Case Title: Duval Utility Co. v. FLA. PUBLIC SERV. COM'N

Citation: 380 So. 2d 1028

Docket Number: 55723, 56105

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1980-02-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
380 So. 2d 1028 (1980)
DUVAL UTILITY COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
The FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent.
PASCO WATER AUTHORITY, INC., Etc., Petitioner,
v.
The FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent.
Nos. 55723, 56105.

Supreme Court of Florida.
February 21, 1980.
*1029 Kenneth M. Myers and R.M.C. Rose, of Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin & Richards, Miami, for Duval Utility Co. and Pasco Water Authority, Inc., petitioners.
Leon F. Olmstead, Staff Counsel and Prentice P. Pruitt, Legal Director, Tallahassee, for Florida Public Service Commission; and Jack Shreve, Public Counsel and William S. Bilenky, Associate Public Counsel, Tallahassee, for the Citizens of the State of Florida, respondents.
Gary P. Sams, of Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams, Tallahassee, for General Development Utilities, Inc. and Florida Waterworks Ass'n, amicus curiae.
Gerald A. Figurski, County Atty., and Scott L. Knox, Chief Asst. County Atty., Port Richey, for Pasco County, amicus curiae.
ENGLAND, Chief Justice.
These consolidated cases bring to us two orders of the Public Service Commission which condition the right of two utilities to receive service availability charges (commonly known as "connection charges," or contributions in aid of construction) from their customers. Under the commission's orders, the utilities must agree to hold all such charges from company customers solely for the use and benefit of those customers, not only during the course of future rate proceedings but also upon the sale or other disposition of the utilities' properties. The main purpose of the commission's condition for service availability charges is to assure that customers do not have to pay for the system twice upon its sale or condemnation, once through their contributions and a second time through their rates to support the transferee's investment when a sale or condemnation includes contributions. A more complete factual account of the history of this case is helpful to its determination.
The utilities applied to the commission for approval of service availability charges pursuant to section 367.101, Florida Statutes (1977). Appropriate proceedings were conducted by the commission for a determination of the propriety of the proposed charges, after which the commission entered orders approving the requested amount of charges. In those orders, the commission for the first time articulated what it described as "a new approach to the question of customer contributions." The relevant text of one of the orders explains this new approach and its rationale:
Three issues are presented for our consideration, the first of which is dispositive.[1] That issue is whether, as petitioners allege, there was an absence of competent and substantial evidence to support the commission's findings.[2] We agree with petitioners that the evidence was legally deficient.
The commission supports its conclusion regarding conditional service availability charges (i) by the testimony of a county commissioner in one proceeding to the effect that a municipal or county condemning *1031 authority would be required to pay for contributions in aid of construction, and (ii) by an accountant for the company in the other proceeding to the effect that customers would never receive any proceeds from a sale or condemnation of the water utility. While these statements are obviously relevant to the ultimate policy decision  whether customers should receive the benefit of service availability charges on the sale or disposition of utility property  they do not constitute competent substantial evidence for the commission's determination.
Competent substantial evidence is "such evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can reasonably be inferred [or] ... such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion." De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912, 916 (Fla. 1957). The conclusory statements relied on by the commission do not provide sufficient support for the findings necessary to underpin the commission's action, among which are: (1) that on sale or condemnation, the cost of all property designated as contributions in aid of construction must be supported by the rates paid by customers, and (2) that on sale or condemnation of utility property no allowance or price reduction is made for contributions in aid of construction.
Because the orders lack competent substantial evidence to support the commission's incipient policy determination,[3] we quash that portion of the order conditioning service availability charges and remand these cases for further proceedings below. Section 120.68(10), Fla. Stat. (1977).
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
BOYD, J., dissents.
[1]  Petitioners allege that their right to procedural due process was violated by the lack of adequate notice that a new condition would be imposed, § 120.57(1)(b)2, Fla. Stat. (1977), and by the denial of an opportunity to address the issue in an adjudicative proceeding, § 120.57(1)(b)4, Fla. Stat. (1977). They also allege that the commission lacks legal authority to condition the approval of service availability charges, either under section 367.101, Florida Statutes (1977), or under any other statute by which the commission is assigned responsibility over water and sewer companies. In light of our decision on the first issue, we find it unnecessary to reach either of these issues.
[2]  §§ 120.68(10), 120.57(1)(b)7, Fla. Stat. (1977).
[3]  McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).