20080813Comment.pdf

¡~ 1~(3Joi~., lv.,/~ ~.~ H
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
don_lynn~pacbell.net
Friday, August 08, 2008 10:20 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Don Lynn follows:
- ------------ --------- - --- - - - -- - - - --
Case Number: UWI-W-08-02
Name: Don Lynn
Address: 41 N. Hastings Drive
City: Nampa
State: ID
Zip: 83687
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: don_lynn~pacbell.net
Name of Utili ty comp~ Uni ted WaterAdd to Mailing List: ~
Please describe your comment briefly:
Don Lynn
41 N. Hastings Dr
Nampa, ID
Lot 23 of Belmont Heights subdivision
RE: UWI-W-08-02
First, I am in complete support of the solution tying the city of Nampa' s distribution system
to the Belmont domestic water system. I agree that it will provide a new source of supply
that is free of uranium which has been detected in the Belmont system wells in excess of
Federal requirements. This interconnection should also improve fire protection flows in the
other developments being addressed by this action before the IPUC.
Second, I do thank United Water for the efforts to find a solution and to keep the residents
of Belmont Heights informed. Especially for the joint meeting with the City of Nampa that
United Water hosted over a year ago to determine if the residents would entertain such a
connection. There were many unknowns and unanswered questions in the details that day but
there was a near unanimous agreement that this solution should be approached.
However, at this time, I am hesitate to recommend that the IPUC allow completion of this sale
until United Water takes care of a few loose threads.
As I read through the documents I see that United Water and the City of Nampa have come to an
agreement that is beneficial to those two parties.
However, other than possibly removing the uranium, the existing customer base's (Belmont
Heights residents) concerns and detailed questions have not been entirely answered or
addressed.
Because the City of Nampa water is not subject to actions or directions by the IPUC, our only
protection at this point rests with the IPUC and the approval of the sale. Once the sale is
complete it leaves the Belmont Heights residents with no leverage to address those issues and
concerns with the City of Nampa.
1
At a minimum, I am requesting that the IPUC require United Water to host and participate in
another joint meeting with the City of Nampa that will include the residents of Belmont
Heights and allow the residents to ask questions and receive answers from both water
providers.
I also respectfully ask that those questions and answers be documented and become a part of
the public record of this transaction before final approval is allowed.
Here is the reason for my request:
I previously used the phrase - other than possibly removing the uranium. This sale is only a
solution once the inter-connection with the City of Nampa is made. We currently have not been
provided a timeline, possible date, or commitment as to when this will occur.
According to Nampa Ord. 2088; amd. Ord. 3071 the Belmont Heights residents will be subject
to:
· Higher water rates (that we hear will be 10 - 12% higher)
· Must sign an Agreement to Annexation
· May need to add Back-flow devices
I believe different conditions exist with this sale than simply a request to "hook up to city
water" .
1. This is a sale that includes tangible & in-tangible assets and real property.
2. It will continue and improve fire protection that Nampa requires for this area.
3. The City of Nampa should not even be entitled to increased rates before an inter-
connection be made.
4. I also question that higher rates would be justified based on the assets and property that
come with this sale.
Finally, the whole area of the benefits of annexation should be allowed to be addressed
separately and should not be based on the supply of water alone. We would be denied due
process in this area.
The City of Nampa has publically stated that this sale is a win-win; From my viewpoint,
currently the win-win is for United Water and the City of Nampa and not for the residents of
Belmont Heights.
I firmly believe that United Water has the responsibility to address these issues with the
City of Nampa before they are released from liability.
Respectfully submitted for consideration by the IPUC.
Don Lynn
Nampa Code 8-1-8: SPECIAL DOMESTIC WATER USER CHARGE FOR OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS:
The city may provide service from the domestic water system to individual properties that are
partially or entirely outside the corporate limits of the city. In so doing, the following
procedure shall be followed:
A. Each request for such service shall be made in writing, addressed to the director of
public works; and, B. Applicant shall sign an agreement to be annexed if their property is
not contiguous to city limits. If the applicant i s property is contiguous to city limits, the
property must be annexed before connection may be made. An applicant shall apply for
annexation through the planning and community development division of the department of
public works.
Such special domestic water users shall comply with all regulations of this chapter. The
domestic water user will be considered a special user as long as the property being served
remains outside the city limits. The special domestic water user shall be charged fees and
2
user charges at a rate greater than that of a similar user who is entirely within the city
limi ts . (Ord. 2088; amd. Ord. 3071)
The form submitted on http://www. puc. idaho.gov/forms/ipuC1/ipuc. html
IP address is 204.76.195.33-- - - - - --- ---- --- - ---- -- -- - ---- ------
3