson should be required to charge
the approved charge until authorized to change it by the Commission in a
subsequent proceeding.
Issue 4:
Should the Utility’s request to implement a
backflow prevention assembly testing charge be approved?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Utility’s requested backflow prevention
assembly testing charge for general service customers at actual cost should be
approved. The approved charge should be effective for service rendered on or
after the stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475,
F.A.C. Gibson should be required to charge the approved charge until authorized
to change it by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. (Bethea, Hudson)
Staff Analysis:
The Utility requested a backflow prevention assembly testing charge to
recover the costs the Utility would incur for performing annual testing on
behalf of non-compliant commercial customers. The DEP requires customers with cross-connections into the water
system to install a backflow prevention assembly on the potable water line. In
addition, the DEP requires that certain backflow prevention assemblies be
field-tested at least once a year by a certified contractor. The residential
customers of Gibson are not
required to annually test their backflow prevention assembly devices because
the type of assembly they will have, a double check valve, cannot be tested,
but the DEP recommends it be replaced every five to ten years pursuant to Rule
62-555.360, F.A.C., and it is typically at the customer’s expense.
It is the responsibility of the customer to annually test their
backflow prevention assembly. The Utility would only administer this charge if
a general service customer fails to test their backflow prevention device in
accordance with the DEP requirements. This charge would be imposed after 30
days’ notice to the customer and would include an estimate of the amount which
will be charged. This noticing period will provide the customer a final
opportunity to come into compliance before Gibson performs the necessary testing on the customer’s behalf. The
Utility is requesting this charge at actual cost in order to pass on the amount
it will incur from a contractor performing the necessary testing. Staff
believes the Utility’s requested charge is reasonable and consistent with the
Commission’s approval of a backflow prevention assembly testing charge in a prior docket.[10]
Based on the above, the Utility’s requested backflow prevention
assembly testing charge for general service customers at actual cost should be
approved. The approved charge should be effective for service rendered on or
after the stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475,
F.A.C. Gibson should be required to charge the approved charge until authorized
to change it by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 5:
Should the collection device cleaning charge
requested by Gibson Place Utility Company, LLC be approved?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Utility’s requested collection device
cleaning charge at actual cost for general service customers should be
approved. The approved charge should be effective for service rendered on or
after the stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475,
F.A.C. Gibson should be required to charge the approved charge until authorized
to change it by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. (Bethea, Hudson)
Staff Analysis:
Gibson requested a collection device cleaning charge
at actual cost for general service customers who fail to perform the required actions after receiving written
notice from the Utility with an estimate of potential charges. Cleaning the
collection device helps prevent damage and
operational problems in the wastewater collection and treatment system by
removing fats, oil, and grease (FOG) from the wastewater stream prior to it
entering the collection system. Once
FOG is introduced into the wastewater system, it then cools, solidifies,
accumulates and restricts wastewater flow within the pipes. Restaurants are the
most common type of general service customer to have higher concentrations of
FOG in their discharged wastewater.
Gibson is requiring all customers with a
grease interceptor be required to have a quarterly cleaning schedule, provide a
cleaning manifest to the Utility, and perform any needed maintenance that has
been identified by the customer’s grease interceptor cleaning contractor. If a
cleaning manifest is not received by the Utility on time or if necessary
maintenance has not been performed, a reminder letter will be sent to the
customer with an estimate of charges for cleaning the grease interceptor and
giving the customer 15 days to come into compliance. If the customer fails to
come into compliance by the notified deadline, the Utility will hire a
contractor to perform the cleaning and the contractor’s cost will be passed
through to the general service customer at the actual cost to the Utility.
