​Friday, Oct. 21st: Local news reported that 6 boats were affected when a fire broke out at the Palm Harbour Marina. The cause stated was sparks generated by sawing on the roof. Video footage was posted on the Don Pedro Island FB page.

On Thursday, September 8th, the 3-member panel of Commissioners at the PSC rendered their final judgment on the application for wastewater certification from Environmental Utilities, LLC.

The first item for discussion was the request to hear oral arguments. Staff member Ryan Sandy reiterated staff's position, that "the pleadings are sufficient on their face to evaluate and decide" the motion. However, the Commissioners opted to allow each party 7 minutes to speak.

Martin Friedman spoke first on behalf of EU.  He mentioned 5 central water and wastewater systems on the Island, asking how can wastewater service be prohibited when they already exist there? “Staff didn’t address that” he said. He then waved a map from the Sewer Master Plan, arguing that the Island appears in red, indicating it belonged in the County’s 5-year improvement plan. Finally, he insisted that the County supplied an appointee who testified that the County was 100% in support of the project.

Linda Cotherman rebutted Mr. Friedman’s arguments. First, she pointed out that the only wastewater facilities on the Islands are package plants, quite different from a central sewer system. She then spoke about the inconsistencies in various maps and locations identified in the Sewer Master Plan, and the fact that the Sewer Master Plan is now being updated.

Brad Kelsky spoke representing PIE.  He opened by stating that EU was “re-hashing what has already been decided.” He then pointed out that the County had ample time to participate in the process, yet they did not send an authority with any knowledge of the comprehensive plan. PIE did provide an expert witness who testified that the sewer project was inconsistent with the County’s Comp Plan.

When the time came for the ruling, Commissioner LaRosa indicated that his position was aligned with the PSC staff recommendations.  Commissioner Passidomo said that the standards for reconsideration “are whether we made a mistake of fact.” She saw nothing in the motion that met those standards.

Commissioner Clark had the last word before the vote. He started by pointing out that "establishment of the need for service is the biggest driving need" for approval of central sewer certification. "If the County wanted, they could stop issuing septic permits. That would establish a need for service real quick."

At 10:41 AM, the PSC Commissioners denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

While the PSC has made their last ruling, EU still has an opportunity to appeal their decision to the First District Court in Tallahassee. According to Ryan Sandy of the PSC, "The appeal period will be spelled out in the "notice of further proceedings" section at the end of the order on reconsideration, once it issues."  The order is scheduled to be released on September 28th. 

After some delays, on Friday July 8th, the FINAL ORDER Denying Application for an Original Certificate to Provide Wastewater Service in Charlotte County by Environmental Utilities, LLC was posted to the PSC website.

The year-and-a-half plus administrative utility case that began with Environmental Utilities’ application to extend sewer to the Islands concluded with:
"ORDERED that for the reasons set forth herein, we find that it is not in the public interest
to grant Environmental Utilities, LLC's application for a certificate to provide wastewater
service in Charlotte County. The application is therefore denied. It is further ORDERED that this docket shall be closed."

So, is it over? Not quite yet.  According to the Final Order, the EU, LLC may request:

• A reconsideration of the decision by filing a motion for reconsideration with the PSC within

fifteen (15) days of the issuance of the final order.

• A judicial review by the Florida First District Court of Appeal by filing a notice of appeal within thirty (30) days after the issuance of the final order.

It is interesting to note that on Tuesday, June 14th, the Charlotte County Board of County Commissioners opened discussions about the denial of the utility's application. The BOCC agreed to direct staff to write a letter to the PSC supporting the application.  Chairman Tiseo indicated that owner Jack Boyer had phoned each of the Commissioners the day before to apprise them of the ruling. 

According to the letter, "the County whole-heartedly supports Environmental Utilities' cost-effective proposal for the removal of septic systems and the connection to sewer to treat wastewater on the
barrier islands with the condition that the project's estimated costs must remain substantially consistent with Environmental Utilities' proposal." This letter was approved at the Commission meeting on June 28th and was immediately sent to the PSC.  

Two days later, Charles Rehwinkle from the Office of Public Counsel wrote a letter to the Deputy Attorney at the PSC with concerns about the BOCC letter. He requested the Commission take steps to ensure that prohibited communications are not allowed to taint the case in the issuance of the Final Order. He also wrote "Likewise, I request that you take all steps necessary to ensure that the letter is in no way considered in any post hearing matters such as reconsideration, if such is sought, or inclusion in the record of the case on appeal, if one is taken."

Knight Island Utilities, Inc. also provided a support letter after the fact. PIE's counsel, Brad Kelsky, indicated that any communications received by the PSC after the record was closed on February 8th could not be introduced as evidence in the Administrative Hearing.

