20080721Kuna Hearing.pdf

ORIGINAL
.BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
In the Matter of the Application )
of Mayfield Springs Water Company, Inc. )For a Certificate of Public )Convenience & Necessity. )
)
CASE NO.
MSW-W-08-01
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
July 1, 2008
7:00 P.M.
BEFORE
Commissioner Mack A. Redford
Commissioner Jim D. Kempton.Kuna Middle School
1360 Boise Street
Kuna, ID
co
-1
POST OFFICE BOX 578
BOISE. IDAHO 83701
20-336-920.HEDRICK
COURT REPORTING
~tJ¥~.i.ft9
.
.
.
2
FOR
FOR
APPEARANCES
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Donald L. Howell II
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Contracts & Administrative Law Division
472 W. Washington
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
[phone]don. howeiiØpuc. idaho. gov
IDAHO SPRINGS WATER COMPANY, INC.
John R. Hammond, Jr.
FI SHER PUSCH & ALDERMAN, LLP
101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 500
Boise, ID 83702
[phone]j rhØfpa-law. com
******
.
.
.
Witness:
BOURGEAU, Guy.
KOYLE, Neil. .
DAVIDSON, Tony. . .
REEDER, Cassie. . .
WARD, Chris. . . . .
KING, Jeff. . . . .
ABERCROMBIE, Amber.
JOHNSON, Greg. .
GRABLE, Larry.
CORVINO, Gerald. .
I
3
WITNESSES
Examina tion by:Page:
7
. . . 10
12
Commissioner Redford. . . . . 14
Mr. Howell. . . . . . . . . . 15Mr. Hammond. .... 16
20
Commissioner Kempton.. 22
. . . 23
Commissioner Redford.25
26
Mr. Howell. . . . . . . . . .29
30
Commissioner Redford.. . 39
. . 42
. 47
51
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
4
KUNA, IDAHO
Tuesday, July 1, 2008, 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:This is the
proceeding before the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission, and we are two of the commissioners.
My name is Mack Redford. I'm the chairman of this
proceeding. And seated to my right is
Jim Kempton. He's also a commissioner. We have a
third commissioner. She's out of town today.
This is the hearing in the -- public
hearing in the matter of the application of
Mayfield Springs Water Company, Inc., for
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
The case number is MSW-W- 0 8 - 0 1.
I'd like first to explain to you what
the hearing is about. The hearing is for the
purpose of allowing the public to give their views
about the issuances of a c~rtificate of
convenience and necessity to Mayfield Water to
provide water and any other services to the people
who they presently serve.
It's not a hearing where we well,
excuse me. Let me correct myself. We do have
attorneys here. Our attorney -- the Public
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
5
Utili ties staff attorney is Mr. Don Howell. He's
a deputy attorney general.
And we do have representing the water
company, Mayfield, John R. Hammond, Junior. And
they may ask questions of you when you've
concluded your testimony.
As far as the testimony is concerned,
you can testify as to anything you'd like to say.
I would say it appears from the record that quite
a bi t has gone on in this matter for a good long
period of time.We've read the record pret ty
carefully, and qui te frankly, this proceeding
really doesn't have much to do wi th whatever has
gone on in the past. It's simply for the purpose
of exploring and hearing the matter to determine
whether or not the water company should be
enti tled to a Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity, and once there is one, to establish
the financial issues of the company as they relate
to their subscribers. And we will ultimately be
the ones that will be setting the rates in this
matter, for the users and prospective users.
So I'm going to proceed right ahead
wi th the list that you've all signed, or some of
you have signed, the list to testify. And when I
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
6
call your name, I'd like you to come forward, if
you would, and we have a podium about two inches
away from us here. And so Mr. Kempton will swear
you, and you'll have to take the oath, and then
you may proceed to tell us whatever you would like
to have us hear.
I would admonish you that this is on
the record, and we have a court reporter here;
she's taking everything down word for word. And
wi thout any other -- unless there's something else
to come up preliminarily, we'll go right ahead
into Mr. Howell, do you have anything you'd
like to raise?
MR. HOWELL: Nothing from the staff.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Mr. Hammond?
MR. HAMMOND: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: We'll call the first
witness.His name is Larry Grable -- is it
Grable?
MR. GRABLE: Could I go at a later time,
please?
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Excuse me?
MR. GRABLE: Could I go at a la ter time,
please?
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:Sure you can.Guy --
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
7
I'm sorry.
MR. BOURGEAU: Guy Bourgeau.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Okay.Thank you.
GUY BOURGEAU,
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
MR. HOWELL: To start off, Could you state
your name and spell your last name?
MR. BOURGEAU: Very common name.
MR. HOWELL: Absolutely.
MR. BOURGEAU: The first name is spelled
Guy, pronounced "Ghee." Last name is Bourgeau,
B-o-u-r-g-e-a-u.
MR. HOWELL: And, sir, do you have a
res idence addres s?
MR. BOURGEAU:It's 12094 West TustinI do.
Lane.
MR. HOWELL: And are you a customer of
Mayfield?
MR. BOURGEAU:
MR. HOWELL:
MR. BOURGEAU:
I am.
Please give us your statement.
Thank you, sir.
First and foremost, I'd like to say
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
8
we're very happy to see the PUC here, the
commissioners, and your involvement in this
matter. It's been ongoing for a substantial
amount of time, as you're probably very well aware
of.
Unfortunately, to get us here was a
difficult process involving the filing of a
lawsui t wi th local courts to compel Mayfield
Springs, or 11m not sure -- is it Mayfield Springs
or Mayfield? Mayfield Springs? To get to this
point to file for a certificate. And we're happy
to see that the PUC has taken on this case and is
going to follow up and establish what we hope will
be a very fair rate system, which is something
that obviously we haven i t seen in the last year,
year and a half.
Essentially, for the last two years --
I think I speak for myself and probably a lot of
the residents -- we felt -- we feel that we've
been held hostage by the developer, who also is
the owner of Mayfield Springs.
We did pay $2,500 in hookup fees. I
think through that we -- our contention is that we
essentially paid for this system to be installed,
and when we purchased our lots out there, we were
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
9
led to believe that this was going to be a system
owned by the homeowner's association. Essentially
a year and a half later we find out that that's
not the case; it's a privately owned system~ So
at that point is when we pursued our civil
remedies to compel this company to come in front
of the PUC to set the rates.
