Case Background
On
January 31, 2022, Gibson Place Utility Company, LLC’s (Gibson) application to
delete a portion of its service territory was granted. The deleted portion of the territory
became the proposed service territory for Middleton Utility Company, LLC
(Middleton or Utility). Middleton and Gibson have the same parent company,
Holding Company of The Villages, Inc. (The Villages).
On
April 25, 2022, Middleton filed its application for original water and
wastewater certificates in Sumter County to serve the territory deleted from
Gibson. The area is in the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD)
and is not in a water use caution area. Based on its application, Middleton
anticipates serving approximately 6,000 residential customers and 329 general
service customers. Residential customers will consist of single-family homes
and general service customers will primarily consist of offices, retail stores,
and restaurants. Middleton will not operate either a water treatment facility
or a wastewater treatment facility and those services will be supplied through
bulk service agreements with Gibson. The Commission voted on Gibson’s original
water and wastewater certificates including initial rates and charges at the
November 1, 2022 Agenda Conference (Docket No. 20200185-WS). Middleton will
maintain the water and wastewater lines that serve the Middleton development.
Pursuant
to Section 367.031, Florida Statutes (F.S.), the Florida Public
Service Commission (Commission) shall grant or deny an application for a
certificate of authorization within 90 days after the official filing date of
the completed application. The application was initially deemed insufficient
when originally filed in April 2022 and a deficiency letter was issued on May
27, 2022. Middleton filed a response to the
deficiencies on June 3, 2022, and the application was deemed complete on
June 27, 2022, which is considered the official filing date. Middleton has waived the 90-day statutory
deadline through December 6, 2022.
This
recommendation addresses the application for original water and wastewater
certificates and the appropriate rates and charges for the Utility. The Commission
has jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 367.031, 367.045 and 367.081, F.S.
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the application for water and wastewater
certificates by Middleton Utility Company, LLC be approved?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Commission should grant Middleton Certificate
Nos. 681-W and 581-S to serve the territory described in Attachment A,
effective the date of the Commission’s vote. The resultant order should serve
as Middleton’s water and wastewater certificates and it should be retained by
the Utility. (Wooten, Sewards)
Staff Analysis:
On April 25, 2022, Middleton filed its application for
original water and wastewater certificates in Sumter County. Upon review, staff
determined the original filing was deficient and provided the Utility with a
list of deficiencies to be corrected. Middleton corrected the deficiencies on
June 27, 2022, which is considered the official filing date for the
application. Middleton has requested these certificates in order to meet future
customer need from land development by an affiliate of its parent company, The
Villages. The application is in compliance with the governing statute, Section
367.045, F.S.
Notice
On June 27, 2022, Middleton filed proof of compliance with
the noticing provisions set forth in Rule 25-30.030, Florida Administrative
Code (F.A.C.). The notice of application for an initial certificate of
authorization for water and wastewater certificates was mailed to the entities
required on June 14, 2022,
and published as required on June 17, 2022.
Subsequent to the issuance of the notice, the Commission did not receive any
written objections and the time for filing such objections has expired.
Need for Service
Pursuant to Rule 25-30.033(1)(k), F.A.C., the Utility
provided statements describing the requests for service, the number and type of
customers proposed to be served, the proposed service area’s current land use
designation and all known land use restrictions. The proposed service territory
is undeveloped land that is outside any other utility’s certificated service
territory and is not currently served by any other utility. The proposed
utility is therefore not in competition with or duplication of another utility.
The property is being developed by an affiliate of The Villages, who owns the
proposed service territory. Therefore, there are no formal requests for service
from other property owners or developers for the proposed service territory. As
previously discussed, the proposed development is anticipated to serve 6,000
residential customers and 329 general service customers. Residential customers
will consist of single-family homes and general service customers will
primarily consist of offices, retail stores, and restaurants. According to the
Utility, the provision of the water and wastewater services are and will be
consistent with the existing Sumter County local comprehensive plans. The
proposed service area has a current land use designation of Age Restricted
Development Land Use and includes conservation lands and environmentally
sensitive areas. The Utility states that any impacts to the conservation lands
or environmentally sensitive areas will comply with regulatory requirements.
Based on the above, staff recommends that Middleton has demonstrated the need
for service in the proposed service territory.
Land
Ownership and Service Territory
Middleton provided adequate service territory system maps
and a territory description as required by Rule 25-30.033, F.A.C. The legal
description of the service territory is appended to this recommendation, as
Attachment A. Middleton did not submit a recorded executed warranty deed as
Middleton’s utility plant will consist of a water distribution system, water
meters, a water tower and a wastewater collection system with a master lift
station. All treatment services are purchased from Gibson.
Financial
and Technical Ability
Rule 25-30.033(1)(h), and (i), F.A.C., requires a
statement showing the financial and technical ability of the applicant to
provide service, a detailed financial statement, and a list of all entities
upon which the applicant is relying to provide funding along with those
entities' financial statements. Regarding financial ability, Middleton is
relying upon the financial backing of its parent, The Villages. The Commission
has traditionally allowed reliance on the parent's financial ability. The
Commission's reasoning has been the logical vested interest of a parent in the
financial stability of its subsidiary. The application contains The Villages'
most recent financial statements as well as a letter of commitment from The
Villages "to make the financial and operating commitment necessary"
for Middleton to build and operate the system in Lake and Sumter Counties.
Staff believes that The Villages' financial statements and extensive business
operations in Florida show adequate and stable funding reserves for the
Utility. Therefore, staff recommends that Middleton has demonstrated that it
will have access to adequate financial resources to operate the Utility.
