Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the application of Riverdale Utility Holding,
Inc. for a water certificate be approved?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Commission should grant Riverdale Utility
Holding, Inc. Certificate No. 686-W to serve the territory described in
Attachment A, effective the date of the Commission’s vote. The resultant order
should serve as Riverdale’s water certificate and it should be retained by the
Utility. Further, the Utility should file a copy of its recorded deed in the
docket file within 60 days of the issuance of the order granting the
certificate. (M. Watts, Sewards)
Staff Analysis: As stated in the case background, Riverdale filed an application for an
original water certificate to provide service in St. Johns County on January 3,
2024. The application is in compliance with the governing Statute, Section
367.045, F.S., and other pertinent Statutes and administrative Rules concerning
an application for original certificates.
Notice
The application contains 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 a
water certificate was mailed to the entities required and customers and
landowners in the proposed service territory on May 11, 2024, and was published
in a newspaper of general circulation in the area on May 15, 2024. On June, 14,
2024, St. Johns County filed an objection to Riverdale’s application for an original
water certificate and requested the matter be set for hearing. In addition, six
residents in the proposed service territory filed timely objections to the
notice of application. Commission staff mailed letters to each of these
residents, five on June 12, 2024, and one on June 19, 2024, asking whether they
wished to request a hearing and requesting a response by July 12, 2024. None of
the residents responded to staff’s letter to request a hearing. Pursuant to the
County’s objection and request for a hearing, the matter was set for a hearing
to be held on April 28-30, 2025. On November 25, 2024, the County withdrew its
objection and the hearing was canceled. Subsequent to the County’s withdrawal
of its objection, the Commission received 16 additional letters from residents
opposing Riverdale’s application for a certificate, however, these objections
were filed outside the 30-day window prescribed by Rule 25-30.030(4)(h), F.A.C.
Land
Ownership and Service Territory
Riverdale submitted an executed
quitclaim deed in the name of the Utility, and stated it will file a recorded
copy of the deed within the time prescribed in the Order granting the
Certificate, as required by Rule 25-30.033(m), F.A.C. Staff recommends the
Utility be required to file a recorded copy of the deed within 60 days of the
issuance of the subsequent order granting the certificate. Adequate service
territory and system maps and a territory description have been provided as
prescribed by Rule 25-30.033(1)(j), F.A.C. A description of the territory
requested by the applicant is appended to this recommendation as Attachment A.
Financial and Technical Ability
Rule 25-30.033(1)(h), F.A.C., requires a statement showing
the financial ability of the applicant to provide service, a detailed financial
statement, and a list of all entities upon which the applicant is relying on to
provide funding. Regarding financial ability, Riverdale provided detailed
financial statements for two related entities, Riverdale Heritage Land Inc. and
Semanik Investment Corporation. Additionally, the Utility stated that these
entities along with John Semanik, the owner of Riverdale, will provide land,
cash, and financing guarantees necessary to construct and operate the Utility.
The Commission has traditionally allowed reliance on a parent company's
financial ability.
The Commission's reasoning has been the logical vested interest of a parent
company in the financial stability of its related parties. Staff has reviewed
the related party’s financial statements and believes the Utility has shown
adequate and stable funding reserves. Therefore, staff recommends that
Riverdale has demonstrated that it will have access to adequate financial
resources to operate the Utility.
Regarding technical ability,
Riverdale stated in its application that it has no prior experience operating a
water system, but that it plans to contract with a licensed, experienced plant
operations company for operation and maintenance. The Utility provided a list
of three companies that are under consideration for the plant operation and
maintenance.
Based on the above, staff recommends
that Riverdale has demonstrated the technical and financial ability to provide
service to the proposed service territory.
Conclusion
The Commission should grant Riverdale Certificate No.
686-W to serve the territory described in Attachment A, effective the date of
the Commission’s vote. The resultant order should serve as Riverdale’s water
certificate and it should be retained by the Utility. Further, the Utility
should file a copy of its recorded Deed in the docket file within 60 days of
the issuance of the subsequent order granting the certificate.