So, what is the upshot of all of this activity?  We should know by no later than Monday July 25th if EU has filed a motion for reconsideration and by Monday August 8th if they are filing an appeal.  PIE will continue to monitor this case closely, and keep you informed of any new developments.

After a year and a half of legal wrangling, the Public Service Commission delivered the ruling that Island stakeholders have been hoping for: the Commissioners denied EU’s application to provide wastewater service to the Islands.

At a very brief Commission Conference the morning of June 7th, the 3-Commissioner panel had an opportunity to open discussion and ask questions about the wastewater docket.

Commissioner LaRosa offered a synthesis of the arguments to deny the application. He opened his comments with a tribute to the uniqueness of our bridgeless barrier islands, and how it was a reminder that cases need to be assessed on an individual basis.  He spoke about the lack of need for service, mentioning the absence of any requests for sewer service from individuals or from a developer as well as the overwhelming opposition to the proposal. He also said that in his experience, if a County supports a proposal they are usually well represented in the case before the PSC. He found the absence of strong participation on behalf of Charlotte County noteworthy.

Commissioner Passidomo had a question regarding Charlotte County’s mandatory connection ordinance and whether it could be construed as an argument supporting the need for service.   Ryan Sandy [senior attorney] addressed this by explaining that hookup becomes a requirement where sewer is available, which would be after the utility had certification from the PSC.  In addition, the preponderance of the “need for service” arguments weighed in favor of denying the application. He also mentioned the conflict with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Passidomo seemed satisfied and requested that this be included in the docket’s Final Order.

Staff suggested that the Commissioners vote on issues #A, 1-9 and 14 first, since following the recommendations provided on these issues would make the remaining issues moot. The Commissioners then voted to accept the staff recommendations including denying the application and closing the docket.

Please remember that a final victory lap is premature.  EU has 30 days from the posting of the Final Order (due late June) to file an appeal of this decision.  According to our attorney, no new evidence is permitted in an appeal. The appeal would be solely based on legal arguments as to whether the PSC decision remained within the guidelines of what is permitted by law.

The video of the entire Commission Conference can be viewed HERE.  You can forward through the agenda items preceding the EU docket (we are last, item #11), but the whole meeting was very brief. 

Today (05.25.22) PIE received an email from our attorney Brad Kelsky with the subject line “Staff is recommending denial.” Attached was the comprehensive, 54-page Memorandum from the PSC staff to the Commissioners outlining each of the 14 issues associated with the wastewater application. 

Under Issue 2 “Need for Service”, the staff examined the arguments and determined that EU has not established a need for central sewer service here.  In Item 9 “Public Interest” the PSC staff states as follows:

“As discussed in Issue 2 [ed. note. Need for Service], staff recommends that the Utility has not demonstrated a need for service in the proposed service territory. Staff believes that this is of significant concern. The Utility has not provided any request for service from existing residents of the proposed service territory, and written correspondence has indicated that the existing residence are largely opposed to EU’s application. EU has not provided evidence that any environmental regulator mandated the conversion of septic systems to central sewer, and no evidence has been provided substantiating EU’s claim of an environmental or health related need. Nor were any County leaders present during the hearing to clarify the needs of the County. Finally, although customer preference is not an appropriate basis for granting or denying a certificate application, in terms of demonstrating a need for the service, the overwhelming majority of prospective customers who testified before the Commission stated they were in opposition to the application.

Since EU has not demonstrated a need for service, staff believes that EU’s financial and technical capability is irrelevant. Since no need for service exists, and the existing residents are largely opposed to EU’s application, staff believes the Utility’s application is not in the public interest. Therefore, staff recommends that EU’s application for a wastewater certificate should be denied.”

Note the references to the substantial opposition to EU’s proposal.  In the case background, staff wrote: “A total of 53 customers spoke at the service hearings and over 1,000 written customer comments were received.” It was clear that the participation of an engaged community was influential in the recommendations. 

Our Island communities should be very proud of the impact we have had in these proceedings. Every action– writing emails, watching and speaking at the hearings and donating to the legal Action Fund – made a huge difference.

A summary of the staff recommendations appears on the Commission Conference Agenda for June 7th (CLICK HERE to view). This is where the Commissioners will make their final ruling on the sewer docket by approving or discarding the staff recommendations.

CLICK HERE to view the detailed Memorandum from the PSC staff.

After a few cancelled dates, the new fire house ribbon-cutting was under way. The weather was letter-perfect, the turn-out was good and the new building was most impressive!

The Administrative Hearing for EU's central sewer application will take place over two days. There are 2 parts to the Hearing: 1) The Technical Hearing and 2) The Customer Service Hearings.  Here is a breakdown of what to expect at the Technical Hearing.