Regarding technical ability, as stated previously,
Middleton will only operate water distribution and wastewater collection
systems. The Utility will purchase treatment services from Gibson which has
adequate capacity to serve Middleton. Furthermore, The Villages has experience
with operating multiple water and wastewater utilities. These systems are in
good standing with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
The Villages has also retained engineering, design, permitting, construction,
and operation professionals with experience in the development of its other
utility system.
Based on the above, staff recommends that Middleton has
demonstrated the technical and financial ability to provide service to the
proposed service territory.
Public Interest
Section
367.045(5)(a), F.S., provides that the Commission may grant or amend a
certificate of authorization, in whole or in part or with modifications in the
public interest, or it may deny a certificate of authorization or an amendment
to a certificate of authorization, if in the public interest. In prior
proceedings, the Commission has made its determination regarding the public
interest based upon whether a utility’s application demonstrates there is a
need for service, that the application is not in competition with or duplication
of another system, that the utility has the financial and technical ability to
provide service, and the utility has sufficient plant capacity or will
construct the plant when needed.[8]
Middleton’s
application stated that the proposed service territory is owned by Middleton’s
parent company, is outside any other utility’s certificated service territory, and
is not currently served by any other utility. Therefore, Middleton is not in
competition with or duplicating another system. Middleton will serve customers
of the proposed development of Middleton’s parent company via the bulk service
agreement with Gibson and the application provides statements that the Gibson
water and wastewater treatment plant will sufficiently meet the demands for
both Gibson and Middleton. Additionally, the application has provided
statements that demonstrates The Villages’ financial ability to provide
adequate and stable funding reserves for the Utility and The Villages’
experience with successfully operating multiple water and wastewater utilities.
Based on the above, staff recommends that granting the
requested certificates to Middleton would be in the public interest.
Conclusion
Based on the information above, staff recommends the
Commission should grant Middleton Certificate Nos. 681-W and 581-S to serve the
territory described in Attachment A, effective the date of the Commission’s
vote. The resultant order should serve as Middleton’s water and wastewater
certificates and it should be retained by the Utility.
Issue 2:
What are the appropriate water and wastewater rates
and return on investment for Middleton Utility Company, LLC?
Recommendation:
Staff’s recommended water and wastewater rates,
shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B, are reasonable and should be approved. The
overall cost of capital should be set at 7.77 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, Bruce, Hudson)
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
Middleton’s growth projections, the Utility anticipates operating at 80 percent
of its design capacity in 2039. 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 $20,395,890
for water and $26,955,649 for wastewater. On June 30, 2022, Middleton filed a
notice advising the installation of mobile read water meters that were more
expensive than those included in the original filing.
Based on staff’s calculations, water plant in service should be increased by
$3,925,062 to account for the updated water meter costs. Additionally, the
Utility proposed intangible plant balances of $1,220,320 for water and
$3,599,155 for wastewater. These balances represent estimated plant capacity
fees paid to Gibson. Staff has recalculated intangible plant using the plant
capacity fees established for Gibson by the Commission.
As such, plant in service should be increased by $6,518,980 for water and
$19,232,745 for wastewater. Based on the adjustments above, staff recommends
plant in service balances of $30,839,932 for water and $46,188,394 for
wastewater.
Middleton proposed an accumulated depreciation balance of
$4,112,276 for water and $7,025,132 for wastewater. Based on corresponding
adjustments to plant in service, accumulated depreciation should be increased
by $4,748,078 for water and $7,933,508 for wastewater. As such, staff
recommends accumulated depreciation balances of $8,860,354 for water and
$14,958,640 for wastewater.
In its filing, the Utility proposed contributions in aid
of construction (CIAC) balances of $15,371,202 for water and $19,961,062 for
wastewater. As discussed further below, staff has recommended an adjustment to
the plant and main capacity charges, as well as an updated meter installation
charge that was not included in Middleton’s proposed CIAC calculation for the
water system. As a result, staff recommends an adjustment to increase CIAC by
$7,387,936 for water and $7,389,558 for wastewater. Based on these adjustments,
staff recommends CIAC balances of $22,759,138 for water and $27,350,620 for
wastewater.
Middleton proposed accumulated amortization of CIAC
balances of $2,950,381 for water and $4,707,109 for wastewater. As discussed
further below, staff has recommended an adjustment to the plant and main
capacity charges, as well as an updated meter installation charge that was not
included in Middleton’s proposed CIAC calculation for the water system.
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 $2,214,149 for water and $703,217 for wastewater.
Based on these adjustments, staff recommends accumulated amortization of CIAC
balances of $5,164,530 for water and $5,410,326 for wastewater.
Middleton proposed a working capital allowance of $202,375
for water and $516,169 for wastewater based on the one-eighth of the estimated
operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses for each system. The Commission
has previously allowed this methodology in original certificate cases as the
O&M expenses are just an estimate. Based
on the adjustments discussed in the operation and maintenance expenses section
below, staff recommends a working capital allowance of $221,175 for water and
$667,304 for wastewater.
In total, the Utility proposed a rate base of $4,065,168
for water and $5,192,733 for wastewater. Based on the adjustments discussed
above, staff recommends that the rate base be increased by $540,977 for water
and $4,764,031 for wastewater. As such, staff recommends an adjusted rate base
of $4,606,145 for water and $9,956,764 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
Middleton 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 7.77 percent. The
appropriate ROE for Middleton 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 $316,271 and $403,994, respectively. Based on
the adjustments above, staff calculated an NOI of $358,060 for water and $773,992
for wastewater. The calculated NOI for the water and wastewater systems are
shown in Schedule Nos. 3-A and 3-B, respectively.
