5.20240824_jrh2.pdf

AMENDED DECISION MEMORANDUM 1
AMENDED DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER RAPER
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL

FROM: JOHN R. HAMMOND, JR. AND JOLENE BOSSARD

DATE: AUGUST 10, 2021

SUBJECT: FORMAL COMPLAINT OF NICOLE BURBANK AGAINST ROCKY
MOUNTAIN UTILITY COMPANY, INC.

On June 1, 2021, Nicole Burbank, filed a formal complaint (“Complaint”), attached as
Attachment A, against the Rocky Mountain Utility Company, Inc. (“Company”), a water
corporation and public utility, alleging generally that she has never contracted with the Company
for utility service and is committing fraud and extortion through its billing practices as described
in more detail below. See Attachment A. Ms. Burbank submitted additional information to the
Commission about the Complaint on July 28, 2021. See Attachment B.
Before filing the Complaint Ms. Burbank registered an informal complaint with the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission’s consumer assistance staff (“Staff”) about the Company. Staff
could not informally resolve the dispute between Ms. Burbank and the Company.
On July 21, 2021, Staff submitted a Decision Memorandum regarding Ms. Burbank’s
Complaint. Staff now submits this Amended Decision Memorandum on this matter to the
Commission for its consideration.
BACKGROUND
On Thursday, May 6, 2021, Blake Schaat1 contacted Staff on behalf of Ms. Burbank
submitting an informal complaint about a hand-delivered disconnection notice Ms. Burbank
received from a stranger for $877.50. See Affidavit of Jolene Bossard at p. 1. Mr. Schaat stated
the May 6, 2021, disconnection notice stated Ms. Burbank’s water service would be disconnected
within 24 hours if she did not pay the $877.50 balance. Id. at Confidential Exhibit A. Mr. Schaat