This is the courtroom drama portion of the hearing. The parties that will be participating in the Technical Hearing are:
​
1. EU (represented by Martin Friedman and John L. Wharton of Dean Mead Law Firm, Esquires)
2. PIE (represented by Brad Kelsky, Esquire)
3. Linda Cotherman
4. The Office of Public Counsel (represented by Richard Gentry and Anastacia Pirrello, Esquires)
5. The PSC Staff (Jennifer S. Crawford and Ryan Sandy, Esquires)
6. Advisor to the Public Service Commission (Mary Anne Helton, Esquire, Deputy General Counsel)

Each of the parties will be giving a brief opening statement.  Then each side will present their witnesses.

FIRST: DIRECT TESTIMONY

Each of the witnesses have already filed Direct Testimony with the PSC, including Exhibits to support their arguments. So, at the Technical Hearing, each witness will have up to 5 minutes to summarize their direct testimony. After the summary, they will be subject to cross-examination.  This is the order of appearance of the witnesses:

IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION (EU)
John R. Boyer (EU Owner/Operator)
Jonathan H. Cole (Engineer)
Deborah D. Swain (Accountant)

OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION (PIE)
Meryl Schaffer (PIE President)
Ellen Hardgrove (Land Use Expert)
Robert Weisberg (Water Quality Expert)
Stephen J. Suggs (Engineer)

OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION (Independent)
Linda Cotherman 

In this procedure, "friendly" cross-examination will not be allowed.  So, for example, PIE's attorney may only cross-examine the witnesses from EU and the attorneys from Dean Mead may only cross-examine the witnesses from PIE and Linda Cotherman. 

NEXT: REBUTTAL TESTIMONY

Following the Direct Testimony, three witnesses will present their rebuttal testimony: Again, the rebuttal testimony was pre-filed with the PSC before the hearing. But this is the opportunity for the opposition to cross examine these witnesses again, based on their rebuttal testimony.

1. John R. Boyer
2. Jonathan H. Cole
3. Deborah D. Swain

​If you want to dig in the tall weeds, CLICK HERE to view the official “Pre-Hearing Order”. This contains all of the information about how the Technical Hearing will proceed.  TIP: Scroll down to page 6 Part VIII “Issues and Positions”. Here you can read the 14 issues identified by the PSC related to the application, the position on each issue taken by each of the parties and which witness will provide testimony on that issue. It’s an interesting read.

If you cannot attend the hearings on 2/8 & 9, you can watch or listen to the proceedings on the live video broadcast the day of the hearings. Go to the Commission website at www.FloridaPSC.com. Look for the “Watch Live Broadcast” icon on the left side of the homepage. An audio only option is available by dialing 850-413-7999. The archived video will also be available after the hearings.

 There are two types of hearings that make up the Administrative Hearing:  the TECHNICAL HEARING and the SERVICE HEARINGS. 
If you enjoy the legal-ese, CLICK HERE to view the official Notice of Customer Service Hearings. EU recently sent this Notice via USPS.​
If not so much, read on below.

This is the portion of the Administrative Hearing where the attorneys and their witnesses present their arguments to the PSC.  Time has been reserved on Wednesday, February 9, 2022, for more of the technical hearing if needed. The continuation of the technical hearing would start immediately following the service hearing on Wednesday, 2/9.

We are encouraging all stakeholders to attend the technical hearing.  We are aware this will make for a long day in Venice, but we need to show solidarity in opposing this sewer proposal.

The customer service hearings is the opportunity for prospective customers of the Utility to speak to the Commissioners about this application for a wastewater certificate.  There will be two customer service hearings. You can register to speak at either hearing in one of three ways.
​

1. You can register using the Commission’s online registration form. 
2. You may register to speak by calling the PSC at 1-850-413-7080 or by emailing speakersignup@psc.state.fl.us. Specify which date you would like to speak. Registration (online, phone or email) is open now. The deadline to pre-register has passed.  
3. However, if you have not registered to speak prior to the service hearing, you may register when you arrive at the venue.

Please note that the order in which persons will speak is based on the order in which they register. 

For legal purposes, speakers at the hearings are considered “witnesses” and will be providing “public testimony”. As such, the Commissioners and others are permitted to ask questions, but we are told this is rare. All who wish to speak should appear promptly at the beginning of the scheduled service hearing since the hearing may be adjourned early if no one is present to testify.

Please send an email to stopprivatesewer@gmail.com to let PIE know if you will be attending and also if you are registering to speak to the Commission. It will help us monitor attendance and encourage more folks to participate.

​If you cannot attend the hearings on 2/8 & 9, you can watch or listen to the proceedings on the live video broadcast the day of the hearings. Go to the Commission website at www.FloridaPSC.com. Look for the “Watch Live Broadcast” icon on the left side of the webpage. An audio only option is available by dialing 850-413-7999. The archived video will also be available after the hearings.