Operation and Maintenance Expenses
Middleton proposed total O&M
expenses of $1,618,998 for water and $4,129,354 for wastewater. Middleton
purchases bulk services from Gibson. Included in the utility’s proposed O&M
expense is purchased water of $940,308 and purchased wastewater treatment of
$3,201,508. The purchased water and purchased wastewater treatment expense is
based on the bulk service rates that Gibson will assess to Middleton for
services. In the Gibson proceeding (Docket No. 2020185-WS), the Commission
approved bulk service rates which reflected Gibson at 80 percent design
capacity and Middleton at 18 percent design capacity. For original
certificates, consistent with Commission practice, initial rates are set based
on 80 percent design capacity. According to the two utilities’ projected
timelines for development, Gibson will be at 100 percent when Middleton reaches
80 percent. In this proceeding, for purposes of calculating O&M
expenses for Middleton, staff assumed in its calculations the bulk
service rates to reflect Middleton at 80 percent design capacity and Gibson at
100 percent design capacity, which equitably distributes costs based on
the stage of development for each respective utility.
As a result, staff determined
purchased water should be $1,099,713 and purchased wastewater should be
$4,410,586. This results in an increase of $150,405 ($1,099,713 - $940,308) to
purchased water and $1,209,078 ($4,410,586 - $3,201,508) to wastewater. Based
on these adjustments, staff recommends O&M expenses of $1,769,403
($1,618,998 + $150,405) for water and $5,338,432 ($4,129,354 + $1,209,078) for
wastewater.
Net Depreciation Expense
The Utility reflected depreciation expense, net of CIAC
amortization, of $89,535 for water and $113,296 for wastewater. Based on
staff’s adjustments to rate base, corresponding adjustments should be made to
increase net depreciation expense by $94,477 for water and $394,512 for
wastewater. Additionally, Middleton reflected amortization expense balances of
$62,466 for water and $90,704 for 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 $246,478
($89,535 + $94,477 + $62,466) for water, and $598,512 ($113,296 + $394,512 +
$90,704) for wastewater.
Amortization Expense
Middleton reflected amortization expense balances of
$62,466 for water and $90,704 for 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 and included them in its calculation of net depreciation expense above.
Taxes Other Than Income
In its filing, Middleton included taxes other than income
(TOTI) expense of $426,144 for water and $714,904 for wastewater. Middleton’s
calculation of proposed property tax expense for each system was based on the
Sumter County millage rate from 2020. Staff recalculated the property tax
expense for each system using the most recent millage rate and recommends an
adjustment be made to decrease property tax by $7,468 for water and $15,727 for
wastewater. Staff also made a corresponding adjustment to increase regulatory
assessment fees (RAFs) by $13,156 for water and $92,255 for wastewater to
reflect staff’s recommended revenue requirement. Therefore, staff recommends a
TOTI balance of $431,832 for water and $791,432 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 Middleton has no
income tax expense. The Utility proposed revenue requirements for water and
wastewater of $2,513,414 and $5,452,252, respectively. Staff recommends
adjusted revenue requirements of $2,805,774 for water and $7,502,369 for
wastewater to be used to set initial rates for service. The calculation of
Middleton’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
Middleton’s
proposed rates are in accordance with Rule 25-30.033(2), F.A.C., which requires
that a base facility charge 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
$2,513,414 for its water system and $5,452,252 for its wastewater system.
Staff’s
recommended water rates shown on Schedule No. 4-A reflect the recommended
revenue requirement of $2,805,774 for the water system less projected
miscellaneous revenues of $7,276. The Utility projects an average residential
consumption of approximately 6,844 gallons per month. The Utility proposed a
residential rate structure consisting of a base facility charge (BFC) and
two-tier inclining blocks with rate blocks of 1) 0-7,000 gallons and 2) all
usage in excess of 7,000 gallons per month. The Utility’s proposed rate
structure for the general service water customers consists of a BFC and uniform
gallonage charge rate structure. The Utility’s proposed water rates recover 40
percent of the water 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 shown on Schedule 4-B reflect the recommended
revenue requirement of $7,495,092 less projected miscellaneous revenues of
$7,276. Middleton’s proposed wastewater rates include a BFC and uniform
gallonage charge rate structure for its residential and general service
customers. The residential wastewater rate includes a gallonage cap of 10,000
gallons. 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.
Based on the above, staff’s recommended water and
wastewater rates and rate structures shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B should
be approved. The approved rates should be effective for services rendered on or
after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets, pursuant to Rule
25-30.475, F.A.C. Middleton Utility should be required to charge the approved
rates until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent
proceeding.
Conclusion
Staff’s recommended water and wastewater rates, shown on
Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B, are reasonable and should be approved. The overall
cost of capital should be set at 7.77 percent. An 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 3:
Should Middleton Utility Company, LLC’s requested
initial customer deposits be approved?
Recommendation:
No. The appropriate initial customer deposits are $78
for water and $207 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. (Bruce)
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 $71.70 for water and $150.26 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. Based on
the billing determinants and average residential bill provided in the
application, staff determined that the anticipated average residential usage
will be approximately 6,844 gallons per month for both water and wastewater.
Consequently, the average residential monthly bill will be approximately $38.97
for water and $103.35 for wastewater service, based on staff’s recommended
rates.