Those are some of the main points.
We're really pleased to see the commissioners
here, and we're really hoping for a fair rate
system to come out of this hearing. So thanks for
your time.
COMMISS lONER REDFORD: Are there any
questions by Mr. Howell, or
MR. HOWELL: No questions.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Mr. Hammond?
MR. HAMMOND: No questions.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Thank you very much
for your testimony. We really do appreciate it.
MR. BOURGEAU: Than k you, sir.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Next person on the
list is Jason or Cassie Reeder.
MS. REEDER: Can we wait for Jason, because
with him it's going to be --
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:Sure, you can. We're
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
10
running out of names here pretty quick.
MS. REEDER: Well, he'll be here soon.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Neil Kayle,
K-o-y-l-e?
NEIL KOYLE,
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
MR. HOWELL: Sir, could you please state
your name and spell your last name for the record,
please?
MR. KOYLE: Yes. My name's Neil Kayle,
K-o-y-l-e.
MR. HOWELL:And do you have an address?
I do. 11687 West Tustin Lane.MR. KOYLE:
MR. HOWELL:
Mayfield?
MR. KOYLE: I am.
And are you a customer of
MR. HOWELL: Please give us your statement.
MR. KOYLE: I too am very apprecia ti ve of
the fact that you guys are here. I was one of the
first residents in, and so I've been through the
whole year-and-a-half to two year's process wi th
the water company.
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
11
Again, a lot of us were led to believe
that it was a private system. A lot of us were
led to believe that it was covered in our
homeowner's association dues, fees.And so wi th
that said, there was a lot of vagueness early on
in the company as concerned as to how much was
being charged.
For the most part we all went along
with what was going on to try and figure out
whether that was going to change, because we were
told as customers came on line that those rates
would reduce, and so we went along with whatever
was there.
But, again, we've fought civilly to
resolve and make sure this company's regulated by
the PUC, and we appreciate you guys being here to
take this matter in hand.
That's all I have.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:Thank you.Are there
any questions, Mr. Howell?
MR. HOWELL: No questions.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Mr. Hammond?
MR. HAMMOND: No, no questions,
Commissioner Redford.
COMMISS lONER REDFORD:Thank you very much.
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
12
We appreciate your testimony, sir.
person is Tony Davidson.
The next
TONY DAVI DSON,
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
MR. HOWELL:Sir, could you state your name
and spell your last for the record, please?
MR. DAVIDSON: My name is Tony Davidson,
D-a-v-i-d-s-o-n.
MR. HOWELL: And could you give us a
residence address?
Yes. My address is 11778MR. DAVIDSON:
West Tustin Lane.
MR. HOWELL: And are you a customer of
Mayfield Springs?
MR. DAVIDSON: I am.
MR. HOWELL: Thank you.
MR. DAVIDSON: I'd like to reiterate what
Bourgeau said. We're very pleased that the PUC is
involved in this matter.
A couple years ago when we were looking
for a sizable lot in Ada County, my wife and I
found this location, and we contacted the
I
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
13
representing real tor, and went to him directly so
we could get the best information.
And considering the size of the lot,
the size of the lawn we knew we'd have if we
purchased there, we asked many pointed questions
about what was the situation with the water. We
asked about pressurized irrigation, where the
water was coming from, because we knew that piece
of ground was not irrigated prior to the
subdivision.It wasn't farm ground.
We were told that it would have its own
well and own septic system that would provide both
potable and irrigation water. And we asked a lot
of questions to avoid this exact situation,
because of the amount of ground we'd need to
irrigate. And we were reassured and told that the
well would be owned by the homeowner's
association.And in light of the $100-a-month fee
for the homeowner's association, that's the only
way we could make sense of that cost.
In the first eight months that we lived
in this house, we never received a water bill, so
things were working as we were told.We had no
idea until the bills started showing up in the
mail. So we didn't feel like we were getting a
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
14
fair shake.We were told one thing, and then
suddenly the well's owned by a private person, and
we're having to pay a water bill, along with $100
HOA fee.We were under the impression that the
portion of the $100 HOA fee was going to pay for
water.
So, again, we're very happy to see the
PUC' s involved, and we'd li ke to get a reasonable
solution to this.Thank you.
EXAMINATION
BY COMMISSIONER REDFORD:
Q. Who made the representations to you
that it would --
A. Doug Ferguson wi th RE/MAX was the
representing realtor for the whole subdivision, so
we went directly to him to get the most accurate
information available.
Q. So he made the representation that it
was a homeowner-owned system?
A. Yes, sir, he did. He told my wife and
I that directly, that the system, both the septic
and the well, would be owned by the homeowner's
association, and that that was the explanation he
gave for the HOA fees being so high, $100 a month.
.
.
.
.
15
1
2
Because at that point we were ready to walk out
when he said it was $100 a month, until he told us
3 that included our sewer and water fees for both
4 irrigation and potable water.
5
6
7
8
9
Q.Did you pay a hook-up fee?
A.Yes,I did.
Q.How much was that?
A.It was $2,500 at closing.
Q.Did the owner of the system ever make
10 any of those representations to you?
11 A.No, I worked with the realtor.Like I
12 said, we wanted to get the most accurate
13
14
information that pertained to the lot for the
purchase.He was the representing real tor for the
15 entire subdivision, so we went directly to him to
16 get the most accurate information, and this is
17 what we were told, and we bought on that premise.
18 COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Okay. Mr. Howell,
19 any questions?
20
21
22
23
EXAMINATION
BY MR. HOWELL:
Q.Mr. Davidson, when did you get your
24 first bill?
25 A.I'd have to look at the bill.I think
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
16
we were in the house seven or eight months before
we recei ved a bill.
Q. Can you give us an approximate time?
Was it early in 2007?
A. I wouldn't know unless I saw the bill
in hand.I don't know.I i m so frustrated I don't
even know. I put them in a file, and as far as
I'm concerned, I am paying my water fees through
my HOA, in a portion of that $100 a month that's
going for my wa ter.
MR. HOWELL: Okay. Thank you very much.
COMMI SS lONER REDFORD: Mr. Hammond?
EXAMINATION
BY MR. HAMMOND:
Q.Yes.You said that -- is it correct
that you said that Mr. Ferguson was the one that
made the representation to you?
A. Yes. When my wife and I were looking
for information regarding the lots in the
subdivision, before we made the purchase, we
wanted to get the most accurate information
possible. He was the representing realtor, so
that's where we went.