Issue 2:
What are the appropriate water rates and return on
investment for Riverdale?
Recommendation:
Staff’s recommended water rates, shown on Schedule
No. 4, are reasonable and should be approved. The approved rates should be
effective for services rendered as of 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. The overall cost of capital should be
set at 8.64 percent. A return on equity (ROE) of 10.23 percent with a range of
plus or minus 100 basis points should also be approved. (Sewards, 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 Riverdale’s growth projections, the Utility anticipates
operating at 80 percent of its design capacity in 2035. The Utility’s proposed
rate base calculations, as well as staff adjustments, are described below.
Riverdale proposed utility plant in
service balance (UPIS) of $5,105,734. Staff does not have any adjustments to
the Utility’s proposed balance. As such, staff recommends a UPIS balance of
$5,105,734.
The Utility proposed a land and land
rights balance of $1,040,000. Staff has no adjustments to the Utility’s
proposed balance. As such, staff recommends a land and land rights balance of
$1,040,000.
Riverdale proposed an accumulated
depreciation balance of $1,647,151. Based on the recommended plant balance,
staff recalculated accumulated depreciation using the depreciation rates
established by Rule 25-30.140, F.A.C. As a result, accumulated depreciation
should be decreased by $262,032. As such, staff recommends an accumulated
depreciation balance of $1,385,119.
In its filing, the Utility proposed a
contributions in aid of construction (CIAC) balance of $3,331,287. Based on
staff’s recommended connection fees, the CIAC balance should be decreased by
$397,062. As such, staff recommends a CIAC balance of $2,934,225.
Riverdale proposed an accumulated amortization
of CIAC balance of $919,344. Based on the recommended CIAC balance, staff
recalculated accumulated amortization of CIAC using the correct accounts and
deprecation rates. As a result, staff recommends that accumulated amortization
of CIAC be decreased by $473,757. As such, staff recommends an accumulated
amortization of CIAC balance of $445,587.
The Utility proposed a working capital
allowance of $22,813 based on one-eighth of the estimated operation and
maintenance (O&M) expenses of the system. The Commission has previously
allowed this methodology in original certificate cases as the O&M expenses
are estimated. Based on the recommended adjustment to
O&M expense discussed below, staff recommends working capital be reduced by
$263. As a result, staff recommends a working capital allowance of $22,550.
In total, the Utility proposed a rate
base of $2,109,453. Based on the adjustments discussed above, staff recommends
that the rate base be increased by $185,074. As such, staff recommends an
adjusted rate base of $2,294,527. Rate base calculations are shown on Schedule
No. 1-A. Staff’s adjustments are shown on Schedule No. 1-B.
Cost of Capital
Riverdale proposed an ROE of 9.83 percent,
based on the leverage formula in effect at the time of filing.
However, it has been Commission practice to use the leverage formula currently
in effect to determine a Utility’s ROE.
As such, 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 10.23 percent, with
a range of plus or minus 100 basis points, as shown on Schedule No. 2. As such,
staff recommends an ROE of 10.23 percent and an overall cost of capital of 8.64
percent.
Net Operating Income
The Utility projected net operating income (NOI) of
$178,038. Based on the adjustments above, staff calculated an NOI of $198,170.
The calculated NOI is shown in Schedule No. 3-A.
O&M Expenses
Riverdale proposed total O&M
expenses of $182,503. In its original filing, the Utility proposed salary and
wages expenses of $104,443. Upon examination of the salary and wages expense,
staff was unclear if it was intended to cover multiple positions, including a
licensed operator, a mechanic, and an administrative position, and if the
positions were to be in-house employees or contracted services. In response to
staff’s request for clarification, the Utility stated this expense was intended
to cover a single third party contractor with a current-day salary of
$78,000 with an estimated inflation factor applied to represent the anticipated
cost of $102,343 in 2035.