1 Ms. Burbank provided oral consent for Mr. Schaat to represent her interests for the informal complaint.
AMENDED DECISION MEMORANDUM 2
stated that Ms. Burbank thought her home was served by a well, so he did not understand why she
was getting the disconnection notice. Id. Staff advised Mr. Schaat that Staff could request that
the Company not disconnect Ms. Burbank’s service until her informal complaint was reviewed.
Id. On May 6, 2021, Staff emailed links to Mr. Schaat for the Rocky Mountain Utility Company
Tariff (“Tariff”) and the Commission’s Customer Relations Rules for Gas, Electric, and Water
Public Utilities (“UCRR”), IDAPA 31.21.01; specifically pointing to Rules 304 and 311. Id. Staff
also submitted the informal complaint to the Company and requested that it not disconnect Ms.
Burbank’s service until the dispute could be reviewed. It is Staff’s understanding that Ms. Burbank
is still receiving water service from the Company. Id.
Staff spoke with Ms. Burbank on Thursday, May 6, 2021. Id. Ms. Burbank stated that
she was receiving water from a well but didn’t know where it was located. Id. Ms. Burbank
represented that she was a first-time homeowner and was not well-versed in the intricacies of home
ownership. Id. Staff informed Ms. Burbank that if it were determined she was provided water
service by the Company’s water system, she would have to pay for that service, but that it might
be possible to work out a payment arrangement with the Company. Id. Staff also advised Ms.
Burbank she could contact Staff by telephone if she had additional questions.
On May 10, 2021, Staff spoke with a Company representative who advised that a “new
service” for Ms. Burbank’s residence was established on March 20, 2020, and payments were
made for water service until August 4, 2020. Id. The Company asserted that it sent out an invoice
every month and that notices were mailed to Ms. Burbank. Id. The Company further advised that
it had sent disconnect notices to Ms. Burbank but the Company prefers not to disconnect customers
in the winter. Id. The Company also advised Staff that its technician recently spoke with Ms.
Burbank and talked with her about disconnecting service. Id.
On May 10, 2021, Staff requested that the Company provide it with, 1) a copy of Ms.
Burbank’s last bill; 2) a copy of the Final Notice; and 3) payment and billing history for Ms.
Burbank. Id. Staff also asked the Company whether invoices are sent to a standard mail address
and if it was the same as the service address for the customer. Id. Staff also asked what payment
arrangement the Company would propose for Ms. Burbank to pay off any past due amount. Id.
The Company responded to Staff on the same day by providing Staff with copies of Ms. Burbank’s
last bill, final notice, and payment/billing history. Id. at Exhibit B. Ms. Burbank’s billing and
payment history confirms there was a “Hook up fee” of $850 billed by the Company which does
AMENDED DECISION MEMORANDUM 3
not indicate what it is for. Id. This billing history also shows that the Company billed Ms. Burbank
$39.50 for water and $58.00 for septic monthly for $97.50 each month.2 Id. The Company billed
Ms. Burbank for these services on the same invoice. Id. The Company claimed that all invoices
were sent to Ms. Burbank’s home address. Affidavit of Bossard at Confidential Exhibit A. The
Company also represented that it was open to payment arrangements of any kind. Id.
Staff forwarded the information it had received from the Company to Mr. Schaat. Id.
Mr. Schaat responded in writing he thought there was a “big deposit” made by Ms. Burbank and
that “in accordance with IPUC 101 and more specific 105 shouldn’t that have been 1/6 for 1 year
rates.”3 Id. Mr. Schaat also stated that according to “Rocky Mountain Utility Rates schedule, 13.9
I noticed something about sending out annually rates and summary of rules and regulations.”4
Staff responded in writing it did not see that that Ms. Burbank was required by the Company to
make a deposit. Id. Rather, Staff believed that the Company had billed for a hook-up fee. Id.
Staff noted that the Company’s Commission approved tariff allowed for a $150 water hookup fee
and that according to the Company’s website the total connection fees for water and sewer is $800.
See https://rockymountainutility.com/faqs/. However, the Company’s billing history shows the
Company billed $850 to connect water and septic service for Ms. Burbank. See Affidavit of
Bossard at Exhibit B.
On May 11, Mr. Schaat called Staff and advised that Ms. Burbank had contacted her
realtor who confirmed there was not a well on her property and that her home was connected to
the Company’s water system. Affidavit of Bossard at Confidential Exhibit A. Mr. Schaat told
Staff that Ms. Burbank claimed she had seen no invoices from the Company but had seen the final
disconnection notice because it was hand-delivered to her. Id. Mr. Schaat also advised that Ms.
Burbank thought she was paying Rocky Mountain Power until she realized that she did not receive
service from that utility. Id. Mr. Schaat told Staff it believed that the Company was committing

2 The Company’s Commission approved Rate Schedule 1 – All customers (Residential & Commercial) provides that
it charges its customers a flat rate of $39.50 for water service.
3 Staff believes Mr. Schaat is referring to Rules 101 (Deposit Requirements) and 105 (Amount of Deposit) of the
Commission’s Utility Customer Relations Rules.
4 Section 13.9 of the Company’s Tariff provides:

Copies of the Company’s rates and summary of rules and regulations shall be available at the
Company’s office and provided to customers upon commencement of service, and annually
thereafter in accordance with [the Utility Customer Relations Rules] and the UCIR.”