Your email matters!
​If you haven’t had a chance to send in your objection to EU’s private sewer proposal, it’s not too late. Take 10 minutes and answer any of these questions in simple terms.
​

 ​1. Do you feel there is a proven need for the service?
2. Did you request sewer service on the Island?
3. Does the lack of information regarding the finances of this project concern you?
4. Does the lack of technical expertise of EU concern you?
5. Are you comfortable with the rates and charges associated with this project?
 
Simply forward your email to the following commissioners. Make sure to identify yourself with your name, address and email. Don’t forget to ask the PSC to deny EU’s application for wastewater service.

EMAIL TO:
Clerk of the Commission clerk@psc.state.fl.us
Commissioner LaRosa: Commissioner.LaRosa@psc.state.fl.us
Commissioner Clark: Commissioner.Clark@psc.state.fl.us
Commissioner Passidomo: Commissioner.Passidomo@psc.state.fl.us

​USE THE SUBJECT LINE:  RE. Docket #20200226-SU

We have not included a form letter template, as we've been advised that these letters should be personalized.  However, if you're stuck, we have lots of extra information that can help. Would you be interested in our list of Potential Impacts to Stakeholders? CLICK HERE.

Thank you for helping us stop this private sewer. And please urge your spouses, partners, friends and neighbors to write as well. Every email counts.

The Chief opened the floor to questions:

1. What do I do in an emergency?  Call 911 immediately. Dispatch needs your correct physical address. Turn on all of the lights in your house to better aid responders in locating the emergency. If someone is available, send them out to the end of the driveway to be visible and to assist responders to your emergency.  You may also notify Security or the Sheriff.
2. What about after-hours emergencies?  The new protocol is that Comms. (Dispatch) will alert the barge directly. There is a barge captain on call 24-7, and the response time is 15 minutes.What if my cell phone is from a different area code?Location identification is not done by cellphone number area code. It is now accomplished using cell phone tower triangulation.
3. Are there any problem locations on the island?  The addressing up at the Resort is still a problem.  Frequently renters don’t know the building name or number for identification.
4. What caused the recent fire at the house in the Resort?  HVAC failed.
5. Does the Fire Department have the code to the Resort main gate?  Yes.
6. What if there is only one egress at the property? You need to find some kind of alternative.
7. What if there is a fire on the beach? (not on a property) Call the Sheriff’s non-emergency #, not the Fire Dept.
8. Are beach accesses labeled? Yes, both within the Resort and down Island. There are 13 easements that are labeled “private” providing access for owners and their guests. There are 3 public easements: 1 each centrally located on Knight Island and Don Pedro Island, and one just south of the Resort gates.
9. Can I choose which hospital I am sent to? Yes and No.  It will depend on your emergency situation and whether it is classified as a “trauma alert”, in which case the FD will make the call.
10. Where does the Medevac land? There are multiple helicopter locations on the island, including at the ferry landing.
11. What about home equipment? Fire extinguisher: Type A, B or C. Use the acronym “P.A.S.S.”. Pull the pin. Aim at the base of the fire. Squeeze the trigger. Sweep from side to side. If you use it, use all of the contents until the cannister is empty. Smoke Alarms: Replace the batteries every year, replace the unit every 10 years.
12. When will the new Station 10 be open? Chief Fair is anticipating completion by mid-January. The driveway was poured on the day of the Q&A.
13. Is there room for shelter at the new firehouse? No.
14. What are the plans for the old station? Chief Fair indicated that the Fire Dept. has no say in what happens to the old firehouse.  Charlotte County classifies the property as “surplus” for sale and make the decision about how to proceed. Our Island Fire & EMS Advisory Committee is working with the CC representative to explore possible plans.

 
Chief Fair discussed extra costs that will impact future tax rates for our MSBU.  These include equipment replacement costs and also increasing the number of firefighters stationed on the Island.  Charlotte County has a 6-month study underway to determine the need for personnel, equipment, and new facilities county-wide. Our ad valorem taxes (General) covers the cost for 1 person/ all shifts and our Fire & EMS taxing unit (MSBU) pays for 1 person/ all shifts.
 
There was discussion of increasing the personnel with the 24/7 coverage. Fire protocol dictates that for every 2 firefighters that enter a building, there must be 2 firefighters that remain out. This protocol can only deviate if life is in danger. We only have 3 firefighters on per shift at this time.  Chief Fair also reminded us that Station 10 personnel are exclusive to the Island. They do not leave to respond to emergencies anywhere else.
 
Finally, the Chief talked about the Red Dot Program, which homeowners can use to indicate the ready availability of emergency information for the responders.  Literature was provided.  Information about the Red Dot program is available at the firehouse.