20100621_2994.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM 1
DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KEMPTON
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER REDFORD
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL

FROM: SCOTT WOODBURY
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

DATE: JUNE 9, 2010

SUBJECT: CASE NO. TRH-W-10-01 (Troy Hoffman Water)
GENERAL RATE CASE

On June 7, 2010, Troy Hoffman Water Corporation (Troy Hoffman; Company) filed
an Application with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) requesting authority to
increase its rates and charges for water service. Troy Hoffman provides water service to 146
residential customers and 1 commercial customer in the City of Coeur d’Alene, Kootenai
County, Idaho.
Troy Hoffman proposes a revenue increase of $34,262 (142%) for residential and
commercial water customers effective July 1, 2010. The Company has not had a rate increase
for 14 years. Reference Case No. TRH-W-95-01, Order Nos. 26545 and 28264. The Company
states it is necessary to raise the rates due to increased operating expenses along with costs
incurred from needed repairs and replacement of the main pump in 2009.
Troy Hoffman proposes the following increase in rates and charges:
Current Rates Proposed Rates

Customers are billed for water service on a bi-monthly basis.
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2
Additional charges (and changes) proposed by the Company are (1) changing the
current $10 fee for Turn On Terminated Service to a Reconnection Charge of $20 during office
hours (7-4 Monday thru Friday) and $40 after office hours; (2) imposing a Late Payment Fee of
$10; and (3) a Returned Check Fee of $20. Also proposed is a change in the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) Public Drinking Water Fee from a one-time $5.00 customer
charge to a $.42 per month assessment fee.
The Company requests that its Application be processed pursuant to Modified
Procedure.
COMMISSION DECISION
Troy Hoffman has requested a change in residential and commercial water rates and
charges for a July 1, 2010 effective date. The Company’s last increase in rates was in 1996. The
Company requests that its Application be processed under Modified Procedure. Staff
recommends that the Company’s Application be noticed and that the proposed effective date be
suspended. Following an investigation and audit of the Company books and records and
physical plant, Staff will submit to the Commission a proposed schedule for public workshop
and comments. Does the Commission agree with Staff’s recommended procedure?

Scott Woodbury
Deputy Attorney General

bls/M:TRH-W-10-01_sw