Company Tariff, Sheet 12 Revision at § 13.9.
AMENDED DECISION MEMORANDUM 4
fraud and had overcharged Ms. Burbank for water service. Id. Mr. Schaat also alleged that the
Company was inappropriately threatening to disconnect her water service if she did not pay the
combined water and sewer bill. Id. In response, Staff advised Mr. Schaat that the Commission
does not regulate sewer/septic services. Id. Staff also advised Mr. Schaat that smaller companies
may combine billing for water and sewer services to save money. Id. On the same day Mr. Schaat
emailed to Staff on Ms. Burbank’s behalf that asserted:
1. That Ms. Burbank’s builder paid the $850 hook-up fee but did not tell her. Ms.
Burbank asserts she did not agree to be hooked into the Company’s system.
2. That the Company never provided her with an itemization for the $850 hook-up
fee.
3. That the Company never sent her invoices for services.
4. That the Company’s billing information Ms. Burbank received from Staff was “a
mess” and did not comply with “IDAPA 31”.
5. That Ms. Burbank has never seen “a terms of agreement or even an annual
agreement of the water, per IPUC.”
6. That Ms. Burbank has a septic system and must pump and maintain it at her own
cost. Ms. Burbank contends she is not receiving septic services from the Company
but that the Company is overbilling her for water service by adding a line item on
her bill for septic.
7. That the Company uses its billing for septic service charges to increase its charges
for water service without going to the Commission to ask for a rate increase.
8. There are no meters for water or septic service.
9. That the Company is threatening to shut off her water service if she does not pay
for septic service.
Id. Mr. Schaat asserts in this correspondence that Ms. Burbank is owed a credit or refund and this
“would be accurate when you take inconsideration [sic] the ‘deposit’”. Id. Mr. Schaat also stated
that “Ms. Burbank did not pay the outrageous ‘hook up fee’ or ‘deposit’ for the water. Id.
On May 13, 2021, Staff requested that the Company itemize charges for water and
septic/sewer service since the Commission does not regulate the latter. Id. Staff also asked the
Company how its septic/sewer service works. Id. The Company advised that the customer has a
holding tank where the waste from a home goes to. Id. From the holding tank the waste goes to
AMENDED DECISION MEMORANDUM 5
the sewer system and moves to a treatment facility. Id. The Company also advised that customers
must pump the holding tanks out about every 5 years to remove solid waste. Id. On this same
date Staff communicated with Mr. Schaat it had separated the Company’s charges for water and
sewer service. Id. Based on information provided to it by the Company, Staff advised Mr. Schaat
it believed Ms. Burbank owed the Company $395.00 for water service as of that date. Id. Staff
further advised:
• The Company does not charge customers a “deposit” for connecting to its water
system. Staff advised there was a line item for an $850 combined water/sewer
hookup fee. Staff stated that it believed that $150 was for the water service
connection, the amount authorized in the Company’s Tariff.
• The Company’s invoices showed it was charging Ms. Burbank $39.50 a month
for water service which was the amount it could charge by its Tariff.
• There was no water meter, thus the unmetered, flat monthly fee of $39.50.
• Staff could not determine whether Ms. Burbank had received invoices from the
Company. However, Staff noted that the Company’s last invoice contained the
same address that Ms. Burbank had provided to Staff.
• The Company’s invoices sent to Staff met the requirements of Rule 201.01(a-
j) of the Commission’s Utility Customer Relations Rules.
• Last, Staff advised that if Ms. Burbank was unsatisfied with Staff’s position,
she (either herself or through a licensed attorney) could file a formal complaint
with the Commission.
On May 14, 2021, Mr. Schaat responded in writing to Staff representing that Ms.
Burbank believed the Company has and is continuing to overbill her every month by $58.00 (the
charges for septic service). Mr. Schaat argued that the “initial deposit was $850 plus the first
months [sic] bill of $97.50, totaling $947.50” which exceeds the amount allowed for a deposit
according to the Commission’s Rules. Mr. Schaat further asserted that the $58.00 charge for
sewer, in addition to the $39.50 for water service is also a violation of the Commission’s Rules
and the Company’s Tariff. Mr. Schaat advised that Ms. Burbank would be filing a formal
complaint asserting numerous grounds.
On May 17, 2021, the Company advised Staff it sent Ms. Burbank “New Customer
Letters” on March 23, 2020. The Company sent these documents to Staff which included a request
AMENDED DECISION MEMORANDUM 6
for contact information for the customer, new customer letter, and a septic explanation. Affidavit
of Bossard at Exhibit C. Staff forwarded these documents to Mr. Schaat on May 17, 2021. On
the same day Mr. Schaat responded that Ms. Burbank claimed to not have received the “New
Customer Letters”. See Affidavit of Bossard at Confidential Exhibit A.
In late May 2021, Staff advised the Company and Mr. Schaat it believed it had
done all it could to resolve the dispute between Ms. Burbank and the Company. Id. Staff further
advised Mr. Schaat it believed Ms. Burbank owed the Company $395.00 for water service.5 Id.
As a result, Staff advised Mr. Schaat it was closing its investigation into Ms. Burbank’s informal
complaint. Staff again advised Mr. Schaat that if Ms. Burbank was dissatisfied with Staff’s
position, she could file a formal complaint with the Commission. Id. Upon learning that Staff had
closed its investigation of the informal complaint, the Company advised Staff it would be sending
out a new disconnection notice to Ms. Burbank on May 24, 2021.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
In Ms. Burbank’s May 25, 2021, Complaint, she alleges the Company has engaged in
acts of fraud and extortion on her and “over a hundred residents in her subdivision.” See
Attachment A. Ms. Burbank asserts that the Company failed to give her a “Terms of Agreement
or Contract” for water service. Id. Ms. Burbank further asserts that the Company has never given
her any written contractual agreement for water service. Id. Ms. Burbank claims that her builder
hooked into the Company’s water system without giving her notice and due to confusion “moneys
were paid to [the Company]”. Id. Ms. Burbank also represents she has not received invoices from
the Company. Id. Ms. Burbank states she received copies of Company invoices through her
communications with Staff. Id. Ms. Burbank states these invoices were a “mess” and wrongly
labeled. Id. Ms. Burbank claims that the Company billed her a customer deposit but labeled it as
a hook-up fee so it would not violate the UCRR. Id. Ms. Burbank also alleges that the Company
violated the UCRR by basing the deposit on her sex, marital status, and children.6 Id. Ms. Burbank
also alleges that the Company increased her water bill every month and added multiple line items
to it without approval from the Commission. Id. Ms. Burbank asserts that one of these line items
is for “septic”. Id. Ms. Burbank asserts the Company has used the nonpayment of these
inappropriate line items to threaten to shut off water service to her residence. Id.