Q. Is that a disputed fact in your
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
17
litigation currently?
A. I don't know if it's disputed or not,
but I've put it in wri ting numerous times during
the course of this sui t.
Q. Do you know if Mr. Ferguson is employed
by the water company or the developer?
A. I don't believe that he is. I just
know him to be the representing real tor at the
time we bought.
Q. As far as -- you stated that you've
been receiving invoices at some point in time;
you're not exactly sure when you received the
first one. Have you paid any of those invoices?
A. I've paid my water through my HOA, like
I was told when I purchased the lot.
Q. But did you receive separate water
bills from the water company, solely for water
service? Did you pay those?
A. In the beginning we received the
compiled bill with sewer and water charges. And
then later on it was spli t off to Mayfield
Springs, and we received separate invoices. And
no, I have not paid those.
MR. HAMMON D :
questions.
Thank you.I have no further
:,".,,'
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
18
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Thank you, sir. Just
for the commission's understanding, what is the
status of the lawsuit?
MR. HAMMOND:I am not counsel for that.
I -- if -- Lauren Reynoldson is here --
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:I think you probably
know
MR. HAMMOND:It's still ongoing at this
point.It's still ongoing.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: There was a summary
judgment?
MR. HAMMOND: Yes.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: And so some of the
other issues are still pending?
MR. HAMMON D :There's a summary judgment,
and the plaintiffs have a motion currently, I
believe, to -- and I could be -- I could get this
wrong, correct me if I'm wrong, but for damages on
the count which the court awarded summary judgment
for, and they're also requesting the penal ty.
There are numerous other counts. I don't know
where those are at.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Okay.That's fine.
Mr. Kempton, do you have any questions?
MR. HAMMOND: Oh, and I'm sorry, and I
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
19
should say -- I apologize. The client has
requested reconsideration of the court's decision.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Does that mean the
client is disputing that the PUC has authority to
regulate this company?
MR. HAMMOND: Absolutely not. They're
disputing -- the question is -- the question is
whether the court in the first instance has the
ability to rule on that issue, and rather the
issue should have come to the commission first.
That's all they're saying. The court obviously
has jurisdiction because of the statute.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Why wasn't it brought
to the commission first?
MR. HAMMOND: Why wasn't it? I can't tell
you.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Well, if you know, if
you know.
MR. HAMMOND: I don't know. I was hired in
January. We brought the application within, I
think, probably seven days of being hired. So
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Okay. Well, we'll
call the next wi tness, unless anyone has any other
questions. How about Jason Reeder or Cassie, are
you -- would you like to come now, or do you still
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
20
want to wai t?
MS. REEDER: Yeah, sure. My--
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: You can pass if you
want.
MS. REEDER: You know, I mean, I don't have
much to say, but I can say what I have.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Okay, great.Can the
baby say something too?
MS. REEDER: Yes, and he can do
eensie-weensie spider.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:Okay.
CASSIE REEDER,
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
MR. HOWELL: Could you please state your
name and spell your last for the record, please?
Sure.It's Cassie Reeder,MS. REEDER:
R-e-e-d-e-r.
MR. HOWELL: And an addre s s?
MS. REEDER: 11734 West Tustin Lane.
MR. HOWELL: And I assume you're a Mayfield
customer?
MS. REEDER: Yes.
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
21
MR. HOWELL: Please give us your statement.
MS. REEDER: When me and my husband first
were looking for a home, we me and a friend
drove out to the neighborhood, and had just
been -- the road had just been put in. So we got
the number off of the signs for the realtor,
Doug Ferguson, and we called him, and he -- and
just asked him a few questions about the
neighborhood, because there were no homes at that
time.
Asked him about the HOA fee.He said
it was $100, and we just -- my friend and I were
shocked. So we said wow, that's a lot to pay,
$1,200 a year. And he did say it was part of the
water and sewer. That's the last time I've ever
talked to Doug Ferguson, and have only met him in
person one time about six months after our home
had sold, after we had closed on our home.
So everything else that we have that
we had knowledge of came through our builder,
Doug Lasher. And we asked him numerous, numerous
times if our water and sewer was part of the $100.
He said yes. So that's --
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:Your builder said
that?
.
.
.
1
22
MS. REEDER: Our builder did say tha t. We
2 never spoke again, like I said, with
3 Doug Ferguson. Never had a relationship with him.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
He was not at closing.So that -- I mean, our
story is really short and simple.That's where we
got our information.So --
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:Any questions,
Mr.Howell?
MR.HOWELL:No,sir.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:Mr.Kempton?
EXAMINATION
BY COMMISS IONER KEMPTON:
Q.The file on this is pretty big. And
15 the one thing that seems to be missing in the
16 information, although I think I heard it in the
17 testimony here just a while ago, is that there was
18 never anything in wri ting, other than the hearsay
19 information that was passed on by the realtor or
20 the builder, there was never anything that you
21 actually saw in any kind of formal paper that was
22 presented at any time until essentially you got
23
24
25
the first bill.Is that about the way it worked?
A.Yeah, not -- yeah. We -- to my
knowledge -- and when my husband gets here, he
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
23
may, if there's time, he may want to testify,
because he -- he's the thorough person in our
family who looks through all that, those things.
And not to my knowledge. That was -- there was
nothing that I know of in writing in our closing
to say ei ther way.
COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Mr. Hammond, do you
have any que s t ions?
MR. HAMMOND: I don't have any questions.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Thank you very much
for your testimony.
MS. REEDER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: The next person is
Chris Ward.
CHRIS WARD,
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
MR. HOWELL: Sir, could you state your name
and spell your last for the record?
Sure. My name is Chris Ward,MR. WARD:
W-a-r-d.
MR. HOWELL: And an address, please.
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
24
MR. WARD: 11550 Dynamite Lane.
MR. HOWELL: And are you a Mayfield Springs
customer?
MR. WARD:I am.
There's really only a couple things
that I wanted to touch base on, and one of them is
the connection fee. I was actually the builder
and owner of my property, and I paid a $2,500
connection fee. And I've noticed through the
different stuff on the PUC's websi te that the
recommendation currently is that the connection
fee be $750. Had the developer came before the
PUC before I even started, you know, looking at
this land, I would have only paid $750, given the
current recommendations.
