Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should Hash Utilities, LLC’s application for a
grandfather water certificate in Citrus County for its Dunnellon Hills water
system be acknowledged?
Recommendation:
Yes. Dunnellon Hills’ application
should be acknowledged and the Utility should be granted Certificate No. 689-W,
effective May 28, 2024, to serve the territory described in Attachment A. The
resultant order should serve as Dunnellon Hills’ certificate and should be
retained by the Utility. (M. Watts, Bardin)
Staff Analysis:
The Utility’s application for a
certificate under grandfather rights to provide water service in Citrus County
is in compliance with Section 367.171(2)(b), F.S., and Rule 25-30.035, F.A.C. The
application contains a quitclaim deed as proof of ownership of the land on
which the Utility’s facilities are located,
an accurate territory description, and adequate service territory and system
maps. The territory description is provided in Attachment A.
As stated in the case background,
Dunnellon Hills serves approximately 45 residential customers. The Utility does
not currently have any outstanding citations, violations, or consent orders on
file with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
The Utility is aware of its obligation
to submit its 2024 Annual Report pursuant to Rule 25-30.110, F.A.C., and is
also aware of its obligation to pay regulatory assessment fees pursuant to Rule
25-30.120, F.A.C. In addition, the Utility is aware that it must maintain its
books and records according to the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners’ Uniform System of Accounts.
Conclusion
Based on the above, staff recommends
that Dunnellon Hills be granted Certificate No. 689-W to serve the territory
described in Attachment A. The resultant order should serve as the Utility’s
certificate and should be retained by the Utility.
Issue 2:
What rates, charges, and deposits should be approved
for Dunnellon Hills Utilities, LLC?
Recommendation:
Of the Utility’s rates, charges, and deposits that
were approved by Citrus County and in effect when Citrus County transferred
jurisdiction to the Commission, the rates, charges, and initial customer
deposit shown on Schedule No. 1 are appropriate and should be approved. In
addition, the Utility’s existing Violation Reconnection Charge, Late Payment
Charge, and NSF Charge should be approved. These charges, as well as the rate,
charges, and initial customer deposit shown in Schedule No. 1, should be
effective for services rendered or connections made on or after the stamped
approval date on the tariff sheets. The Utility should be required to charge
the approved Violation Reconnection Charge, Late Payment Charge, and NSF
Charge, as well as the rates, charges and initial customer deposit shown in
Schedule No. 1 until authorized to change them by the Commission in a
subsequent proceeding. (Chambliss)
Staff Analysis:
Citrus County Water and
Wastewater Authority approved the Utility’s current monthly rates by Final
Order 23-03 on August 14, 2023. The bi-monthly water rates consist of a base
facility charge (BFC) and gallonage charge per 1,000 gallons. However, it
appears the Utility has not been billing the appropriate rates, which will be
addressed in Issue 4. Staff recommends that the rates that were last approved
in Final Order 23-03 by Citrus County should be billed to customers and
approved by the Commission.
The Utility’s water charges
consist of miscellaneous service charges and service availability charges,
which include a service availability policy. The miscellaneous service charges
were established under the prior owner, however, some of the miscellaneous
service charges are not consistent with the Florida Statutes or Commission
Rules and staff recommends they be modified in Issue 3. However, as stated
previously, the Utility’s existing Violation Reconnection Charge, Late Payment
Charge, and NSF Charge remain unchanged and should be approved herein. The
Utility’s service availability charges were approved in Final Order 24-01 on
January 29, 2024.
Conclusion
Staff recommends that, of the
Utility’s rates, charges, and deposits that were approved by Citrus County and
in effect when Citrus County transferred jurisdiction to the Commission, only
the rates, charges, and initial customer deposit shown on Schedule No. 1, and
the Utility’s existing Violation Reconnection Charge, Late Payment Charge, and
NSF Charge, are appropriate and should be approved. The rate, charges, and
initial customer deposit shown in Schedule No. 1 should be effective for
services rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on
the tariff sheets. The Utility should be required to charge the approved
Violation Reconnection Charge, Late Payment Charge, and NSF Charge, as well as
the rates, charges and initial customer deposit shown in Schedule No. 1 until
authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 3:
What are the appropriate miscellaneous service
charges for Dunnellon Hills Utilities, LLC?
Recommendation:
With the exception of the Utility’s existing
Violation Reconnection Charge, Late Payment Charge, and NSF Charge (which are
approved in Issue 2), the appropriate miscellaneous service charges shown on
Table 3-2 should be approved. The Utility should be required to file a proposed
customer notice 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 sheet pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. In
addition, the tariff sheets will be approved upon staff’s verification that the
tariffs are consistent with the Commission’s decision and that the proposed
customer notice is adequate. (Chambliss)
Staff Analysis:
The Utility did not request
to revise its existing miscellaneous service charges. Section
367.091, F.S., authorizes the Commission to establish, increase, or change a
rate or charge other than monthly rates or service availability charges. Staff
recommends that some of the Utility’s existing charges that are set forth in
Table 3-1, be revised to conform with Rule 25-30.460, F.A.C. As discussed in
Issue 2, the Utility’s existing Violation Reconnection Charge, Late Payment Charge,
and NSF Charge should be approved without modification, but are shown below for
illustrative purposes. The Utility’s current miscellaneous service charges for
water service consist of various charges and are shown on Table 3-1.