Staff believes the Utility’s proposed collection device
cleaning charge is a reasonable, proactive
approach to avoid operational problems in the Utility’s collection and
treatment facilities. The Utility’s request is consistent with Rule
20-30.225(6), F.A.C., which provides that Gibson may require that each customer be responsible for cleaning and
maintaining sewer laterals to the point of delivery. Staff believes the
Utility’s requested charge is reasonable and consistent with the Commission’s
approval of a collection device cleaning charge in a prior docket.[11]
Therefore, staff recommends the Utility’s
request to charge a collection device cleaning charge is reasonable and should
be approved. This charge may be levied if circumstances are consistent with those
discussed in this issue and will be set forth in the Utility’s tariff. The
approved charge should be effective for service rendered on or after the
stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The
Utility should be required to charge the approved charge until authorized to
change it by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 6:
Should the temporary meter deposit requested by
Gibson Place Utility Company, LLC be approved?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Utility’s requested temporary meter deposit for general
service customers at actual cost pursuant to Rules 25-30.315 and 25-30.345, F.A.C., is reasonable and should be
approved. The approved deposit should be effective for service rendered on or
after the stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475,
F.A.C. Gibson should be required to collect the approved deposit, which covers
the anticipated costs of installing and removing facilities and materials for
temporary service, until authorized to change it by the Commission in a
subsequent proceeding. (Bethea, Hudson)
Staff Analysis:
Gibson requested a temporary meter deposit for general service customers
consistent with Rules 25-30.315 and 25-30.345, F.A.C., which allows the Utility
to charge an applicant a reasonable charge to defray the costs of installing
and removing facilities and materials for temporary service. This deposit would
be collected from commercial entities requesting a temporary meter for
construction activities. Once temporary meter service is terminated, Gibson will credit the customer with the reasonable salvage value of the
service facilities and materials consistent with Rules 25-30.315 and 25-30.345,
F.A.C.
Based on the above, the Utility’s requested
temporary meter deposit for general service customers at actual cost pursuant
to Rules 25-30.315 and 25-30.345, F.A.C., is reasonable and should be approved.
The approved deposit should be effective for service rendered on or after the
stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. Gibson
should be required to collect the approved deposit, which covers the
anticipated costs of installing and removing facilities and materials for
temporary service, until authorized to change it by the Commission in a
subsequent proceeding.
Issue 7:
Should the Utility’s requested initial customer
deposits be approved?
Recommendation:
No. The appropriate initial customer deposits are $61
for water and $138 for wastewater service for the residential 5/8″ x
3/4″ meter size. The initial customer deposits for all other residential
meter sizes and all general service meter sizes should be two times the average
estimated bill. The approved customer deposits should be effective for service
rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule
25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility should be required to collect the approved
deposits until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent
proceeding. (Bethea)
Staff Analysis:
Rule 25-30.311, F.A.C., contains criteria for collecting,
administering, and refunding customer deposits. Rule 25-30.311(1), F.A.C.,
requires that each company’s tariff shall contain its specific criteria for
determining the amount of initial deposits. The Utility requested initial
customer deposits of $55.76 for water and $129.56 for wastewater for the
residential 5/8″ x 3/4″ meter sizes and two times the average
estimated monthly bill for all others. Customer deposits are designed to
minimize the exposure of bad debt expense for the Utility and, ultimately, the
general body of rate payers. In addition, collection of customer deposits is
consistent with one of the fundamental principles of rate making which ensures
that the cost of providing service is recovered from the cost causer.
Rule 25-30.311(7), F.A.C., authorizes utilities to collect new or additional
deposits from existing customers not to exceed an amount equal to the average
actual charge for water and/or wastewater service for two billing periods for
the 12-month period immediately prior to the date of notice. The two billing
periods reflect the lag time between the customer’s usage and the Utility’s
collection of the revenues associated with that usage. Commission practice has
been to set initial customer deposits equal to two months bills based on the
average consumption for a 12-month period for each class of customers. Staff
reviewed the projected billing data provided in Gibson’s application and
determined that the anticipated average residential usage will be approximately
2,430 gallons per month for both water and wastewater. Consequently, the
average residential monthly bill will be approximately $30.21 for water and $68.82
for wastewater service, based on staff’s recommended rates.
