Case Background
St. Johns River
Estates Utilities, LLC (St. Johns or Utility) is a Class C water and wastewater
utility serving approximately 100 customers in Putnam County, Florida. The
Utility’s service territory is located in the St. Johns River Water Management
District. The Utility received Certificate Nos. 542-W and 470-S in 2020 after a
system transfer. The Florida Public Service Commission (Commission)
last set the rates for this Utility’s systems in a staff-assisted rate case (SARC)
in 2000. St. Johns applied for a SARC in Docket No.
20230131-WS, however, the application was denied after official acceptance
because the Utility did not pay the filing fee on time. The Utility re-applied on January 30,
2024, but the SARC was ultimately denied because St. Johns had not submitted
its latest Annual Report and had not paid its regulatory assessment fees.
On July 14,
2025, St. Johns again filed an application for SARC pursuant to Section
367.0814, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 25-30.455, Florida Administrative
Code (F.A.C.). Once an application is filed, staff has 30
days to either accept or deny the application after making an eligibility and
application sufficiency determination pursuant to Sections 367.083 and
367.0814(1), F.S., and Rule 25-30.455(1), (4)–(5), F.A.C. Staff found St. Johns
ineligible for a SARC and issued a Denial Letter on August 13, 2025, which was the
30th day.
On August 28,
2025, St. Johns filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The Utility alleges its employee was out
on medical leave for four weeks but was now getting caught up. The Utility
further alleges that it is “now ready and able to engage [Commission] staff to
complete this request.”
This recommendation
addresses St. Johns’ Motion for Reconsideration. The Commission has
jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Chapter 367, including Section
367.0814, F.S.
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant St. Johns’ Motion for
Reconsideration?
Recommendation:
No. Staff recommends that the Commission deny St.
Johns’ Motion for Reconsideration because St. Johns has failed to raise a point
of fact or law that staff overlooked or failed to consider in issuing the
Denial Letter. (Marquez)
Staff Analysis:
Law
Section 367.083, F.S., provides that “[w]ithin 30 days
after receipt of an application . . . for which an official date of filing is
to be established, the [C]ommission or
its designee shall either” accept or reject the application. Additionally,
pursuant to Section 367.0814(1), F.S., the Commission “may establish rules by
which a water or wastewater utility . . . may request staff assistance for the
purpose of changing its rates and charges.” The Commission has exercised the
discretion afforded to it by Sections 367.083 and 367.0814, F.S., in
promulgating Rule 25-30.455, F.A.C., to grant staff administrative authority to
accept or deny SARC applications. This Rule contemplates denials on the bases
of eligibility or application deficiency. Subsection (8) of the Rule permits an
applicant to seek reconsideration of any such denials before the full
Commission.
Thus, staff submits that in this circumstance the
appropriate standard of review for reconsideration would be the same as that of
a Commission order—whether the motion identifies a point of fact or law that
was overlooked or that was failed to be considered in rendering the decision
under review. See e.g., Stewart Bonded Warehouse, Inc. v. Bevis,
294 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1974); Diamond Cab
Co. v. King, 146 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1962); Pingree v. Quaintance, 394 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). It is
not appropriate to reargue matters that have already been considered. Sherwood v. State, 111 So. 2d 96 (Fla.
3d DCA 1959); citing State ex. rel.
Jaytex Realty Co. v. Green, 105 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958).
Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration should not be granted “based upon an
arbitrary feeling that a mistake may have been made, but should be based upon
specific factual matters set forth in the record and susceptible to review.” Stewart Bonded Warehouse, Inc., 294 So.
2d at 317.
St. Johns’ Motion for Reconsideration
In its Motion for Reconsideration, St. Johns states that
its employee was out on medical leave for four weeks but was now getting caught
up. The Utility further alleged that it was “now ready and able to engage
[Commission] staff to complete this request.”