Table 3-1
Dunnellon
Hills Utilities, LLC Existing Miscellaneous Service Charges
|
|
Existing Charges
|
|
Initial Connection Charge
|
$45.00
|
|
Normal Reconnection Charge
|
$45.00
|
|
Violation Reconnection Charge
|
$45.00
|
|
Premises
Visit Charge (in lieu of disconnection)
|
$45.00
|
|
Premises Visit Charge
|
$30.00
|
|
Late Payment Charge
|
$5.00
|
|
NSF Charge
|
Pursuant to Section 68.065, F.S.
|
|
Tampering Charge
|
$150.00
|
Source:
Document No. 08240-2024, filed on August 6, 2024, in Docket No. 20240114-WU.
Premises Visit Charge and Violation Reconnection
Charge
As shown on Table 3-1, the
Utility currently has an initial connection charge, a normal reconnection
charge, a violation reconnection charge, and a premises visit charge (in lieu
of disconnection) of $45. The Utility also has a separate “Premises Visit
Charge” of $30. However, pursuant to Rule 25-30.460(2)(a), F.A.C., initial and
reconnection charges are subsumed within the definition of the premises visit
charge. Therefore, staff recommends that the initial and normal reconnection
charges be removed.
According to the Utility, the
premises visit charge of $30 is assessed when customers request a meter
re-read. A meter re-read is usually assessed when an initial reading is not an
error of the Utility. Therefore, staff recommends that the premises visit
charge of $30 be removed as it should be covered under the general premises
visit charge of $45. Staff recommends that the Utility’s
definition for “premises visit charge” be updated to comply with Rule
25-30.460, F.A.C.
Tampering or Prohibited
Connection or Use Charge
The Utility has a tampering charge
of $150 for water service. Rule 25-30.320(2)(j), F.A.C., provides that a
utility may refuse or discontinue service without notice in the event of
unauthorized or fraudulent use of service. Whenever service is discontinued for
fraudulent use of such service, the Utility, before restoring service, may
require the customer to make at his own expense all changes in piping or
equipment necessary to eliminate 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, staff recommends that the
Utility’s tampering charge of $150 be modified and approved at actual cost. The
appropriate water miscellaneous service charges shown on Table 3-2 should be
approved.
Table 3-2
Staff Recommended
Miscellaneous Service Charges
|
|
All Hours
|
|
Premises Visit
|
$45.00
|
|
Violation Reconnection
|
$45.00
|
|
Tampering or Prohibited
Connection or Use Charge
|
Actual Cost
|
|
NSF Charge (Water and
Wastewater)
|
Pursuant to Section
68.065, F.S.
|
|
Late Payment Charge
|
$5.00
|
Conclusion
The Utility’s existing Violation
Reconnection Charge, Late Payment Charge, and NSF Charge remain unchanged and
are recommended for approval in Issue 2, and are shown above for illustrative
purposes. The Utility should be required to file a proposed customer notice 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 sheet pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(2), F.A.C. In
addition, the tariff sheets will be approved upon staff’s verification that the
tariffs are consistent with the Commission’s decision and that the proposed
customer notice is adequate.
Issue 4:
Did Dunnellon Hills bill the appropriate rates
pursuant to Citrus County Final Order 23-03 and, if not, what is the
appropriate action?
Recommendation:
The Utility did not bill the appropriate rates per
Citrus County Final Order 23-03. Staff recommends that a docket be opened to
investigate the utility’s billing practices and determine the appropriate
action. (Chambliss)
Staff Analysis:
As mentioned in Issue 2, the Utility is currently charging rates that
were not authorized by Citrus County. As reflected in the current tariff,
Dunnellon Hills bills a bi-monthly base facility charge of $21.96 for its
residential and general service customers and a gallonage charge of $5.03 per
1,000 gallons. However, Citrus County Final Order 23-03 only authorizes a
monthly BFC of $21.35 and a gallonage charge of $4.89 per 1,000 gallons. Staff
contacted the County which indicated that the Utility’s last price index
increase was approved in Final Order 23-03 on August 14, 2023.
On March 4, 2024, the County issued Final Order 24-04 which authorized the
Utility to apply for a 3.24 percent
price index increase which Dunnellon Hills allegedly applied. As reflected in
unissued Citrus County Final Order 24-05, County staff had identified
application deficiencies which suggested that 2.84 percent would be the more
appropriate price index adjustment for the Utility. However, draft Final Order
24-05 was never signed or issued by the Citrus County Water and Wastewater
Authority because the May 20, 2024 meeting to officially decide that matter was
canceled due to the change of Citrus County jurisdiction in progress with the
Commission. It appears to Commission staff that the Utility mistakenly
implemented a 2.84 percent increase to its 2023 approved rates before Citrus
County Water and Wastewater Authority rendered a decision. Therefore, according
to the Utility’s tariff, customers are being overcharged. Staff recommends that
a docket be opened to investigate this matter further.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the Utility did not bill the appropriate rates per
Citrus County Final Order 23-03. Staff recommends that a docket be opened to
investigate the Utility’s billing practices and determine the appropriate
action.
Issue 5:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
If
no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency
action portion of this recommendation 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 this action is complete, this
docket should be closed administratively. (Marquez)
Staff Analysis:
If
no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency
action portion of this recommendation 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 this action is complete, this
docket should be closed administratively.