Based on the above,
the appropriate initial customer deposits are $78 for water and $207 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 4:
Should the temporary meter deposit requested by Middleton
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. Middleton 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. (Bruce)
Staff Analysis:
Middleton 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, Middleton
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. Middleton
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 5:
Should the collection device cleaning charge requested
by Middleton 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. Middleton should be required to
charge the approved charge until authorized to change it by the Commission in a
subsequent proceeding. (Bruce)
Staff Analysis:
Middleton 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.
Middleton 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 Middleton 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 prior dockets.
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:
What are the appropriate miscellaneous service
charges for Middleton Utility Company, LLC?
Recommendation:
The appropriate miscellaneous service charges are
shown on Table 6-4 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. Middleton should be
required to charge the approved miscellaneous service charges until authorized
to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. (Bruce)
Staff Analysis:
Section 367.091, F.S., authorizes the Commission to
establish miscellaneous service charges. Middleton’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, Middleton
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 the
Utility’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.[14] The
definitions for initial connection charges and normal reconnection charges were
subsumed in the definition of the premises visit charge. Therefore, Middleton’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 6-1.
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. Middleton
Utility’s requested wastewater violation reconnection charge should be actual
cost pursuant to Rule 25-30.460(1)(c), F.A.C.
Table
6-1
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 cost for processing
late payment notices. The Utility’s cost justification for its requested late
payment charge is shown below on Table 6-2. Staff believes the requested late
payment charge is reasonable and should be approved.
Table 6-2
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 Middleton 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 in
Tables 6-3 and 6-4.
Table
6-3
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
6-4
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 above and should be approved. The utility should file
revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice 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. Middleton should be required to charge
the approved miscellaneous service charges until authorized to change them by
the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 7:
Should the meter tampering charge requested by Middleton
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. Middleton should be required to charge the approved
charge until authorized to change it by the Commission in a subsequent
proceeding. (Bruce)
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 Middleton 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. Middleton should be required to
charge the approved charge until authorized to change it by the Commission in a
subsequent proceeding.
Issue 8:
Should Middleton Utility Company, LLC’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. Middleton should be required to charge the approved charge until
authorized to change it by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. (Bruce)
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 Middleton are not required
to annually test their backflow prevention assembly devices because residential
customers will have a double check valve which cannot be tested. DEP recommends
that the double check valve be replaced every five to ten years pursuant to
Rule 62-555.360, Cross-Connection Control for Public Water Systems, F.A.C.,
which is typically done at the customer’s expense.
It is the responsibility of the general
service 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 the
Utility 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.
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. Middleton should be required to charge the approved charge
until authorized to change it by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 9:
What are the appropriate service availability
charges for Middleton 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 $2,222 per equivalent residential
connection (ERC) and plant capacity charge of $1,224 per ERC for the Utility’s
water system should be approved. Additionally, a main extension charge
of $2,298 per ERC and a plant capacity charge of $2,530 per ERC for the
Utility’s wastewater system should be approved. The recommended main extension
and plant capacity charges should be based on 225 gallons per day (gpd). 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. (Bruce)
Staff Analysis:
Middleton requested a meter installation charge of $571.50
for 5/8” x 3/4” meters and actual cost for all other meter sizes and service
availability charge of $2,716 per ERC, which includes a main extension charge
of $2,215 per ERC and plant capacity charge of $501 per ERC for its water
system. For its wastewater system, the Utility requested a service availability
charge of $3,527 per ERC, which includes a main extension charge of $2,668 per
ERC and plant capacity charge of $859 per ERC. The Utility’s proposed ERC is
225 gpd. The Utility asserts that 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. The service availability charges are
discussed below.
Meter
Installation Charges
Middleton 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, as proposed, 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 Commission approves main extension charges based
on the average cost of the distribution and collection systems and the
anticipated capacity in ERCs. Based on staff’s recommended utility plant in
service, the main extension charge per ERC should be $2,222 for water and
$2,298 for wastewater.
Plant
Capacity Charges
A plant capacity charge allows the Utility to recover each customer’s pro
rata share of the cost of 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 $501 for water and $859 for wastewater, resulted in contribution
levels of 75 percent for water and wastewater, which is the maximum guideline
provided in the rule mentioned above.
However, based on staff’s recommended utility plant in service, a plant
capacity charge of $1,229 per ERC should be approved for water and $2,298 per
ERC should be approved for wastewater. Staff’s recommended plant
capacity charges result in contribution levels of 75 percent for both water and
wastewater, which is equivalent to the contribution levels proposed by the
Utility. Staff’s recommended charges are consistent with Rule 25-30.580,
F.A.C., and will allow Middleton to maintain an appropriate level of investment
in its system. Table 9-1 below displays the Utility’s proposed and staff’s
recommended service availability charges for its water and wastewater systems.
Table
9-1
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
ERC = 225 gpd
|
$2,215
|
$2,268
|
$2,222
|
$2,298
|
|
Plant Capacity Charge
ERC = 225 gpd
|
$501
|
$859
|
$1,229
|
$2,530
|
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” meter size and actual cost for all other residential
and general service meter sizes. The main extension charge of $2,222 per ERC and
plant capacity charge of $1,229 per ERC for the Utility’s water system should
be approved. Additionally, a main extension charge of $2,298 per ERC and
a plant capacity charge of $2,530 per ERC for the Utility’s wastewater system
should be approved. 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 10:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
No. If no person whose substantial interests are
affected by the proposed agency actions in Issues 2 through 9 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 have been filed by the Utility and approved by staff. Once these
actions are complete, this docket should be closed administratively.