5 The Company has not charged any late fees for the alleged past due balance for water service.
6 No specific facts are given to support this allegation.
AMENDED DECISION MEMORANDUM 7
Ms. Burbank asserts that the Company has violated its Commission approved tariff by
increasing the cost for water service “by adding line items in the water (utility) bill and that this
violates the Commission’s rules and procedures. Id. Ms. Burbank also asserts that the Company’s
billing practices, and actions have violated the following Utility Customer Relations Rules:
201.01(a-i), 202.01, 203.01-.03 and 206.01 through 207. Id.
Ms. Burbank also asserts that the Company has overcharged her for a customer deposit
in the amount of $850.00 and then billed her $97.50 in the same month. Id. Ms. Burbank also
asserts that the Company has wrongfully charged her $58.00 monthly. Ms. Burbank also asserts
that the Company violated Rule 109.02 because the Company created “NEW” documents. Id.
Ms. Burbank argues the Company’s billing practices do not comply with the Commission’s rules.
Ms. Burbank alleges that the Company has not disclosed the terms and conditions for water usage
to her. Id. Ms. Burbank also argues that she does not have a meter on her property for water usage
or for water pressure and that “[n]o one has investigated the water pressure to this day.” (Emphasis
added in the original document). Id.
Ms. Burbank requests that all over payments for monthly services and the customer
deposit be refunded to her or applied against future water service charges. Id. Ms. Burbank
requests that the Company follow the Commission’s Rules and that her bill for utility services be
sent to:
Nicole Burbank
3890 East Ash Lane
Rigby, Idaho 83442
Email: [e-mail]