Staff compared the salary to similar positions within the 2023 American Water
Works Association compensation survey for small water and wastewater utilities
and believes the salary falls within a comparable range for a single position
with the listed responsibilities. As such, staff recommends that salaries and
wages expense be reduced by $2,100 to $102,343 and reclassified as contractual
services. Based on these adjustments, staff recommends total O&M expenses
of $180,403.
Net Depreciation Expense
The Utility reflected depreciation
expense, net of CIAC amortization, of negative $8,061. Based on staff’s
adjustments to rate base and recalculation of depreciation expense and CIAC
amortization using the correct accounts and deprecation rates, a corresponding
adjustment should be made to increase net depreciation expense by $54,922. As
such, staff recommends a net depreciation expense of $46,861.
Amortization Expense
Riverdale reflected an amortization expense balance of
$494 to reflect amortization of organization costs. Staff does not have any
adjustment to the Utility’s proposed balance. As such, staff recommends an
amortization expense of $494.
Taxes Other than Income
In its filing, the Utility included taxes other than
income (TOTI) expense of $39,806. Staff has recalculated the property tax
expense based on the recommended UPIS and accumulated depreciation balances and
recommends an adjustment be made to decrease TOTI by $353. Additionally, staff
recommends increasing regulatory assessment fees by $3,421 to recognize the
appropriate revenue requirement, as discussed below. As such, staff recommends
total TOTI expenses of $42,874.
Revenue Requirement
The Utility’s projected revenues
include O&M expenses, net depreciation expenses, taxes other than income,
as well as a return on investment. As a Sub Chapter S Corporation, staff notes
that Riverdale has no income tax expense. The Utility proposed a revenue
requirement of $392,780. Staff recommends an adjusted revenue requirement of
$468,802 be used to set initial rates for service. The calculation of
Riverdale’s projected revenue requirement is shown on Schedule No. 3-A. Staff’s
adjustments are shown on Schedule No. 3-B.
Rates and Rate Structure
Riverdale’s proposed rates are in
accordance with Rule 25-30.033(2), F.A.C., which requires that a base facility charge
(BFC) 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 $392,780 for its water
system.
Staff’s recommended water rates
on Schedule No. 4-A reflect staff’s recommended revenue requirement of $468,802
for the water system less projected miscellaneous revenues of $1,059. The
Utility projects an average residential consumption of approximately 7,603
gallons per month. The Utility proposed a residential rate structure consisting
of a 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 proposed water rates to
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.
Based on the above, staff’s recommended water rates, shown
on Schedule No. 4 are reasonable and should be approved. The approved rates
should be effective for services rendered as of 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 Riverdale Utility Holding, Inc.’s requested
initial customer deposits be approved?
Recommendation:
No. The appropriate initial customer deposit is $324
for water 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 $350
for water service for the residential 5/8” x 3/4” meter size 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 7,603 gallons per month for both water
and wastewater. Consequently, the average residential monthly bill will be
approximately $161.67 for water service, based on staff’s recommended rates.
Based on the above,
the appropriate initial customer deposits are $324 for water 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 initial
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:
What are the appropriate service availability
charges for Riverdale Utility Holding, Inc.?
Recommendation:
The appropriate service
availability charges are shown on Table 4-1 and should be approved. The recommended main extension and plant capacity charges should be
based on an estimated 250 gallons per day (gpd) of water demand. The
approved charges should be effective for services rendered or 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)
Staff Analysis:
Riverdale requested a meter installation charge of $250
for 5/8” x 3/4” meters and actual cost for all other meter sizes, service
installation charges of $500 for single service and $1,000 for double service,
a plant capacity charge of $10,118 per ERC, and a main extension charge of $2,091
per ERC for its water system. The Utility’s proposed ERC is 250 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.
Meter
Installation Charges
Riverdale requested approval of a meter installation charge of $250 for the 5/8” x 3/4” meter. All other meter sizes will
be installed at the Utility’s actual cost. The Utility’s proposed meter
installation charge of $250 is based on the estimated cost to install water
meters. Staff recommends that the meter installation charges are reasonable and
should be approved.