I'm here to urge the commission to
consider anybody that did pay that amount to be
refunded the difference, since the developer did
not follow proper procedures and get PUC approval
first.
The second comment that I have relates
to the water system in general and what a lot of
the people here have been told. The MLS listings
for the property show it as a communi ty water
system. Any other time I've seen a house being
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
25
sold, if it's to a corporation, it says exactly
who the water company is that's serving it.
And it is being shown as a communi ty
water system, or at least it was at the time that
the land went for sale. I guess I also believe
that the system should have been a homeowner's
owned -- homeowner-association-owned system. And
I urge you guys to take that into consideration
when you do set the rates.
EXAMINATION
BY COMMISSIONER REDFORD:
Q. Mr. Ward, did the developer ever offer
to give you or sell you the water system?
A. No, not that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Okay, thanks. Any
questions, Mr. Howell?
MR. HOWELL: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Mr. Hammond?
MR. HAMMOND: No questions.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Thank you very much,
Appreciate your testimony.
Next one is Jeff King.
sir.
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
26
JEFF KING,
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
MR. HOWELL: Mr. King, could you state your
name and spell your last for the record, please?
MR. KING: My name is Jeff King, and my last
name is K-i-n-g.
MR. HOWELL:
residence address?
And, sir, do you have a
MR. KING:
MR. HOWELL:
11589 West Tustin.
And are you a Mayfield Springs
customer?
MR. KING: Yes.
MR. HOWELL: Please give us your statement.
MR. KING: Okay. So just like many other
people that have testified in front of you guys
today, I'm in a very similar situation. But
mine's a little unique, in that we actually bought
our land, our property, from my wife's aunt and
uncle.
And but just like everybody else
I mean, before we bought it, I moved from a
subdivision called Spyglass, which is in Eagle,
and I had a 1. i acre lot there. And, you know, we
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
27
were on irrigation there, and it was covered in
our homeowner's and stuff like that.
So when I moved out to build a house on
this lot, I was equally concerned about the fees.
And so I did, like everybody else, talk to
Doug Ferguson and, you know, got the skinny on the
$ 10 O. And he basically said that included the
water and the sewer and the mowing and those sort
of things.
Because when I came from Spyglass too,
I mean, we had a fair amount of common area to mow
over there.And, you know, we had fees that were
roughly about $ 650 a year, which I thought was
high for everything over there. And then moving
to this subdivision, it was $1,200. But he
assured me that, you know, it was basically the
$1,200.
And the funny thing is, I didn't buy
the lot from him. Or -- you know, he was just
representing to me that that included everything.
So then we actually bought the lot from Jamie's
aunt and uncle, and that's how we got it.
And then, just like other people, it
was probably, you know -- we bought the lot in the
fall, I believe, of 2005. And then in the
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
28
early -- then we buil t our house through the next
year and moved in in October of 2006. And then it
wasn't until January when we started getting the
bills for, you know, the additional water and
sewer fees, right.
And the other thing that is just a
little bit concerning is that the bills that we
get for that, there just was a lot of dishonesty,
right. Because it went from, you know, one water
company and sewer company, to, oh, now they're all
of a sudden separate. So the water company's
separate from the sewer company. And it was just
really hard to keep track of what was going on.
And now we end up at Mayfield, which is
yet, you know, something different, right. And
then there was the trying a transaction to sell
the water stuff, basically, for Greg Johnson to
himself.
So the whole thing is, you know, kind
of concerning. My main point is that I want to
make sure that we get fair -- get charged a fair
rate for water, including the common areas,
because I can see how that can get kind of
expensive over time.
But just the misrepresentation, and
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
29
then back to what Chris was saying, too, about the
$2,500 hookup fee.I mean, we, in essence, paid
the hookup fee indirectly through Jamie's aunt and
uncle, but we still paid it, right, because that
was paid when you purchased the lot for th~ water
and for the sewer. So that's about it.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:Mr. Howell?
EXAMINATION
BY MR. HOWELL:
Q. Mr. King, have you paid any water bills
at all?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
A. So I'm actually an advocate for, you
know, using the civil process to try to get this
figured out. Because in the first meeting we had,
there was a lot of people that were concerned
about it. And part of our response was, you know,
we're not going to pay those fees until we work it
out.
MR. HOWELL: Okay. No further questions.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Mr. Hammond?
MR. HAMMOND: I have no questions.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Thank you very much,
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
30
sir, for your testimony.
MR. KING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: The next person would
be Amber Abercrombie.
AMBER ABERCROMBIE,
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
MR. HOWELL: Ma' am, could you state your
name and spell your last for the record, please?
MS. ABERCROMBIE:It'sI can.
Amber Abercrombie, and the last name's
A-b-e-r-c-r-o-m-b-i-e.
MR. HOWELL: And could you give us an
address, please?
MS. ABERCROMBIE: 11980 West Dynamite Lane.
MR. HOWELL: And are you a customer of
Mayfield Springs?
MS. ABERCROMBIE: I am.
MR. HOWELL: Please give us your statement.
MS. ABERCROMBIE: Okay. We are in a similar
si tuation as a lot of people that you have heard
from. We purchased our lot and brought our own
builder. We talked to Doug Ferguson about the
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
31
fees.We were told that it was $100 for water,
sewer, and HOA.We do not have that in writing.
Because, like a lot of things we were told, we
didn't assume that we needed to have it in
writing. I guess that we were a little bit naive.
Just like they said there would be bike paths and
mailboxes. I mean, you don't think that you need
to get those type of things in wri ting, I guess.
You just believe it when it i s told to you by the
person representing the developer.
So we were, in fact, told the $100 --
we moved in. We were actually the first house to
move in. We moved in in March 2006. We moved our
stuff in.And then we left on vacation, and I
believe the Stivers moved in right after we did.
And February of -- it was ten months, I
want to say -- yes, because the first bill was for
January. We received it in February.
But before that, we received a knock on
our door in October of 2006.And it was from a
couple that was thinking of purchasing a house
right down the street from us. And they had heard
a rumor that it was $300 for water, sewer, and
HOA, which I laughed at, because that was the
first I'd heard of that. And I assured them that
.
.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.
32
1
2
3
4
we've lived in our house this long, we've only
been paying $100, and it was -- that $300 was
ridiculous.