Analysis
Eligibility requirements for a SARC are reflected in Rule
25-30.455(1), (4)(c), F.A.C. Specifically, an applicant must (1) have total
gross annual operating revenues no more than $335,000 for water service or
wastewater service (or $670,000 on a combined basis); (2) have at least one
year of experience operating the utility for which the rate increase is sought;
(3) be in compliance with annual report filings pursuant to Rule
25-30.110(3)–(5), F.A.C.; (4) be up-to-date with all regulatory assessment fee
payments or on an approved payment plan; and (5) allow for preliminary
examination of the condition of the utility’s books and records. At issue here
was the final prong of the eligibility analysis.
Staff made multiple attempts to reach St. Johns using a
mixture of phone calls, voicemail messages, and e-mails in order to verify the
condition of the Utility’s books and records. Staff called the Utility on July
22nd, July 23rd, July 25th, and August 5th. Staff left voicemail messages
introducing themselves and explaining the reason for the calls on more than one
occasion. In addition, staff e-mailed St. Johns for the purpose of obtaining
the necessary information on July 23rd, twice on July 30th, and on August 8th.
All contact attempts were made using the phone number and e-mail address on
file with the Commission and provided in the application filing. However, the
Utility was unresponsive. Staff was therefore unable to determine the current
condition of St. Johns’ books and records. Staff also noted that when St. Johns
was last audited in Docket No. 20230131-WS, auditing staff determined the
Utility’s books and records were not in accordance with the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners’ Uniform System of Accounts. Because
of these circumstances, staff found St. Johns ineligible for a SARC and issued
a Denial Letter on August 13, 2025 (which was the last day a decision could be
made).
In its Motion for Reconsideration, St. Johns does not
allege any point of fact or law that was overlooked or that was failed to be
considered in issuing the Denial Letter. The Utility states that its employee
was out on medical leave for four weeks but was now getting caught up. At best,
the Utility seeks to put forward new information not previously provided to
staff in order to explain the lack of communication. However, this merely confirms
the Utility’s own unresponsiveness during the time in question. The Denial
Letter was not premised upon a mistaken belief that the unresponsiveness was
intentional rather than unintentional. The Commission was required to either
accept or deny the application by August 13, 2025, pursuant to Rule
25-30.455(4)(a), F.A.C. In addition, even if one estimates that the employee
was out on medical leave for the four weeks prior to filing the Motion for
Reconsideration, this would still suggest that the Utility received four of
staff’s attempted communications during the week of July 21st but still did not
respond.
St. Johns further asserts that it is “now ready and able
to engage your staff to complete this request.” Upon receiving St. Johns’
Motion for Reconsideration on August 28th, staff e-mailed the Utility asking if
it was available to discuss that afternoon. The Utility did not respond. On
September 8th, staff left the Utility a voicemail message requesting to set up
a time to discuss its motion and application for SARC. The Utility did not
respond. On September 23rd, the Utility e-mailed and asked if the SARC could
move forward. Staff replied by e-mail that the SARC could not proceed at this
time and that the Motion for Reconsideration would be addressed by the Commission
on October 7th. Staff also suggested in its reply e-mail that a call to discuss
could be set up if St. Johns was interested. However, as of the date of this
recommendation, the Utility has still not contacted auditing staff (whose
contact information was provided numerous times) despite its assertion that it
was “now ready and able to engage your staff to complete this request.” Thus,
the same periodic unresponsiveness and lack of information continues.
Therefore staff believes that the Utility has failed to
raise a point of fact or law that was overlooked or that was failed to be
considered before issuing the Denial Letter, particularly when St. Johns was
provided the maximum amount of time to respond permitted by statute. Staff
believes it appropriately denied the application given these circumstances. As
explained in the Denial Letter, when St. Johns is ready and able to engage
staff in regular, timely, and ongoing communication, it may file a new
application for a SARC.
Conclusion
Staff
recommends denying St. Johns’ Motion for Reconsideration under the Commission’s
traditional standard of review as the Utility has failed to raise a point of
fact or law that was overlooked or not considered in issuing the Denial Letter.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be
closed?
Recommendation:
Yes. This docket should be closed upon the issuance
of a Final Order. (Marquez, Farooqi)
Staff Analysis:
Having denied St. Johns’ Motion for Reconsideration,
there are no remaining matters in this docket that the Commission must address.
Therefore, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a Final Order.