(Brownless)
Staff Analysis:
If no person whose substantial interests are
affected by the proposed agency actions in Issues 2 through 9 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 have been filed by the Utility and approved by staff. Once these
actions are complete, this docket should be closed administratively.
Middleton Utility
Company, LLC.
Description of Water and Wastewater Service
Territory
Sumter County
THAT PORTION OF SECTIONS 15, 16,
17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28 AND 29, TOWNSHIP 20 SOUTH, RANGE 23 EAST, SUMTER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF
AFORESAID SECTION 17; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF, RUN
N89°41'47"W, 1,333.69 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 1/4 OF SAID
SECTION 17; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE AND ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
EAST 1/4, RUN S00°05'18"E, 50.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
COUNTY ROAD C470 FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7) COURSES
BEING ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE: RUN S89°41'47"E, 1,299.79 FEET;
THENCE S00°18'13"W, 10.00 FEET; THENCE S89°41'47"E, 33.60 FEET; THENCE
S89°47'31"E, 166.50 FEET; THENCE N00°12'29"E, 10.00 FEET; THENCE
S89°47'31"E, 2,529.50 FEET; THENCE S89°52'59"E, 375.37 FEET; THENCE
DEPARTING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, RUN S00°00'00"E, 462.00 FEET;
THENCE S89°52'33"E, 2,419.01 FEET; THENCE S00°00'00"E, 155.00 FEET;
THENCE S89°43'47"E, 1,012.01 FEET; THENCE S00°00'00"E, 208.39 FEET TO
THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF
120.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 90°00'00", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 188.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF
TANGENCY; THENCE N90°00'00"E, 26.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A
CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00",
AN ARC DISTANCE OF 47.12 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE
S00°00'00"E, 47.20 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 257.06 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND
DISTANCE OF S06°41'16"E, 56.07 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS
S89°34'23"W; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°31'19", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 56.18 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 226.00
FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S51°13'29"E, 293.96 FEET TO WHICH
A RADIAL LINE BEARS S79°20'38"W; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF
SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 81°08'13", AN ARC DISTANCE OF
320.04 FEET; THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT LINE, RUN S05°18'27"E, 20.45 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS
OF 2,148.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S71°13'53"W, 978.64
FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS N05°36'03"W; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26°20'08", AN ARC DISTANCE
OF 987.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S58°03'49"W, 181.42 FEET
TO THE
POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING
A RADIUS OF 2,018.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH
A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21°46'48", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 767.11 FEET TO A POINT OF
COMPOUND CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 87.00
FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
49°55'05", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 75.80 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE
OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 138.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
20°09'36", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 48.56 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE
OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 87.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
49°36'57", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 75.34 FEET; THENCE ALONG A RADIAL LINE, RUN
S69°13'03"W, 15.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 330.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND
DISTANCE OF N21°58'39"W, 13.76 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS
N69°13'03"E; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°23'23", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 13.76 FEET; THENCE ALONG A
NON-TANGENT LINE RUN S68°34'03"W, 75.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A
NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 75.00 FEET AND A
CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S32°40'15"W, 124.87 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL
LINE BEARS N66°18'57"E; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
112°42'37", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 147.54 FEET; THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT
LINE RUN S01°36'46"E, 130.53 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT
CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 90.41 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING
AND DISTANCE OF S34°50'13"E, 111.37 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS
N17°08'32"E; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 76°02'30", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 119.99 FEET; THENCE ALONG A
NON-TANGENT LINE, RUN S00°00'00"E, 253.60 FEET; THENCE S10°30'22"W,
52.36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,199.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF
S04°26'00"E, 250.89 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS S88°50'13"W;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
06°32'26", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 251.02 FEET; THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT LINE
RUN S52°12'57"E, 14.30 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,189.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND
DISTANCE OF S13°47'24"E, 443.92 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS
S82°01'47"W; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°38'22", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 444.68 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 315.35
FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S30°38'13"W, 142.88 FEET TO WHICH
A RADIAL LINE BEARS N46°16'10"W; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF
SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26°11'14", AN ARC DISTANCE OF
144.13 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC
OF A NON-TANGENT
CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 199.85 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND
DISTANCE OF S84°04'45"W, 85.35 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS
S18°15'03"E; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°39'36", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 86.01 FEET; THENCE ALONG A
NON-TANGENT LINE RUN N86°00'00"W, 42.50 FEET; THENCE S04°00'00"W,
146.00 FEET; THENCE S74°35'56"E, 53.59 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A
NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 232.00 FEET AND A CHORD
BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S88°40'03"E, 86.65 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE
BEARS S12°05'45"W; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21°31'36", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 87.16 FEET TO THE POINT OF
REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 129.00
FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
41°30'21", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 93.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE
OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 202.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
11°03'01", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 38.96 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE
OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 208.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
57°36'46", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 209.15 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE
CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 129.22 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
11°00'42", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 24.83 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A
NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 117.21 FEET AND A CHORD
BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S21°41'08"E, 8.72 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE
BEARS N66°10'56"E; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04°15'51", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 8.72 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 31.00 FEET AND
A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S04°04'14"W, 25.71 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL
LINE BEARS N69°34'22"E; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 48°59'46", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 26.51 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF
34.17 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S19°24'24"E, 51.08 FEET TO
WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS N61°02'16"W; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF
SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 96°44'17", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 57.69
FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND
HAVING A RADIUS OF 31.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 49°11'47", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 26.62 FEET TO THE
POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS
OF 520.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°45'13", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 88.52 FEET TO THE POINT OF
REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND
HAVING A RADIUS
OF 496.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01°47'40", AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 15.53 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE
WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,405.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF
S13°00'07"E, 252.07 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS N73°59'39"E;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°00'28",
AN ARC DISTANCE OF 252.18 FEET; THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT LINE RUN
S02°09'22"W, 49.85 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,395.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND
DISTANCE OF S04°37'50"E, 350.92 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS
N81°10'05"E; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°24'09", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 351.23 FEET TO THE POINT OF
TANGENCY; THENCE S00°25'46"E, 18.64 FEET; THENCE S45°25'46"E, 14.14
FEET; THENCE S00°25'46"E, 106.32 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,466.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°45'03", AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 530.94 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE
NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,465.03 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND
DISTANCE OF S25°14'50"E, 207.88 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS
S68°49'16"W; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°08'12", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 208.05 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 153.50 FEET
AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S11°56'20"W, 202.39 FEET TO WHICH A
RADIAL LINE BEARS N60°41'46"E; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 82°29'10", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 220.99
FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND
HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,270.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10°35'18", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 419.50 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 739.68 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S30°40'48"W,
312.69 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS N47°07'03"W; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°24'19", AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 315.07 FEET; THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT LINE RUN S01°38'04"E,
108.91 FEET; THENCE S72°01'05"E, 104.73 FEET; THENCE N28°04'56"E, 101.44
FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING
A RADIUS OF 585.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N30°34'50"E,
247.09 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS N71°36'41"W; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°23'02", AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 248.96 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,135.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°30'16", AN ARC DISTANCE
OF 428.69 FEET; THENCE ALONG A RADIAL LINE RUN S35°43'23"E, 5.00 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS
OF 2,130.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N54°29'05"E, 15.45
FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL
LINE BEARS
N35°43'23"W; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00°24'56", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 15.45 FEET TO A POINT OF
COMPOUND CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 82.00
FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
47°53'21", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 68.54 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE
OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 143.00 FEET; THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°33'43",
AN ARC DISTANCE OF 41.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE
CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 82.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47°30'10", AN ARC DISTANCE OF
67.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S46°28'40"E, 6.34 FEET; THENCE
S43°57'33"E, 84.49 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,280.30 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND
DISTANCE OF S63°49'48"E, 710.72 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS
S42°17'04"W; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32°13'45", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 720.17 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF
1,421.74 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S56°05'31"E, 1,042.04
FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS N12°24'37"E; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42°59'44", AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 1,066.89 FEET; THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT LINE RUN
S34°34'27"E, 424.30 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,498.93 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°48'49", AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 733.32 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 130.41 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE
OF S24°18'38"W, 34.80 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS N58°01'20"W;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
15°20'05", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 34.90 FEET; THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT LINE,
RUN S68°48'08"W, 163.90 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,045.05 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39°38'24", AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 723.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S29°09'44"W,
375.87 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND
HAVING A RADIUS OF 990.04 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38°56'09", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 672.79 FEET
TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S68°05'53"W, 603.20 FEET; THENCE
S12°54'01"E, 129.31 FEET; THENCE N68°05'53"E, 623.43 FEET TO THE
POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF
1,117.76 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39°17'34", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 766.55 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS
OF 1,184.71 FEET
AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S14°32'01"W, 73.68 FEET TO WHICH A
RADIAL LINE BEARS N73°41'03"W; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°33'51", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73.70
FEET; THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT LINE RUN S09°22'37"W, 767.20 FEET; THENCE
S11°51'35"W, 709.59 FEET; THENCE S37°41'39"W, 193.08 FEET; THENCE
S43°55'09"W, 260.30 FEET; THENCE S47°26'49"W, 575.05 FEET; THENCE
S33°01'26"W, 331.30 FEET; THENCE S63°15'46"W, 1,034.19 FEET; THENCE
S69°01'13"W, 989.19 FEET; THENCE S87°49'31"W, 549.01 FEET; THENCE
N51°33'25"W, 860.05 FEET; THENCE S81°15'13"W, 91.34 FEET; THENCE
S44°36'37"W, 721.85 FEET; THENCE S86°34'18"W, 1,509.65 FEET; THENCE
N80°32'15"W, 126.72 FEET; THENCE N78°14'53"W, 718.30 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF AFORESAID SECTION 29; THENCE
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF RUN N89°38'49"W, 2,694.68 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF RUN
N00°25'41"E, 1,335.19 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF
AFORESAID SECTION 20; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF RUN N89°43'54"W,
2,681.21 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE
THEREOF RUN N00°16'44"E, 2,658.68 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SAID SECTION 20 RUN
S89°39'12"E, 4,028.43 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE
NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF RUN
N00°24'57"E, 2,656.98 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF
THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF AFORESAID SECTION 17; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF
RUN N89°35'34"W, 1,334.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE
ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF RUN N00°04'35"W, 1,330.43 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER THEREOF; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF RUN S89°37'37"E,
1,334.55 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 17;
THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF RUN N00°05'18"W, 3,944.46 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
FLORIDA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION
Authorizes
Middleton Utility
Company, LLC
Pursuant to
Certificate Number 681-W
to provide water service in Sumter
County accordance with the provision of Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, the
Rules, Regulations and Orders of this Commission in the territory described by
the Orders of this Commission. This authorization shall remain in force and
effect until suspended, cancelled or revoked by Orders of this Commission.