But it left me a little bit uneasy, so
I called the property management company that
manages Arrowrock, hired by our developer,
Greg Johnson, and I spoke to the girl that was in
charge of Arrowrock. And I was told by her that
it was $100 for water, sewer, and HOA combined, it
was not $300, and she had never heard anything
like that.
So I dropped it. Well, then rumors
kept swirling. Realtors were talking. And again,
I was uneasy, because one of the reasons why we
built was because -- I mean, we did a lot of
research before we built, and $100 was very steep
for us. But because it did cover water, sewer,i
HOA, we felt that that was okay.
Anyway, so when I kept hearing'this
$300 figure, it kept making us very uneasy, so I
contacted the developer. I want to say that that
was the -- it was ei ther the very end of October
or it was the beginning of November. I got in
touch with Greg Johnson and at that point, he told
me that, in fact, was $300: $100 for water, $100
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
33
for sewer, and $100 for HOA.
And I almost passed out, and then I got
extremely angry. And I told him that he would see
for sale signs go up so fast it would make his
head spin, which probably wasn't the nicest thing
to say. But he said that he understood the
frustration, and he apologized for any
miscommunication or any false information that we
had been told, but he assured me that we would
have a meeting before any bill was sent out, and
he would try to get the meeting together around
the 1st of the year.
Never had a meeting. I only got a
bill. So the first bill, I was again furious, and
attempted to contact him multiple times. I never
received a call back.
At the -- the ini tial phone call that I
had wi th him, he did tell me that we were dealing
with a very expensive well.The well cost upwards
of $800,000 to install, which I don't know why
that would be my problem, because I'm not the
developer. I just live there. That should not be
my cost.So why that was even important, I'm not
very sure.
So I understand the PUC's concern,
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
34
because a lot of the residents are not paying
their water bills. However, they are paying what
they believe to be accurate, what they were told.
We have -- our account with Mayfield
Springs is current, although I was furious about
it. It makes me uneasy to not pay a bill, so I've
been paying, al though my husband, if he had his
way, we would not be paying. But I kind of won
that argument.
So anyways, we're paying. But I guess
I feel that it should not be looked upon
negatively to those that are not paying. And I
also don't feel, although it has been said
numerous times by Mayfield Springs, that because
the homeowners that are currently in the lawsuit
are not paying, which some of them are not, that
the company is in a dire financial situation. I
think that that's ridiculous.And the reason for
that is at $50 a month, what the PUC's initial
recommendation was was half that amount.
So even if you had only half of your
customers paying, he should be able to pay his
bills. Obviously, the final numbers have not been
set, but I don't believe for one second that that
company is in financial dire situation.And if
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
35
they are, it has nothing do with the fact that ten
homeowners are not paying their bills.
As a water company, you have to expect
that some customers will not pay their bills and
not pay them on time. And if you can't account
for that, it's just bad business practices on your
part..
I also don't feel that we should be
responsible for paying for the attorney fees.
There is a court ruling that -- in district court
that essentially said he was operating a water
company illegally.So for us to have to pay his
attorney fees is ridiculous.
Another thing is the the HOA, the
common areas being watered. Right now, the way
it's proposed, it would basically be the rate,
whatever times eight. And at this point, because
Johnson does own all of the lots -- not all of
them -- a good majority of the lots in the second
phase, and because he also is the owner of
Mayfield Springs water company, he is currently
not paying money to wa ter the common area, because
he is not paying HOA dues, al though he should be.
He is not paying HOA dues for the lots that he
owns.
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
36
So he is essentially getting free
water. So he is just as guilty of not paying
water as all the people he's accusing of not
paying water, because his lots are benefitting
from the beautiful common area. That's why people
will buy lots. The only way that that common area
can be kept green is from water. Currently, the
HOA fees would pay for that water, and currently
he is not paying HOA dues. Essentially he's
getting a free ride also.
Oops.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:Put that on your
bill.
MS. ABERCROMBIE: I'll pay it.
Okay. So then, just one other thing
really fast, and then I'm done. It's kind of been
allover the map, and I apologize. But -- let me
see what I wrote down here. Okay. We have been
lied to on a number of occasions. The first time
was when I was told that we would have a meeting
before a bill would ever be sent out by Johnson
himself, and that did not happen.
The next time was when a cost breakdown
was sent out to us that basically said that it was
$100 a month for water, and this is why. It had
.
.
.
37
1 it all broken out.And I got on the phone and
2 called 20 different companies that drill and
3 service wells, and -- because I wanted to see how
4 accurate that $100 figure was.
5 13 of those companies said that we were
6 getting ripped off.Five -- no, 13 said that they
7 had never seen rates that high for a well that
8 size.Five flat out said we were getting ripped
9 off, and two said they were unfamiliar with well
10 costs for a well that size.
11 I couldn't find anybody -- I mean, I
12 called every single number I could find in the
13 phone book, and I couldn't find anybody that would
14 quote me rates anywhere near that.And they said
15 they would obviously have to take a look at the
16 actual system itself, but $100 a month was
17 laughable, which is also what we thought.
18 So we kind of felt that that cost
19 breakdown was a bunch of junk, which is another
,20 reason why a lot of the homeowners refuse to pay,
21 because they're -- and we asked repeated times to
22 actually see not just an eight-line breakdown, but
23 to actually see what expenses weren't being paid,
24 and we were shut down.
25 And then the third was at our first HOA
.
.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.
38
1
2
3
meeting, a lot of the homeowners were obviously
upset, because we'd been told the $100 for water,
sewer, and HOA. And so -- I believe a sign-up
4 sheet was sent around, and the people that were
told that it was $100 for water, sewer, and HOA
were supposed to write down all of their
information. And we agreed -- Johnson told us
that there would be a meeting to discuss those
concerns.
That meeting never occurred. The day
that meeting was supposed to occur, I contacted
the property management company. And they said,
oh, we apologize. You haven't gotten anything in
the mail ? And I said no. Is there not going to
be a meeting? They said, no, there's not. You
should be getting a letter in the mail that
explains why.
The letter basically said we apologize
that there's been a misunderstanding. We have
dropped the rate to $50. We are applying with the
PUC, and we're sorry. So the promised meeting
never occurred, and that was essentially the third
time that we were lied to.
That is all.We are -- my husband and
I are very grateful that the PUC is involved.
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
39
That's what we've wanted from the beginning. Oh,
wait. One last thing. Sorry. And then I promise
I'll shut up. I'm kind of long-winded. I
apologize. It's just how I am.
