20080630Clarification to Reply Comments.pdf

John R. Hamond, Jr., ISB No. 5470
Fisher Pusch & Alderman LLP
U.S. Ban Plaza, 5th Floor
101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 500
Post Offce Box 1308
Boise, il 83701
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
3: 56
Attorneys for Applicant
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF MAYFIELD
SPRIGS WATER COMPAN, INC.,
FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
CASE NO. MSW-W-08-0l
MAYFIELD SPRINGS WATER
COMPANY, INC.'S CLARFICATION
TO REPLY COMMNTS
COMES NOW Mayfield Springs Water Company, Inc., an Idaho corporation. (the
"Company" or "Mayfield"), by and through its counsel, Fisher Pusch & Alderman LLP, and fies
ths Clarfication to Reply Comments.
The Company wishes to provide clarfication on two matters to which it fied reply
comments. The first involves the number of commercial customers of the Company and how
they were identified in Reply Comments. On page 11 in the Reply Comments, the Company
makes the following statement.
Second, the Company does not agree that the Arowrock Ranch Homeowner's
Association which counts as 8 commercial customers (7 meters to water common
areas and 1 meter for the sewage treatment facility) should not be charged for
service.
Reply Comments at p. 11. This sentence incorrectly identifies the sewage facility as par
of the Homeowner's Association. The sewage facility owned by Intermountain Sewer is a stand
MAYFIELD SPRIGS WATER COMPANY INC.'S CLARICATION TO REPLY
COMMENTS-l
ORIGINAL
alone customer with one water meter. The second clarfication that needs to be made involves
connection charges. In its Reply Comments Mayfield stated that:
The Company does not disagree with Staffs finding that it costs $725.00 to
connect a new customer to the water system based on its analysis. However,
Staff s calculations do not tae into account fees that are incured by the
Company resulting from water capacity charges assessed by the City of Meridian.
See Exhibit 33.
Reply Comments at p. 11. Due to miscommuncation between counsel and the Company, it was
represented that the Company was paying water capacity charges to the City of Meridian and
attaching Exhibit 33 as an example. This characterization and an identical one made on page 14
ofthe Reply Comments are incorrect. Rather, the Company's intention in submitting Exhibit 33
was to show a comparson between the amount of the connection charge assessed to builders in
the Arowrock Ranch Subdivision versus what the city of Meridian charges for customers to
connect to its water system. Lastly, the Company and its customers were not at any time
assessed any fees by the city of Meridian.
DATED THIS 30 day of June, 2008.
COMPAN, INC.
MAYFIELD SPRIGS WATER COMPANY INC.'S CLARICATION TO REPLY
COMMENTS-2
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this.. day of June, 2008, a tre and correct copy of
the foregoing document was served on the following individuals by the method indicated below:
Jean Jewell
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
472 W. Washington St.
POBox 83720
Boise ID 83720-5983
Don Howell
Krstine A. Sasser
Deputy Attorney General
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
POBox 83720
Boise ID 83720-0074
Gerald J. Corvino
11865 W. Tustin Lake
Kuna ID83634-5032
( ) U.S. Mail
( ) Facsimile [phone]
( ) Overnight Delivery
.ll Messenger Delivery
( ) Email
( ) U.S. Mail
( ) Facsimile [phone]
( ) Overnight Delivery
M Messenger Delivery
-( J Email
tl' U.S. Mail
r j Facsimile
( J. Overnight Delivery
( ) Messenger Delivery
( ) Email
MAYFIELD SPRIGS WATER COMPANY INC.'S CLARICATION TO REPLY
COMMENTS-3