Order Number Date
Issued Docket Number Filing Type
* * 20220088-WS Original Certificate
*Order
Number and date to be provided at time of issue.
FLORIDA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION
Authorizes
Middleton Utility
Company, LLC
Pursuant to
Certificate Number 581-S
to provide wastewater service in Sumter
County accordance with the provision of Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, the
Rules, Regulations and Orders of this Commission in the territory described by
the Orders of this Commission. This authorization shall remain in force and
effect until suspended, cancelled or revoked by Orders of this Commission.
Order Number Date
Issued Docket Number Filing Type
* * 20220088-WS Original Certificate
*Order
Number and date to be provided at time of issue.
|
Middleton
Utility Company, LLC
|
|
Schedule No. 1-A
|
|
Schedule
of Water Rate Base
|
|
20220088-WS
|
|
80%
Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description
|
Test Year
|
Staff
|
Staff
|
|
|
Per
|
Adjust-
|
Adjusted
|
|
|
Utility
|
ments
|
Test Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
Plant in Service
|
$20,395,890
|
$10,444,042
|
$30,839,932
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Accumulated Depreciation
|
(4,112,276)
|
(4,748,078)
|
(8,860,354)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
CIAC
|
(15,371,202)
|
(7,387,936)
|
(22,759,138)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Amortization of CIAC
|
2,950,381
|
2,214,149
|
5,164,530
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
Working Capital Allowance
|
202,375
|
18,800
|
221,175
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Rate Base
|
$4,065,168
|
$540,977
|
$4,606,145
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Middleton
Utility Company, LLC
|
|
Schedule No. 1-B
|
|
Schedule
of Wastewater Rate Base
|
20220088-WS
|
|
80%
Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description
|
Test Year
|
Staff
|
Staff
|
|
|
Per
|
Adjust-
|
Adjusted
|
|
|
Utility
|
ments
|
Test Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
Plant in Service
|
$26,955,649
|
$19,232,745
|
$46,188,394
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Accumulated Depreciation
|
(7,025,132)
|
(7,933,508)
|
(14,958,640)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
CIAC
|
(19,961,062)
|
(7,389,558)
|
(27,350,620)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Amortization of CIAC
|
4,707,109
|
703,217
|
5,410,326
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
Working Capital Allowance
|
516,169
|
151,135
|
667,304
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Rate Base
|
$5,192,733
|
$4,764,031
|
$9,956,764
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Middleton
Utility Company, LLC
|
Schedule No. 1-C
|
|
Adjustments
to Rate Base
|
20220088-WS
|
|
80%
Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explanation
|
Water
|
Wastewater
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant In Service
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
To reflect appropriate
amount for meters.
|
$3,925,062
|
$0
|
|
|
2
|
To reflect appropriate
amount for intangible plant.
|
6,518,980
|
19,232,745
|
|
|
|
Total
|
$10,444,042
|
$19,232,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Depreciation
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
To reflect appropriate
amount for meters.
|
($2,059,000)
|
$0
|
|
|
2
|
To reflect appropriate
amount for intangible plant.
|
(2,689,079)
|
(7,933,508)
|
|
|
|
Total
|
($4,748,078)
|
($7,933,508)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIAC
|
|
|
|
|
|
To reflect appropriate level
of CIAC.
|
$7,387,936
|
$7,389,558
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Amortization
of CIAC
|
|
|
|
|
|
To reflect appropriate
level of accumulated amortization of CIAC.
|
$2,214,149
|
$703,217
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Working Capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
To reflect
appropriate level of working capital.
|
$18,800
|
$151,135
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Middleton
Utility Company, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule No. 2
|
|
Capital Structure-13-Month
Average
|
|
|
|
20220088-WS
|
|
80%
Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description
|
Total
Capital
|
Specific
Adjust-
ments
|
Subtotal
Adjusted
Capital
|
Prorata
Adjust-
ments
|
Capital
|
Ratio
|
Cost Rate
|
Weighted Cost
|
|
|
|
Reconciled
|
|
|
|
to Rate Base
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per Staff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
Long-Term Debt
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
|
|
2
|
Short-Term Debt
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
|
|
3
|
Preferred Stock
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
|
|
4
|
Common Equity
|
9,092,162
|
0
|
9,092,162
|
5,305,001
|
14,397,163
|
98.86%
|
7.84%
|
7.75%
|
|
|
5
|
Customer Deposits
|
165,746
|
0
|
165,746
|
0
|
165,746
|
1.14%
|
2.00%
|
0.02%
|
|
|
6
|
Tax Credits-Zero Cost
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
|
|
7
|
Deferred Income Taxes
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
|
|
8
|
Total Capital
|
$9,257,908
|
$0
|
$9,257,908
|
$5,305,001
|
$14,562,909
|
100.00%
|
|
7.77%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOW
|
HIGH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RETURN ON EQUITY
|
|
6.84%
|
8.84%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OVERALL RATE OF RETURN
|
6.78%
|
8.76%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Middleton
Utility Company, LLC
|
|
|
Schedule No. 3-A
|
|
Statement
of Water Operations
|
|
|
20220088-WS
|
|
80% of
Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description
|
Proposed
Per Utility
|
Staff
Adjust- ments
|
Staff
Adjusted
|
Revenue Increase
|