Service
Installation Charges
Riverdale requested service installation charges of $500 for a single
service and $1,000 for a double service. The service installation charge covers
the cost of connecting a property’s water meter to the water main, which
includes installing pipes and valves. In response to staff’s second data
request, Riverdale submitted documentation indicating the cost of service
installation for the single service of $500 and double service of $1,000. The
single service is for connecting one water line and double service is
connecting two water lines. Staff recommends that the service 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, which is installed by the Utility. Typically,
the Commission approves main extension charges for water based on the average
cost of the distribution system and the anticipated capacity in ERCs. In
developing its main extension charge, Riverdale did not use the average cost of
the distribution system to determine the appropriate charge, resulting in an
incorrect charge of $2,091. The average cost of the distribution system per ERC
is $5,399 ($1,608,962/298 ERCs). Therefore, staff believes the appropriate main
extension charge is $5,399 and 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 $10,118, resulted in contribution levels of 75
percent, which is the maximum guideline provided in the rule mentioned above. However, the Utility’s calculations contained errors, resulting in an incorrect
charge of $10,118.
Based on staff’s recommended Utility plant in service, a plant capacity
charge of $5,675 per ERC should be approved. Staff’s recommended plant
capacity charges result in a contribution level of 75 percent, which is
equivalent to the contribution levels proposed by the Utility. Staff’s
recommended charges are with Rule 25-30.580, F.A.C., and will allow Riverdale to
maintain an appropriate level of investment in its system. Table 4-1 below
displays the Utility’s proposed and staff’s recommended service availability
charges for its water system.
Table
4-1
Service Availability Charges
|
|
Utility Proposed
|
Staff Recommended
|
|
|
Charge
|
Water
|
Water
|
|
Meter Installation Charge
|
$250
|
$250
|
|
Service Installation Charge (Single Service)
|
$500
|
$500
|
|
Service Installation Charge (Double Service)
|
$1,000
|
$1,000
|
|
Main Extension Charge
ERC =250 gpd
|
$2,091
|
$5,399
|
|
Plant Capacity Charge
ERC = 250 gpd
|
$10,118
|
$5,675
|
Source: Utility’s Cost Justification and Staff Calculations
Based on the above, the appropriate service availability charges are shown on Table 4-1 and should be
approved. The recommended main extension and plant
capacity charges should be based on an estimated 250 gpd of water demand. The
approved charges should be effective for services rendered or 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 5:
Should the temporary meter deposit requested by
Riverdale Utility Holding, Inc. 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 temporary
meter deposit should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped
approval date on the tariff sheet pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. Riverdale
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)
Staff Analysis:
Riverdale 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, Riverdale
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. Riverdale
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 6:
Should Riverdale Utility Holding, Inc.’s request for
a meter tampering charge be approved?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Utility’s request for meter tampering charge
at actual cost should be approved. The approved charge should be effective for
service rendered or 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 its approved charge until authorized to change them by the Commission in
a subsequent proceeding. (Bethea)
Staff Analysis:
In its application, the
Utility requested a meter tampering charge of actual cost. 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 Riverdale 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. If meter tampering is revealed,
Rule 25-30.320, F.A.C. allows the Utility to assess actual cost of any damages
incurred.
Based on the above, the Utility’s request for a meter
tampering charge at actual cost should be approved The approved charge should
be effective for service rendered or 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 its approved charge until authorized to change
them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 7:
What are the appropriate miscellaneous service
charges for Riverdale Utility Holding, Inc.?
Recommendation:
The appropriate miscellaneous service charges are
shown on Table 7-3 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 or connections made on or after the stamped
approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. The
Utility should be required to charge the approved miscellaneous service charges
until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. (Bethea)
Staff Analysis:
Section
367.091, F.S., authorizes the Commission to establish miscellaneous service
charges. Riverdale’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. On
January 25, 2024, Riverdale clarified that its request for an original
certificate was only for water.