Based on the above,
the appropriate initial customer deposits are $61 for water and $138 for
wastewater service for the residential 5/8″ x 3/4″ meter size. The
initial customer deposit for all other residential meter sizes and all general
service meter sizes should be two times the average estimated bill. The
approved customer deposits should be effective for service rendered on or after
the stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The
Utility should be required to collect the approved deposits until authorized to
change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 8:
What are the appropriate service availability
charges for Gibson Place Utility Company, LLC?
Recommendation:
The appropriate service availability charges
are a meter installation charge of $571.50 for the residential 5/8″
x 3/4″ meter size and actual cost for all other
residential and general service meter sizes. The main extension charge of $823
per ERC and plant capacity charge of $401 per ERC for the Utility’s water
system should be approved. Additionally, the plant capacity charges for
Gibson should be $401 for water and $1,183 for wastewater. For Middleton, plant
capacity charges should be $1,128 for water and $3,327 for wastewater. The recommended main extension and plant capacity charges should be
based on an estimated 80 gallons per day (gpd) of water demand. The
approved charges should be effective for connections made on or after the
stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The
Utility should be required to charge the approved charges until authorized to
change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. (Bethea,
Hudson)
Staff Analysis:
Gibson requested a meter installation charge of $571.50 for 5/8″
x 3/4″meters and actual cost for all other meter sizes,
plant capacity charge of $928 per ERC, and a main extension charge of $823 per
ERC for its water system. Additionally, the Utility requested a main extension
charge of $1,130 per ERC and a plant capacity charge of $2,737 per ERC for its
wastewater system. Gibson’s service availability charges anticipate providing
bulk service to Middleton. Gibson will be providing service to only its
customers and Middleton, the bulk service customer. The Utility proposed that
only the plant capacity charge be applicable to Middleton and not the main
extension charge because Middleton will have its own internal distribution
system. Further, according to the Utility, the requested charges are in
compliance with Rule 25-30.580, F.A.C., in that at design capacity the CIAC
will not be in excess of 75 percent, and will not be less than the percentage
of facilities and plant represented by the distribution and collection systems.
Rule 25-30.580(1)(a), F.A.C., provides that the maximum amount of CIAC,
net of amortization, should not exceed 75 percent of the total original cost,
net of accumulated depreciation, of the Utility's facilities and plant when the
facilities and plant are at their design capacity. The maximum guideline is designed
to ensure that the Utility retains an investment in the system. Rule
25-30.580(1)(b), F.A.C., provides that the minimum amount of CIAC should not be
less than the percentage of such facilities and plant that is represented by
the distribution and collection systems.
Meter
Installation Charges
Gibson is requesting approval of a meter installation charge of $571.50 for
5/8″ x 3/4″ meters. All other meter sizes will be installed at the
Utility’s actual cost. The Utility’s proposed meter installation charge of
$571.50 is based on the estimated cost to install remote read water meters and
the required backflow prevention device for the 5/8″ x 3/4″ meter
size. Staff recommends the meter installation charges are reasonable and should
be approved.
Main
Extension Charges
The main
extension charge is designed to allow customers to pay their pro rata share of
the cost of the water distribution and wastewater collection systems, which is
installed by the Utility. The Utility’s main extension charge was
designed based on the meter size ERCs for its service area. Typically,
the Commission approves main extension charges based on the average cost of the
distribution and collection systems and the anticipated capacity in ERCs. The
Utility’s methodology is consistent with the manner in which the Commission
develops main extension charges. Therefore, the Utility’s requested charges of
$823 for water and $1,131 for wastewater should be approved.
Plant
Capacity Charges
A plant capacity charge allows the Utility to recover each customer’s pro
rata share of the cost of treatment facilities and stay within the guidelines
prescribed in Rule 25-30.580, F.A.C., which provides minimum and maximum
guidelines for designing service availability charges. The Utility proposed
plant capacity charges of $928 for water and $2,737 for wastewater, which
result in contribution levels of 46.63 percent for water and 46.20 percent for
wastewater. Gibson’s plant capacity charges were designed
based on the meter size ERCs for both Gibson and Middleton.