Revenue Requirement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
Operating Revenues:
|
$2,513,414
|
$0
|
$2,513,414
|
$292,360
|
$2,805,774
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/63%
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Operation & Maintenance
|
$1,618,998
|
150,405
|
$1,769,403
|
|
$1,769,403
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Depreciation
|
89,535
|
156,943
|
246,478
|
|
246,478
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Amortization
|
62,466
|
(62,466)
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
Taxes Other Than Income
|
426,144
|
(7,468)
|
418,676
|
13,156
|
431,832
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Total Operating Expense
|
2,197,143
|
237,414
|
2,434,557
|
13,156
|
2,447,713
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Operating Income
|
$316,271
|
($237,414)
|
$78,857
|
$279,203
|
$358,060
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
Rate Base
|
$4,065,168
|
|
$4,606,145
|
|
$4,606,145
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
Rate of Return
|
7.78%
|
|
1.71%
|
|
7.77%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Middleton
Utility Company, LLC
|
|
|
Schedule No. 3-B
|
|
Statement
of Wastewater Operations
|
20220088-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:
|
$5,452,252
|
$0
|
$5,452,252
|
$2,050,117
|
$7,502,369
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37.60%
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Operation & Maintenance
|
$4,129,354
|
$1,209,078
|
$5,338,432
|
|
$5,338,432
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Depreciation
|
113,296
|
485,216
|
598,512
|
|
598,512
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Amortization
|
90,704
|
(90,704)
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
Taxes Other Than Income
|
714,904
|
(15,727)
|
699,177
|
92,255
|
791,432
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Total Operating Expense
|
5,048,258
|
1,587,863
|
6,636,121
|
92,255
|
6,728,376
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Operating Income
|
$403,994
|
($1,587,863)
|
($1,183,869)
|
$1,957,861
|
$773,992
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
Rate Base
|
$5,192,733
|
|
$9,956,764
|
|
$9,956,764
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
Rate of Return
|
7.78%
|
|
-11.89%
|
|
7.77%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Middleton
Utility Company, LLC
|
Schedule No. 3-C
|
|
Adjustments
to Operating Income
|
20220088-WS
|
|
80%
Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explanation
|
Water
|
Wastewater
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operation and
Maintenance Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
To
reflect correct amount of purchased water and sewage treatment expense.
|
$150,405
|
$1,209,078
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation Expense -
Net
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
To reflect correct levels
of plant in service and amortization rate for CIAC.
|
$94,477
|
$394,512
|
|
|
2
|
To reclassify amortization
expense to depreciation expense.
|
62,466
|
90,704
|
|
|
|
Total
|
$156,943
|
$485,216
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization-Other
Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
To reclassify amortization
expense to depreciation expense.
|
($62,466)
|
($90,704)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxes Other Than Income
|
|
|
|
|
To reflect the most current
millage rate for property tax calculation.
|
($7,468)
|
($15,727)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIDDLETON UTILITY COMPANY, LLC.
|
|
SCHEDULE NO.
4-A
|
|
MONTHLY WATER RATES
|
DOCKET NO.
20220088-WS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY
|
STAFF
|
|
REQUESTED
|
RECOMMENDED
|
|
RATES
|
RATES
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential Service
|
|
|
|
Base
Facility Charge
|
$11.01
|
$11.87
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gallonage
Charge
|
|
|
|
0-
7,000 gallons
|
$3.49
|
$3.96
|
|
Over
7,000 gallons
|
$4.36
|
$4.95
|
|
|
|
|
|
General Service
|
|
|
|
Base
Facility Charge by Meter Size
|
|
|
|
5/8" x 3/4"
|
$11.01
|
$11.87
|
|
3/4"
|
$16.52
|
$17.81
|
|
1"
|
$27.53
|
$29.68
|
|
1-1/2" Turbine
|
$55.05
|
$59.35
|
|
2" Turbine
|
$88.08
|
$94.96
|
|
3" Turbine
|
$192.68
|
$207.73
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charge per 1,000 gallons - General Service
|
$3.63
|
$4.11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Typical Residential 5/8" x 3/4" Meter Bill
Comparison
|
|
|
3,000 Gallons
|
$21.48
|
$23.75
|
|
7,000 Gallons
|
$35.44
|
$39.59
|
|
10,000 Gallons
|
$48.52
|
$54.44
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIDDLETON UTILITY COMPANY, LLC.
|
|
SCHEDULE NO.
4-B
|
|
MONTHLY WASTEWATER RATES
|
DOCKET NO.
20220088-WS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY
|
STAFF
|
|
REQUESTED
|
RECOMMENDED
|
|
RATES
|
RATES
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential Service
|
|
|
|
Base
Facility Charge- All Meter Sizes
|
$17.03
|
$23.41
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charge
per 1,000 gallons- Residential
|
$8.49
|
$11.68
|
|
10,000
gallon cap
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General Service
|
|
|
|
Base
Facility Charge by Meter Size
|
|
|
|
5/8" x 3/4"
|
$17.03
|
$23.41
|
|
3/4"
|
$25.55
|
$35.12
|
|
1"
|
$42.58
|
$58.53
|
|
1-1/2" Turbine
|
$85.15
|
$117.05
|
|
2" Turbine
|
$136.24
|
$187.28
|
|
3" Turbine
|
$298.03
|
$409.68
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charge per 1,000 gallons - General Service
|
$10.18
|
$14.02
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Typical Residential 5/8" x 3/4" Meter Bill
Comparison
|
|
|
3,000 Gallons
|
$42.50
|
$58.45
|
|
6,000 Gallons
|
$67.97
|
$93.49
|
|
10,000 Gallons
|
$101.93
|
$140.21
|
|
|
|
|