Therefore, the request for all wastewater charges should be removed and
are not addressed in the recommendation. The Utility’s requested miscellaneous
service charges for water are shown below in Table 7-1.
Table
7-1
Utility’s Requested Miscellaneous Service Charges
|
|
Business
Hours
|
|
Initial Connection
|
$46.05
|
|
Normal Reconnection
|
$46.05
|
|
Premise Visit Charge
|
$46.05
|
|
Violation Reconnection Charge
|
Actual
Cost
|
|
Water Meter Testing Fee
|
$63.51
|
|
Late Payment Charge
|
$5.00
|
Premise Visit and Violation
Reconnection Charges
The Utility requested initial
connection, normal reconnection, and premise visit charges of $46.05 during
normal business hours. Additionally, Riverdale requested that its violation
reconnection charge for its wastewater system be actual cost pursuant to Rule
25-30.460(1)(c), F.A.C. The Utility’s request for initial connection and normal
reconnection charges do not conform to the Commission rules. Rule 25-30.460,
F.A.C., was amended to remove initial connection and normal reconnection
charges.[7] The
definitions for initial connection charges and normal reconnection charges were
subsumed in the definition of the premise visit charge. Therefore, the Utility’s
proposed initial connection and normal reconnection charges are obsolete. The Utility’s
request for premise visit charge of $46.05 is shown below on Table 7-1. Staff
believes the premise visit charge of $46.05 is reasonable and should be
approved pursuant to Rule 25-30.460, F.A.C.
The Utility
proposed separate charges for the violation reconnection charge at actual cost.
However, pursuant to Commission rule, a Utility may only charge wastewater
customers at actual cost for reconnection. In addition, the Commission
considers the violation reconnection charge to be a disconnection and
reconnection subsumed as one charge. Therefore, the Utility’s violation
reconnection charge should represent two premise visit charge, which is $92.10
($46.05 x 2) for business hours.
The Utility
requested a water meter re-read charge of $63.51. Staff contacted the Utility
for clarification of its requested charge. The Utility requested that the meter
re-read charge be a premise visit charge. If a customer is not satisfied with
the original meter read, a second meter read should be covered as a premise
visit charge under Rule 25-30.466, F.A.C. Staff recommends that the premise
visit charge is appropriate for conducting meter re-reads.
Late Payment Charge
The Utility requested to
implement a late payment charge of $5. The purpose of this charge is not only
to provide an incentive for customers to make timely payment, thereby reducing
the number of delinquent accounts, but also to place the cost burden of
processing such delinquencies solely upon those who are the cost causers. Riverdale
is requesting to recover administrative and supply cost for processing late
payment notices. Staff believes the requested late payment charge is reasonable
and should be approved.
Staff’s
recommended miscellaneous service charges are shown below on Table 7-2.
Table 7-2
Staff Recommended Miscellaneous Service Charges
|
|
Business
Hours
|
|
Premise Visit Charge
|
$46.05
|
|
Violation Reconnection Charge
|
$92.10
|
|
Damaging/Tampering/Altering Meter or Utility System
|
Actual
Cost
|
|
Late Payment Charge
|
$5.00
|
Based on the above, the appropriate miscellaneous service
charges are shown on Table 7-2 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. Riverdale should be required to charge
the approved miscellaneous service charges until authorized to change them by
the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 8:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
Yes. If no protest to the proposed agency action is
filed by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the date of the
issuance of the Order, a Consummating Order should be issued and the docket
should be closed administratively upon Commission staff’s verification that the
revised tariff sheets have been filed, the utility has verified in writing that
it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision, and
that the utility has submitted the executed and recorded warranty deed within
60 days of the Commission’s Order. (Sandy)
Staff Analysis:
Yes. If no protest to the proposed agency action is
filed by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the date of the
issuance of the Order, a Consummating Order should be issued and the docket
should be closed administratively upon Commission staff’s verification that the
revised tariff sheets have been filed, the utility has verified in writing that
it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision, and
that the utility has submitted the executed and recorded warranty deed within
60 days of the Commission’s Order.