Typically, the Commission approves plant capacity charges based on the
average cost of the water and wastewater treatment facilities and the
anticipated capacity in ERCs. Gibson’s plant will serve only its customers and
the customers of Middleton. The Utility designed its plant capacity charge on
13,693 ERCs, which represents 12,378 ERCs for Gibson and 1,315 ERCs for Middleton.
As discussed in Issue 1, Middleton’s ERCs should be accounted for behind the
meter. Middleton plans to serve 6,862 ERCs. Consistent with the rates, the
Middleton, ERC should be factored to equate to an ERC of Gibson. The appropriate
ERCs for Middleton are 19,300 (6,862 ERCs x 2.8125). The total ERCs for
designing the plant capacity charge should be 31,678 (12,378 + 19,300). As a result,
staff recommends Gibson’s plant capacity charges of $401 for water and $1,183
for wastewater. For Middleton, Gibson’s plant capacity charges should be
multiplied by 2.8125 resulting in plant capacity charges of $1,128 for water
and $3,327 for wastewater.
Staff’s recommended main extension and plant capacity
charges result in projected contribution levels of 46.22 percent for water and
46.20 percent for wastewater, which is similar to the contribution levels
proposed by the Utility. Staff believes this is consistent with Rule 25-30.580,
F.A.C., and will allow Gibson to maintain an appropriate level of investment in
its system. Table 3-1 8-1 below displays
the Utility’s proposed and staff’s recommended service availability charges for
its water and wastewater systems.
Table 8-1
Service Availability Charges
|
|
Utility Proposed
|
Staff Recommended
|
|
Charge
|
Water
|
Wastewater
|
Water
|
Wastewater
|
|
Meter Installation Charge
|
$571.50
|
N/A
|
$571.50
|
N/A
|
|
Main Extension Charge – Gibson only
ERC =80 gpd
|
$823
|
$1,130
|
$823
|
$1,131
|
|
Plant Capacity Charge – Gibson
ERC = 80 gpd
|
$928
|
$2,737
|
$401
|
$1,183
|
|
Plant Capacity Charge - Middleton
ERC = 225 gpd
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
$1,128
|
$3,327
|
Source:
Utility’s Cost Justification and Staff Calculations
Based on the above, the appropriate service availability
charges are a meter installation charge of $571.50 for the residential 5/8″
x 3/4″ inch meter size and actual cost for all other
residential and general service meter sizes. The main extension charge of $823
per ERC and plant capacity charge of $401 per ERC for the Utility’s water
system should be approved. Additionally, a main extension charge of $1,131 per
ERC and a plant capacity charge of $1,183 per ERC for the Utility’s wastewater
system should be approved. The recommended main extension and plant capacity
charges should be based on an estimated 80 gpd of water demand. The approved
charges should be effective for connections made on or after the stamped
approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility
should be required to charge the approved charges until authorized to change
them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the
appropriate service availability charges are a meter installation charge of
$571.50 for the residential 5/8″ x 3/4″ meter size and actual cost
for all other residential and general service meter sizes. The main extension
charge of $823 per ERC and plant capacity charge of $401 per ERC for the Utility’s
water system should be approved. Additionally, staff recommends Gibson’s plant
capacity charges should be $401 for water and $1,183 for wastewater. For
Middleton, Gibson’s plant capacity charges should be multiplied by 2.8125
resulting in plant capacity charges of $1,128 for water and $3,327 for wastewater.
The recommended main extension and plant capacity charges should be based on an
estimated 80 gpd of water demand. The approved charges should be effective for
connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant
to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility should be required to charge the approved
charges until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent
proceeding.
Issue 9:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
No. If no person whose substantial interests are
affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the
issuance of the order, a consummating order should be issued. The docket should
remain open for staff’s verification that the revised tariff sheets and
customer notice have been filed by the Utility and approved by staff. Once
these actions are complete, this docket should be closed administratively.