The issue of the meter installation
being looked at as a capi tal expense. In the
original permits, the agreement was that Johnson
and his water company would apply for a CPCN. If
that was his intent, the meters would have been an
integral part of that application.
We believe Johnson never intended to
file a CPCN, and therefore never installed the
meters.Because the ini tial plat was approved
with the condition that he would apply with the
PUC, the meters should be looked at as a capital
expense, even though they were purchased a few
months after the well was completed. The
customers should not be responsible for paying for
Johnson's attempt to cut corners and avoid
regulations.And that's it.
Any questions?
EXAMINATION
BY COMMISSIONER REDFORD:
Q. You have a homeowner's association?
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
40
A. We do.
Q. Do you have officers?
A. We just barely -- we have wanted
control of our HOA since day one. And we just
barely -- we don't have control, because Johnson
owns all of the lots in the second phase. And so
our vote is basically null and void. But we did
elect officers -- directors, three directors at
our most recent HOA meeting.Yes, which those
directors will essentially have no say, because
they will be outvoted. So it's great that we're
on the board now, but --
Q. Did the developer turn over the common
areas?
A.I don't think so.No common areas?
Q. Are you familiar with what we call
CC&Rs? And qui te frankly, in a senior moment I
can't remember what that means, but it -- maybe
you can he lp me.
MR. HOWELL: Covenants and restrictions.
Q. BY COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Yes. Did you
ever see any covenants and restrictions?
A. Yes. We actually signed our purchase
agreement before we got a copy. We got the first
copy of the CCRs, and in there, there was a water
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
41
section that was maybe a paragraph, maybe a
sentence. And we never received another copy.
After that, I guess they were amended,
and there was a whole water section put in. But
we had already purchased our lot and we had, I
think, begun building our house before we ever
even knew that.
Q. SO the developer amended the CC&Rs --
A. Multiple times, yes.
Q. after you purchased the property?
A. It was actually amended days after we
signed our purchase agreement. They were
amended -- okay. So we signed our purchase
agreement. We got a copy of the CC&Rs. It was
the wrong copy of the CC&Rs at that point. And we
never received another copy.
Q. Do you recall what that one sentence or
two sentences said about water?
A.
them here.
We have them.I don't believe we have
Do we have the original?
Q. Well, I'm sure that -- I'm sure
Mr. Hammond has ei ther made those available to us
or he will.
A. It basically said, I think, that
there's a -- it doesn't say anything about the
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
42
cost of water in the initial one.It just says
that there is a well, and that it services the
whole subdivision.
Q. Okay.
A. Like a li ttle blip.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Well, if you have
nothing else, let me ask Mr. Howell if he has any
questions.
MR. HOWELL:ThankI have no quest ions.
you.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Mr. Hammond?
MR. HAMMOND: I have no questions.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Well, thank you very
much. We appreciate you attending.
MS. ABERCROMBIE: You're welcome.
setting this right here.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Okay. We won't
I'm just
charge you for the damage.
MS. ABERCROMBIE: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Okay. Greg Johnson?
Step forward.
GREG JOHNSON,
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
43
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Mr. Howell? Don?
MR. HOWELL: We were having a conversation
whether Mr. Johnson, who's represented -- who's a
party in this case, can appear as a public
witness. But
MR. JOHNSON: And I just wanted to
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: I think I'm going to
rule that he is.
MR. HOWELL: Okay. Mr. Johnson, I need you
to state your name and spell your last for the
record, please.
MR. JOHNSON: Okay. It i S Greg Johnson, and
it's -- I live at 2037 East Terza, T-e-r-z-a,
Meridian, Idaho.
MR. HOWELL: And are you a Mayfield Springs
customer?
MR. JOHNSON:
MR. HOWELL:
MR. JOHNSON:
Yes.
All right.
I had to think about that.
But yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Go ahead.
MR. JOHNSON: I don't have a lot to add,
other than I'll answer questions if you have
questions that have been raised, if
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
44
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Well, as you know,
we've asked some questions, but usually those
questions have been asked as a matter of --
because the witnesses have made some sort of a
statement. So no, we don't have any questions.
This is being handled on what's called a modified
procedure.
MR. JOHNSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:Which, in effect,
means that it's being handled on the document.
However, the law does provide, and we encourage
public hearings to make sure that everyone gets an
opportuni ty to have their say about practically
anything they want to talk about. So we don't
have any questions. Now, that doesn't say that
Mr. Howell or Mr. Hammond -- Mr. Hammond is your
attorney?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Okay.
MR. JOHNSON: I have a couple things I'll
just talk about.
COMMISS IONER REDFORD: Go ahead.
MR. JOHNSON: I guess first of all, I have
done many subdivisions, but this is the first
water system I have ever built and operated. I
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
45
have not done it perfectly, as is probably obvious
from my not having applied to the PUC a couple
years ago. I took the advice of professional
engineers and others that had developed water
systems. We got our DEQ approvals. They told me
that was all that was necessary at that time.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Who told you that?
Who's "they"?
MR. JOHNSON: SPF Water --
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Okay.
MR. JOHNSON: was my water consultant and
construction engineer. We did get approvals from
DEQ, and we have all of those. And we built a
quality system and operated as we were instructed.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: By who?
MR. JOHNSON: By them, as far as the
operation manuals and et cetera. We have provided
quality water to the residents. We have done it
as fairly and as -- as they said they have
claimed that we have been dishonest in some
things.We may have made some mistakes, but I've
never intended to mislead anybody or be dishonest
in anything.
The questions wi th wha t the real tor
represented are being handled in the court system.
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
He was instructed what I knew.
46
What he told these
people, I don't know. I wasn't there when they
were told. That will be settled at another time.
The conversations referred to as me
promising to have meetings, I probably did say
that we would have a meeting. I fel t that -- once
we knew what the issues were, and that we were
going to the PUC, I agreed to lower the rates to
$50. And I fel t that that's what the discussion
was that we were going to have at that meeting.
And so we continued to proceed wi th that and get
our application in to the PUC.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:Have you ever had any
problems with the service, any complaints, or with
the quali ty of the water? Are you okay wi th DEQ
and
MR. JOHNSON:We had one incidentWe are.
of bacteria in the system when we hooked the
second phase on, and we had to go back through and
re-chlorinate and flush. That's the only incident
I'm aware of.Is that correct? Yeah.I think
we've been able to provide quality water in the
volume necessary for fire protection and other
things in this area.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:Mr. Howell?
