STATE OF FLORIDA - Public Service Commission

ORDERNO. PSC-12-0102-FOF-WS
DOCKETNO. 100330-WS
PAGE 34
at all of the seMce hearings. Further, Pasco County asserted that with so many customers
hurting from the high rates and poor water quality, they did not need any encouragement to voice
their concerns.
With regad to several utilities in Pasco County that were acquired by FGUA, witness
Mariauo acknowledged that customers of these utilities were not chged Pasco County's rates
following the acquisitions. He c Hed that customers' new rates are based upon the acquisition
price of the utility. He further acknowledged that an FGUA customer with a quality of seMce
issue must address that issue with FGUA or the Pasco County CommissiOn; and that the FGUA
board consists of no elected officials, although a representative of the Board of County
Commissioners sits on that board. Witness Mariano asserted that since FGUA's acquisitions of
each of those utilitia, the Pasco County Commission has not received a single quality of Service
complaint.
In its brief, the AG explained that customers testified that they had made great sacrifices
to come water, including not bathing daily, not participating in activities that would reqk
them to bathe, not flushing toilets after each use, saving water from showers to flush toilets, and
not having guests because they could not afford additional water usage. Customers also tesfified
about fresuent replacement of water heatas, faucets, and appliances due to poor water qdty.
With regard to customer service, the AG adopted OPC's statement and added that the use of an
independent verifier, which AUF conceded it does not currently employ, would assist the Utility
in identifying areas of concern and improving customer seMce, resulting in decreased costs and
satisfied customers who feel their complaints are taken seriously. The AG concluded that the
poor water quality has impacted the customers, small business owners, and communities served
by AUF. As a result of the poor water quality and the high rates, some customers have vacated
their rental properties while others have been unable to sell their homes and move because
potential buyers do not want to own homes in areas served by AUF. With respect to the AG's
encouragement of AUF's use of an independent vedier to review customer calls, we note that
AUF witness Chambers' testified that she has found our Mto be helpful, knowledgeable, and a
good resource. She concluded that if AUF needed to find an objective, unbiased third party, our
staff would be a good choice. In addition, regarding the AG's argument that AUF's Service has
prevented residents h m selling their homes, we note that the AG has failed to consider the role
of Florida's statewide decline in property values and high level of home foreclosures, as
demomtrated by the Florida Legislature Office of Economic and Demographic Research
In response to AUF witness Chambers' statement regarding a well-orcheshated effort by
interested parties and other non-party special interest groups to encourage customers to complain
against AUF, the AG asked witness Chambers whether OPC asked service hearing witnesses to
testify to their experiences with AUF, even if those experiences were positive. Witness
Chambers conceded that that was true and acbowledged that OPC's statement did not sound
like an encouragement to complain.
In her testimony, staffwitness Hicks noted that CATS was reviewed for complaints fled
against AUF under Rule 25-22.032, F.A.C. Approximately 400 complaints were received from
January 1, 2009, through September 30, 2011. An analysis of these complaints revealed 71