(Stiller)
Staff Analysis:
If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed
agency action files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the order, a
consummating order should be issued. The docket should remain open for staff’s
verification that the revised tariff sheets and customer notice have been filed
by the Utility and approved by staff. Once these actions are complete, this
docket should be closed administratively.
|
Gibson
Place Utilities, LLC
|
|
Schedule No. 1-A
|
|
Schedule
of Water Rate Base
|
|
20200185-WS
|
|
80%
Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description
|
Test Year
|
Staff
|
Staff
|
|
|
Per
|
Adjust-
|
Adjusted
|
|
|
Utility
|
ments
|
Test Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
Plant in Service
|
$47,755,289
|
$5,659,222
|
$53,414,511
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Land and Land Rights
|
151,008
|
0
|
151,008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Accumulated Depreciation
|
(3,438,665)
|
(564,150)
|
(4,002,815)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
CIAC
|
(20,167,016)
|
(5,352,043)
|
(25,519,059)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
Amortization of CIAC
|
1,027,813
|
1,509,405
|
2,537,518
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Working Capital Allowance
|
120,158
|
0
|
120,158
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Rate Base
|
$25,448,587
|
$1,252,433
|
$26,701,020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gibson
Place Utilities, LLC
|
|
Schedule No. 1-B
|
|
Schedule
of Wastewater Rate Base
|
20200185-WS
|
|
80%
Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description
|
Test Year
|
Staff
|
Staff
|
|
|
Per
|
Adjust-
|
Adjusted
|
|
|
Utility
|
ments
|
Test Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
Plant in Service
|
$111,533,582
|
$0
|
$111,533,582
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Land and Land Rights
|
1,617,500
|
0
|
1,617,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Accumulated Depreciation
|
(12,114,001)
|
0
|
(12,114,001)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
CIAC
|
(45,442,029)
|
(304,025)
|
(45,746,054)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
Amortization of CIAC
|
3,285,601
|
2,795,268
|
6,080,869
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Working Capital Allowance
|
259,389
|
0
|
259,389
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Rate Base
|
$59,140,042
|
$2,491,242
|
$61,631,284
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gibson
Place Utilities, LLC
|
Schedule No. 1-C
|
|
Adjustments
to Rate Base
|
20200185-WS
|
|
80%
Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explanation
|
Water
|
Wastewater
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant In Service
|
|
|
|
|
|
To reflect appropriate levels of plant in service
|
$5,659,222
|
$0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Depreciation
|
|
|
|
|
|
To reflect appropriate level of accumulated depreciation.
|
($564,150)
|
$0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIAC
|
|
|
|
|
|
To reflect appropriate level of CIAC.
|
$5,352,043
|
$304,025
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Amortization of CIAC
|
|
|
|
|
|
To reflect appropriate level of accumulated amortization
of CIAC.
|
$1,509,405
|
$2,795,268
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gibson Place Utilities, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule No. 2
|
|
Capital Structure
|
|
|
20200185-WS
|
|
80% Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description
|
Total
Capital
|
Subtotal
|
Pro rata
|
Capital
|
Ratio
|
Cost Rate
|
Weighted Cost
|
|
|
|
Adjusted
|
Adjust-
|
Reconciled
|
|
|
|
Capital
|
ments
|
to Rate Base
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per
Staff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
Long-term
Debt
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
|
|
2
|
Short-term
Debt
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
|
|
3
|
Preferred
Stock
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
|
|
4
|
Common
Equity
|
83,382,247
|
83,382,247
|
3,743,675
|
87,125,922
|
98.63%
|
7.84%
|
7.73%
|
|
|
5
|
Customer
Deposits
|
1,206,383
|
1,206,383
|
0
|
1,206,383
|
1.37%
|
2.00%
|
0.03%
|
|
|
6
|
Tax
Credits-Zero Cost
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
|
|
7
|
Deferred
Income Taxes
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
|
|
8
|
Total
Capital
|
$84,588,630
|
$84,588,630
|
$3,743,675
|
$88,332,305
|
100.00%
|
|
7.76%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOW
|
