Water Works Bd. of the City of Birmingham v. Barnes
| Decision Date | 30 September 1983 |
| Citation | 448 So.2d 296 |
| Parties | The WATER WORKS BOARD OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, a public corporation v. Frank BARNES, et al. 81-774. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
L. Vastine Stabler, Jr., R. Michael Leonard, and Lee E. Bains, Jr. of Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal, Birmingham, for appellant.
William W. Conwell and Terry W. Gloor of Foster, Conwell & Gloor, Birmingham, for appellee Frank Barnes, et al.
William A. Jackson of Harrison, Jackson & Lee, Birmingham, for appellees The City of Hoover and Rocky Ridge Fire Dist.
Joe H. Little, Jr. and Carroll H. Sullivan of Gaillard, Little, Hume & Sullivan, Mobile, for amicus curiae Alabama-Mississippi Section of the American Water Works Association, and Bd. of Water and Sewer Com'rs of the City of Mobile, a public corporation.
The Water Works Board of the City of Birmingham (The Board) appeals from a final judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County declaring a three-zone rate schedule adopted by the Board for water sold by meter measurement and all fire hydrant charges to be unlawful and unreasonable, and permanently enjoining the Board from the collection of charges pursuant to that schedule.
The issues raised on this appeal are as follows:
1. Did the trial court err in substituting its judgment for the Board's with regard to the lawfulness of a three-zone rate schedule?
a. Should the trial court have presumed that the rate adopted by the Board was valid, and considered whether any rational basis for its validity existed?
2. Did the trial court err in holding that the Board did not have the authority to establish zone rates based on differences in the cost of service?
a. Did the trial court err in concluding that previous case law requires strictly uniform rates for a water system?
3. Did the trial court err in deciding that the plaintiffs had successfully demonstrated that the zone rates were not even arguably supported by differences in cost of service, but were arbitrarily and capriciously established?
We answer these questions favorably to the Board and reverse the decision of the trial court.
Although both parties have set forth in their briefs an exhaustive exposition of the facts, we believe the following are most important for a clear understanding of this case:
In March 1980, the Board announced that it had adopted a three-zone rate schedule to be effective on April 1, 1980, for water sold by meter measurement and on October 1, 1980, for public and municipal fire hydrants. The three zones were established as follows:
Zone 1--City of Birmingham and cities of Vestavia Hills, Fairfield, Homewood, Mountain Brook, and Tarrant City;
Zone 2--Other cities and unincorporated areas of Jefferson County within current central rate boundaries;
Zone 3--Areas of Jefferson, Shelby, St. Clair, and Blount Counties within the current rural boundaries.
The Board's basis for adopting this three-zone schedule, which the Board itself had conceived, was a cost of service study conducted by Arthur Young and Company, an independent consulting firm.
The Board indicated that several assumptions approved by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) should underlie the study performed by Arthur Young & Co. First, that a zone rate should represent an average rate for all customers in that zone. Second, that the allocation of costs within the zones should be based upon the relationships of average day, maximum day and maximum hour demand patterns. Allocation on this basis calls for the use of the base-extra capacity rate-making method. Third, that fire protection costs should be determined for each zone and, that rate schedules should be structured to recover such costs.
The Board directed that two other assumptions, both of which pertain exclusively to the Birmingham system, should be made. First, that the allocation of costs in the study should take into account a contract for the sale of water by the Board to the City of Bessemer. Second, that water from the Board's own Cahaba River-Lake Purdy Supply should be allocated only to Zone 1, while water purchased by the Board from the Birmingham Industrial Water Board should be allocated to Zones 2 and 3. This last assumption was predicated on the fact that the Cahaba River-Lake Purdy Supply had been sufficient to meet the demand for water when the area now in Zone 1 was all that the Board supplied. The Board alleged that the demand created as a result of expansion into Zones 2 and 3 was the primary reason for the purchase of water from the Industrial Water Board.
Arthur Young & Co. used a five-step process in preparing the cost of service study for the Board. The first step was the determination of the total amount of revenue required to operate, maintain and develop the water system. This was done strictly on a cash basis.