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
47
MR. HOWELL: No questions.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Do you have anything
you'd like to add, Mr. Hammond?
MR. HAMMOND: I don't have any questions.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: We appreciate your
coming. Thank you very much,
MR. JOHNSON: You bet.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:
that wants to testify? Okay.
sir.
Is there anyone else
Step forward, sir.
MR. GRABLE: My name's Larry Grable.
LARRY GRABLE,
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
MR. HOWELL: Sir, could you state your full
name and spell your last for the record, please?
MR. GRABLE: Larry Grable, G-r-a-b- 1 -e.
MR. HOWELL: And your addre s s?
MR. GRABLE: 12070 West Dynamite.
MR. HOWELL: And are you a customer of
Mayfield Springs?
MR. GRABLE: Yes, I am.
MR. HOWELL: All right.Please give us your
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
48
statement.
MR. GRABLE: First of all, I'd like to thank
you gentlemen for coming here today and helping us
with this si t uation. And second of all, nice duck
and cover, Greg.
You know, when me and my wife left
California, we came here for a little bit easier
way of life. We left California to get away from
a lot of this stuff. This is like the last thing
we expected. This has been really tough on us.
And I'm reiterating what everybody else
has said. You just don't get this many people
together in different walks of life that are going
to come up and lie about something that we're
talking about. This was promised to us. This was
told to us. And all of a sudden now some of these
people are paying money that they can't afford to
pay.
The $50 drop in the water bill that he
was talking about, that was done because he had so
much backlash and so much problems and so many
complaints, that he thought that would, you know,
mull us over, like giving a little piece of candy
to kids.
But that's not what we i re looking for.
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
49
We're looking for a future here. Most of these
people here are going to stay here. They don't
plan on buying somewhere else, don't plan on
leaving. And that i s what we're doing this for.
We want to make sure that our houses and our water
and our sewer and everything else is in somebody' s
hands that we can trust, five, six years from now
we're not paying $400 a month for water.
I don't think, like everybody else, I
don't think we should be paying anything. I think
$1,200 a year is what we were promised, and I
think that's all we should pay. However, I don't
think that's going to happen at this point.
So, you know, I think all of us want
something fair. We want to be fair with, you
know, the PUC, and we want to pay our debt, and
we're not trying to get a fair -- free ride out of
this. We just -- now we just want it to where
we're all comfortable; we can sleep at night
knowing that somebody' s not going to raise our
water every time they get a notion to.
You've already been told that he owns
property out there, and he owns lots out there,
and just when we were getting control over the
first phase, all of a sudden now the second phase
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
so
is part of it, and that gives him voting power.
The director meeting was just a joke.
That was just another thing to maybe make us
happy, but it doesn't do anything for us. He
gives us no power, no rights, no nothing, because
he owns -- he still owns all the voting. So we're
just under thumb -- somebody' s thumb, and we just
want out. Thatls all we're asking for.
And these are good people here. I
mean, you know, these are all hardworking people
here.You know, there's we don't si t around
all day and do nothing. We work hard. Our money
means something to us. So that's why we're here
today. And our time is very valuable. And we i ve
been doing this for about a year. So we really
appreciate you guys helping us, and thank you.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Thank you.
Mr. Howell?
MR. HOWELL: No questions.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Mr. Hammond?
MR. HAMMOND: No questions.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Thank you very much,
sir. There are no -- excuse me, sir. Do you have
something you'd Ii ke to add?
MR. CORVINO:Mr. Howell has told me that I
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
51
can testify.I originally did not believe I
could, because I'm a party. I'm the intervenor.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Please step forward,
sir.
GERALD CORVINO,
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
MR. HOWELL:Could you s ta te your name and
spell your last for the record?
MR. CORVINO: Gerald Corvino, C-o-r-v-i-n-o.
MR. HOWELL: And an address, Mr. Corvino?
MR. CORVINO: 11865 West Tustin Lane.
MR. HOWELL: And I ta ke it you are a
Mayfield Springs customer?
MR. CORVINO:Yes, I am.
To make this totally clear, I'm also
the intervenor in the case. I filed for
intervenor status and was granted by the
commission several months ago.
Originally I was not going to speak,
but since Mr. Johnson spoke, I felt it was
appropriate for me to do that. And also, I think
I can clear up some questions that the
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
52
commissioners had, because I have access to that
knowledge.
In addition, as of today, I am the
president of the homeowner's association.
Somebody earlier mentioned at the last HOA meeting
held a week or so ago, we, for the first time, had
directors elected to the HOA that were not either
Mr. Johnson or Mr. Johnson's employees.So now we
have three directors that actually own homes in
Arrowrock Ranch.
I was elected the president today. To
clarify the issue around the voting in the HOA,
the way the CC&Rs are set up, Mr. Johnson has ten
votes for every lot that he owns. So essentially,
since he still owns either 42 or 43, that gives
him 420 or 430 votes.
together.
There are only 100 lots all
So as you can see, there's only really
one vote that matters in anything related to the
HOA, and that's Mr. Johnson's, because he has 420
votes, and all of the other homeowners, lot
owners, in total --
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:Can I stop you right
there for a second and just ask a question?
MR. CORVINO:Sure.
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
53
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:Do the directors
block vote that? In other words, do you vote the
number of shares you have, or
MR. CORVINO:He did.I mean, that's what
Greg did at the last meeting.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Well, what about --
MR. CORVINO: The rest of us only have one
vote per.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:Doesn't -- you know,
clarify.I mean, if you're wrong, if you're a
director, unless the CC&Rs provide for
proportional voting for directors, everybody gets
the same vote.
MR. CORVINO:I was not clear.In terms of
the homeowner's association votes, it's 420 or 430
to 57 or 58.In terms of the directors, each
director has one vote.However, as you probably
are aware, if you've ever read CC&Rs, the
directors are somewhat limi ted in what they can
do. The two things they can't do specifically, in
this homeowner's association, is they cannot
modify the CC&Rs without the vote of the
homeowners, and they can't modify the bylaws
without a vote of the members of the association.
So while we can conduct the day-to-day
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
54
business of the association as directors, we
really can't make any substantial changes to the
CC&Rs or the bylaws. Is that -- did I clear that
up for you?
