960105JS.docx

Q.Please state your name and business address for the record.
A.My name is Judy Stokes.  My business address is 472 West Washington Street, Boise, Idaho.
Q.By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
A.I am employed by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission as a Utilities Compliance Investigator in the Consumer Assistance Division.
Q.What is your educational background and relevant employment history?
A.I attended the University of Idaho majoring in education and psychology.  I have taken several continuing education classes and professional courses on consumer affairs.  I also attended the NARUC Regulatory Studies Program at Michigan State University.  I have been employed by the Commission since August 1985, and have been in my present position since March 1986.
Q.Have you previously testified before this Commission?
A.Yes, I have.
Q.What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.The purpose of my testimony is to discuss the oral and written comments received by the Consumer Assistance Staff from the North State Area customers who presently receive water service from the City of Garden City.
Q.Why was the Consumer Staff contacted when the Commission has no regulatory authority over customers of the City of Garden City?
A.The customers in the “North State Area” are aware they will be affected by the Commission's decision regarding approval of an exchange agreement between Garden City and United Water Idaho.
Q.How many comments were received by the Consumer Staff?
A.Over a four-month period (September through December 1995), Staff was contacted by 46 individual customers.  Comments were received by mail, fax, and telephone.
Q.Did the Commission Staff receive any petitions?
A.Yes.  A petition was hand-delivered with 109 signatures.  The petitioners are protesting the transfer of their water service from Garden City to United Water.  Sixteen petitioners are residents of the Coventry Manor Subdivision; 93 are residents of the Glenbrier Park Subdivision.  A notation on the Coventry Manor petition stated “still obtaining signatures from the 150 families in this subdivision”.  However, additional signatures have not been received by the Commission.  The Commission also received a petition with twelve signatures from residents of the Summerhill subdivision.  The president of the Northwest Boise Neighborhood Association wrote a letter on behalf of the Association.
Q.Were most of the contacts from residential customers?
A.Yes, although Staff did receive comments from one business located in the affected area.
Q.How were the “North State Area” customers notified of the proposed exchange agreement?
A.The exchange agreement between Garden City and United Water Idaho was executed on July 20, 1995.  On September 7, 1995, the City of Garden City sent a public notice to their customers in the area of impact. Customers were advised that an exchange agreement had been negotiated and ratified by the Garden City Council.  See Staff Exhibit No. 107.  
Q.Describe the comments received by the Staff from customers of Garden City Water.
A.The overwhelming majority, including those who signed the petitions, said they are against the agreement for an exchange of water service.  Comments expressed covered a variety of issues and concerns.
Elderly and retired residents stated they would be hurt financially due to their limited income.  Other customers felt that their interests and concerns had been ignored in this process, and demanded a public hearing to give them an opportunity to express their opinion.  They were concerned about the lack of information to those affected.
Many stated that the proposal makes no sense because they will continue to receive their water from Garden City, but at an increased rate.  In their opinion, this serves only to benefit the utility provider and not consumers.  Some suggested that they pay Garden City rates as long as Garden City is providing the water.  They objected to paying higher rates for the same water service and quality.
Residents in homeowners associations stated that their association fees would increase to pay for watering the common areas.  This would also cause a financial hardship to maintain their lawns and landscapes in order to avoid being in violation of association rules.
A few commented on the poor quality of Garden City water and its high magnesium and iron content.  Still, they preferred paying lower rates for this “dirty water” and fear that United Water has the same water quality problems but at a higher rate.  Others stated they were very happy with Garden City's water quality and the good service they receive.  Several consumers stated they would like a guarantee from United Water to provide clean water.  One possible explanation of contradictory statements concerning water quality are that people are more tolerant of iron and manganese in the water if the rates are lower or that not everyone perceives this as a problem.
Several homeowners commented that they took into account the cost of utilities to assure affordability before they purchased their homes.  The low cost of water was a factor in the area that they chose.
In summary, residents of the North State Area are pleased with their service and rates and do not wish to change to United Water, especially if the rates would increase significantly.  They feel this proposal makes no sense and can find no advantages to the consumer.
Q.Did the Commission receive any comments from the residents in the Millstream area?
A.No.  These United Water customers will see a significant decrease in rates if Garden City takes over their water service.
Q.Does this conclude your testimony in this proceeding?
A.Yes, it does.