The second step was the allocation of revenue requirements among the zones. As to operation and maintenance costs, allocation generally was made according to the amount of water consumption, except that all costs attributable to the Cahaba River-Lake Purdy Pumping Station were allocated to Zone 1 in accordance with the assumption concerning the distribution of that supply. As to capital costs, the following chart, prepared by the Board, indicates the basis of allocation for each item:
Allocation of Capital Costs to Zones
1. Existing Debt Service--Net Book Value
2. Proposed Debt Service--Net Book Value
3. Repair, Replacement, and Improvement--Water Consumption
4. Debt Reserve--Water Consumption
5. Capital Outlay--Water Consumption
The allocation of debt service according to net book value was opposed by the plaintiffs. As a result of such opposition, Arthur Young & Co. considered the strict allocation of debt service to debt-bearing assets, having previously identified the debt-free assets in the system. According to calculations done by Arthur Young, allocation of debt-service to Zone 3 was the same for both methods, namely 22%. In any event, there was testimony at trial that though the allocation of debt service might be considered prejudicial to Zone 3, any inequity was offset by the allocation of capital outlay on the basis of water consumption. Zone 3 was charged with $126,000.00 of capital outlay, when allegedly, $2,000,000.00 was for Zone 3.
The third step in the preparation of the cost study was the allocation of zone costs to cost functions. The cost functions used were:
1. Base Cost
2. Excess Capacity Cost
Sub-divided into:
(a) maximum day cost
(b) maximum hour cost
3. Customer Costs
4. Direct Fire Protection
Allocation according to these functions was intended to place the expense of meeting extra demand on those customers responsible for demand in excess of the average.
Having identified the applicable cost functions, completion of the third step of the study required the allocation of operation and maintenance costs and capital costs to the functions. This process involved the development of zone peaking factors (ratio of peak demand over base demand), which were prepared for Arthur Young by CH2M Hill, an engineering firm.
The remaining two steps in the development of the study were the allocation of zone costs to customer classes and the designing of rates for water use blocks. Neither of these intra-zone processes has been questioned by the plaintiffs.
Subsequent to the application of the rates under the three-zone schedule to individual resident customers on all bills rendered after the effective date of April 1, 1980, four suits were filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, all of which alleged that the new rate schedules were unenforceable. Following the consolidation of these cases, the parties agreed to try only two issues initially: the lawfulness and reasonableness of the rate schedule as it related to both water sold by meter measurements in Zone 3, and the increase of the hydrant rental charge for public fire protection in Zone 2.
The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the rate schedule for water sold by meter measurement, effective on all bills...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura
...records. (Waterworks Board of Town of Parrish v. White (1967) 281 Ala. 357, 202 So.2d 721, 724.)8 However, in Waterworks Bd. of Birmingham v. Barnes (Ala.1983) 448 So.2d 296, the court clarified its position and held that political boundaries could be used for rate zones where the zones the......
-
City of Novi v. City of Detroit, Docket No. 82769
...(Fla App, 1980); Shawnee Hills Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Rural Water Dist No 6, 217 Kan. 421, 537 P.2d 210 (1975); Water Works Bd. of Birmingham v. Barnes, 448 So.2d 296 (Ala, 1983). The Michigan Legislature's intention that courts refrain from strictly scrutinizing municipal utility rate-makin......
-
United Council of Loxley, Inc. v. City of Loxley
...today." The court erred in holding that Edwards and Gandy did not have standing to bring the action. See Water Works Board of the City of Birmingham v. Barnes, 448 So.2d 296 (Ala.1983); Alabama Water Co. v. Wilson, supra, Alabama Water Co. v. City of Jasper ex rel. Cain, 211 Ala. 280, 100 S......
-
WATER BD. OF CITY OF MADISON v. Anderson
...So.2d at 340. The Water Board's adoption of a new service area is also entitled to a presumption of validity, Water Works Board of Birmingham v. Barnes, 448 So.2d 296 (Ala.1983)(water board's creation of a rate schedule was a legislative act and should have been presumed valid by the trial ......