HIGH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RETURN ON EQUITY
|
|
6.84%
|
8.84%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OVERALL RATE OF RETURN
|
|
6.77%
|
8.75%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gibson
Place Utilities, LLC
|
|
|
|
Schedule No. 3-A
|
|
Statement
of Water Operations
|
|
20200185-WS
|
|
80% of
Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description
|
Test Year Per Utility
|
Staff Adjust- ments
|
Staff Adjusted
Test Year
|
Revenue Increase
|
Revenue
Requirement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
Operating Revenues:
|
$4,518,380
|
$0
|
$4,518,380
|
($54,563)
|
$4,463,817
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-1.21%
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Operation &
Maintenance
|
$961,268
|
0
|
$961,268
|
|
$961,268
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Net Depreciation
|
760,015
|
(196,474)
|
563,541
|
|
563,541
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Amortization
|
10,681
|
(10,681)
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
Taxes Other Than
Income
|
803,972
|
65,428
|
869,400
|
(2,455)
|
866,945
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Income Taxes
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Total Operating Expense
|
2,535,936
|
(141,727)
|
2,394,209
|
(2,455)
|
2,391,754
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
Operating Income
|
$1,982,444
|
$141,727
|
$2,124,171
|
($52,107)
|
$2,072,064
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
Rate Base
|
$25,448,587
|
|
$26,701,020
|
|
$26,701,020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
Rate of Return
|
7.79%
|
|
7.96%
|
|
7.76%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gibson
Place Utilities, LLC
|
|
|
|
Schedule No. 3-B
|
|
Statement
of Wastewater Operations
|
|
|
|
20200185-WS
|
|
80% of
Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description
|
Adjusted Test Year Per Utility
|
Staff Adjust- ments
|
Staff Adjusted Test Year
|
Revenue Increase
|
Revenue
Requirement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
Operating Revenues:
|
$11,179,493
|
$0
|
$11,179,493
|
($511,454)
|
$10,668,039
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-4.57%
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Operation &
Maintenance
|
$2,075,109
|
$0
|
$2,075,109
|
|
$2,075,109
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Depreciation
|
2,653,855
|
(591,931)
|
2,061,924
|
|
2,061,924
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Amortization
|
10,681
|
(10,681)
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
Taxes Other Than
Income
|
1,832,839
|
(61,554)
|
1,771,285
|
(23,015)
|
1,748,270
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Income Taxes
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Total Operating Expense
|
6,572,484
|
(664,166)
|
5,908,318
|
(23,015)
|
5,885,302
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
Operating Income
|
$4,607,009
|
$664,166
|
$5,271,175
|
($488,439)
|
$4,782,736
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
Rate Base
|
$59,140,042
|
|
$61,631,284
|
|
$61,631,284
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
Rate of Return
|
7.79%
|
|
8.55%
|
|
7.76%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gibson
Place Utilities, LLC
|
Schedule No. 3-C
|
|
Adjustments
to Operating Income
|
20200185-WS
|
|
80%
Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explanation
|
Water
|
Wastewater
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation Expense - Net
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
To reflect correct amortization rate for CIAC.
|
($207,155)
|
($602,612)
|
|
|
2
|
To reclassify CIAC amortization expense to depreciation
expense.
|
10,681
|
10,681
|
|
|
|
Total
|
($196,474)
|
($591,931)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization-Other Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
To reclassify amortization expense to net depreciation
expense.
|
($10,681)
|
($10,681)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxes Other Than Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
To reflect the appropriate amount of property taxes.
|
$65,428
|
($61,554)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gibson Place Utilities,
LLC
Staff Recommended Miscellaneous Service Charges
|
|
Normal
Hours
|
After
Hours
|
|
Violation Reconnection Charge - Water
|
$46.05
|
Actual
Cost
|
|
Violation Reconnection Charge -Wastewater
|
Actual
Cost
|
Actual
Cost
|
|
Premises Visit Charge
|
$46.05
|
N/A
|
|
Late Payment Charge
|
$5.50
|
|
NSF Charges
|
Pursuant
to Section 68.065, F.S.
|