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Yes, you did. But
that doesn't seem odd. That doesn't seem odd to
me.
MR. CORVINO:That's normal.As INo.
said, I've been a member of a number of HOAs, and
everyone worked that way, where we took a vote of
the majority. It's unusual, in my experience, to
have the developer maintain control of the HOA
beyond the point that the development gets 30 or
40 percent sold.
I mean, typically developers just want
to get out of it, at least based on my experience
in other states. They just want to get out of it.
They don't want to have anything to do with them.
So I hope that clears up some questions we had
earlier about the homeowner's association and
whatnot.
So I only have three points, and I will
try to be brief. I think there are three maj or
issues here.First one has to do wi th fairness.
I contested, I recommended a different rate design
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
55
in my filing with the commission than what came
what either the company recommended or what the
staff recommended.
I actually produced that rate design
for one reason and one reason only:To make sure
that everybody who benefi ts from the water pays
for the water. Because as an earlier speaker
brought up, Mr. Johnson does not pay homeowner's
association dues.
So the water that waters the common
area around his 43 lots is paid by the other 57
owners of the -- of lots in the association, if we
go with the rate design proposed by the staff or
proposed by the company. The only way to insure
that everybody who benefits from the water on the
common area actually pays for water is to include
the vacant lots in the rate design and charge what
I've learned now is an availabili ty thing.
I didn't come up with this. I found it
on your website, actually, in another rate case.
And I feel that that would end up wi th a fairer
rate structure, so everybody who's benefitting
from water on the common area is paying something
towards the water, either directly, through the
HOA -- ei ther directly through the company or
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
56
indirectly through the HOA.
Second issue has to do wi th a windfall.
Mr. Johnson was charging $2,500 for a hookup fee.
The commission will eventually decide on a fee
that will be roughly in the range of $750, based
on what I've read so far. So if you take the
number of lots, if he had been able to charge $100
for -- $2,500 for all 100 lots, he would have
recovered $250,000 from his costs to build the
water system.
The longer he could delay filing for
his CPCN and getting regulated by the commission
and getting a different hookup fee, the more money
he could recover towards the contributed capi tal
for building the water system. I believe that
that was the reason that the application got
delayed.
I actually filed a complaint with the
commission in March of 2007 through the commi ssion
website, and I had a number of communications with
Mr. -- wi th Chris Hecht from the commission staff.
So I'm the one that started the whole thing with
the commission. That was the first complaint --
and it's all in my filing -- was in March of 2007.
I actually paid water fees up until May
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
57
of 2007, when we filed the lawsuit~ Two things
happened. We filed the lawsui t and Chris told me
tha t the commis sian could not force Mr. Johnson to
file for a CPCN. At that point, I quit paying.
Finally, there's the whole issue that's
been brought up before. I'm not going to talk
about the issue wi th who knew what about what the
water fees were actually going to be. You've had
much better testimony from earlier speakers.
There's the whole issue around
trustworthiness. We were led to believe that the
company was working wi th the CP -- working wi th
the PUC to apply for a CPCN. I actually found a
witness, and it i S documented in my -- in my filing
wi th the commission, Michael Darrington, who
worked for the commission at the time, who
attended a meeting with Mr. Johnson. And he's
told me on the phone that he told Mr. Johnson he
had to apply. That was the end of February 2007.
MR. HAMMOND: I'm going to obj ect here. I
think that's hearsay. He's testifying to what
somebody else said.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Well, there's been
plenty of hearsay today.
MR. HAMMOND: I understand.
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
58
COMMISSIONER REDFORD:We'll just -- you're
overruled.
MR. HAMMON D :
MR. CORVINO:
Thank you.
Okay, John.
So there's been a series of
communica tions wi th customers.You heard it from
Amber earlier about what she was told by
Mr. Johnson.There's just an issue around
trustworthiness about communications between the
company and the ratepayers, some of which were in
wri ting. We were told that the application would
be filed within four months in writing, and that
never happened. That was in early 2007, and that
never happened.
I actually filed a request with the
commission in July of 2007. I actually asked
asked for public -- I filed a public records
request. I asked for public documents. And the
commission secretary sent me back a note, said
there were no public documents regarding the
Arrowrock Ranch Subdivision, Intermountain Sewer &
Water, Arbor Ridge, which were the names that were
currently being used at that time. So I actually
tried to get this handled by the commission before
we filed a lawsuit on numerous occasions, and I
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
59
was unable to do that.
One final thing. I'd like to
personally thank Chris Hecht, Don Howell,
Kristine Sasser from the commission staff, for
helping me through this process. I've never done
it before. I am not an attorney. Actually, and
John Hammond too, for keeping me out of trouble.
I have never done this before. I am
not a lawyer. And without their help, I would
have made probably a big mess of this. You may
decide I made a mess anyway; that's up to you.
That's all I have to say.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Mr. Howell?
MR. HOWELL: No questions.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Mr. Hammond?
MR. HAMMOND: No questions.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: Well, thank you very
much, sir.
MR. CORVINO: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER REDFORD: I appreciate your
testimony. Is there anyone else that would like
to testify?
Well, I wanted to let you know how
important these public meeting -- hearings are.
Our commission staff -- there are several of them
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
60
here. They're seated over here. If you have
questions, any questions, they may be able to
assist you and give you some answers or direct you
in the right direction. Again, thank you very
much for coming. This process is what it's all
about in our country. Thank you very much.
(The proceedings concluded at 8:03 p.m.)
-00000-
.
61.1 AUTHENTICATION
2
3
4
5 This is to certify that the attached proceedings
6 before the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, in
7 the matter of the application of Idaho Springs
8 Water Company, Inc. for a Certificate of Public
9 Convenience and Necessity, were held as herein
10 appears, and that this is the original transcript
11 thereof for the file of the Commission.
12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set.13 my hand July 9, 2008.
14
15
16
17 (~CLLU/(,L L, W~U+VI A Cl_
Laura L . Whiting, Court¡1 eporterCSR No. 688 \""18
23
....11-..... ..
.. v' W lIl~ ..... ~ ..... .KF.~". . . ... ~.. .. ~..
: "Il ~oi:AA:Y \ 1c ~.~. _.- . ..~. . .
. ~. Dlro1t ~C . "" ... . cupV ..~.'.... .-~. ... ~.....~~..
"'", '" ~'tlE O~ '#..........
19
20
21
22
24
. 25