On July 28, 2021, Ms. Burbank sent correspondence to the Commission containing
further information relevant to this matter. See Attachment B. Ms. Burbank advised that she had
given authority to her boyfriend Blake C. Schaat to speak on her behalf. Id. Ms. Burbank advised
that Mr. Schaat is a paralegal for a top law firm in eastern Idaho. Id. Ms. Burbank further alleges
that Staff’s initial Decision Memorandum about her Complaint was inaccurate often. Id.
Additionally, Ms. Burbank asserts that since filing her Complaint she has received multiple
harassing letters from the Company threatening to shut off her water service. Id. The Company
disconnection notices attached to this correspondence demand that she pay past due sewer and
water service charges to avoid having her water service disconnected. Id. Burbank contends that
AMENDED DECISION MEMORANDUM 8
the Company has been warned not send these letters by the “Idaho Public Utilities Commission”.7
Ms. Burbank states the threats to shut off her water come with demands to pay ever changing
amounts. Id. Ms. Burbank also asserts that the Company has not changed their billing practices.
Ms. Burbank asserts that the Company “has extorted over a 100 residents in our
neighborhood for years.” Ms. Burbank asserts that she provided documents from other residents
in the subdivision to counsel for Staff that included line item increases on water bills to allegedly
pay for a “new water Well” that she contends never happened. Ms. Burbank further complains
that “low water pressure that has never been investigated”. Last, Ms. Burbank asserts that
automatic withdrawal payments show going into a horse racing business owned by the same person
that owns the Company. Ms. Burbank asserts that Staff has refused to give these documents to the
Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the materials reviewed by Staff, Staff recommends that the Commission issue
a summons and require the Company to answer the allegations made by Ms. Burbank in her
Complaint and her July 28, 2021, correspondence.
As part of its response to Ms. Burbank’s filings, Staff recommends that the Commission
direct the Company to provide:
1. An explanation, to include documentation, of how Ms. Burbank’s residence at 3890
East Ash Lane, Rigby, Idaho 83442 became connected to the Company’s water system
and service was provided thereto.
2. An itemized summary of the charges assessed on Ms. Burbank beginning from the date
service began to her residence that itemizes charges for water. This information should
also clearly show what balance if any the Company contends Ms. Burbank owes for
water service.
3. An explanation, to include any documentation, about what the $850 “Hook-up fee” is
for and who paid it as shown in the Exhibit B attached to the Affidavit of Jolene
Bossard.
4. An explanation as to whether the Company can produce and send separate invoices to
customers for water and sewer service.

7 Staff has notified the Company not to disconnect Ms. Burbank’s water service.
AMENDED DECISION MEMORANDUM 9
Staff also recommends that the Commission direct the Company to cease sending water
disconnection notices to Ms. Burbank that include demands to pay any alleged past due charges
for septic services.
Last, Staff requests that the Commission consider whether Mr. Schaat can represent
Ms. Burbank in this matter. Ms. Burbank states she has “given authority to my boyfriend to speak
on my behalf.” See Attachment B. Commission Rule of Procedure 43.02(a) provides:
The representation of parties at quasi-judicial proceedings for the purpose of
adjudicating the legal rights or duties of a party is restricted as set out below. Quasi-
judicial proceedings before the Commission include matters such as formal
complaints, petitions, motions, applications for modified procedure or
technical/evidentiary hearings. Representation of parties of these types of
proceedings shall be as follows:

a. A natural person may represent himself or herself or be represented by
a licensed attorney.

IDAPA 31.01.01.43.02(a) Mr. Schaat is not a licensed attorney in the State of Idaho. The emails
Mr. Schaat has sent to Staff identify that he is possibly a paralegal at the law firm Smith, Woolf,
Anderson & Wilkinson, in Idaho Falls, Idaho.
///
AMENDED DECISION MEMORANDUM 10

COMMISSION DECISION
1. Does the Commission wish to accept Ms. Burbank’s request to file a formal
complaint?
2. Does the Commission wish to issue a summons to the Company requiring it to
respond to the allegations in the Formal Complaint and Ms. Burbank’s
correspondence dated July 28, 2021?
3. Does the Commission wish to require the Company to respond to the matters in
Staff’s recommendations above?
4. Does the Commission wish to allow Staff and Ms. Burbank the opportunity to file
written comments after the Company files its responses with the Commission?
5. Anything else?

_______________________________
John R. Hammond, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General

I:\Legal\z_LMEMOS\Burbank Complaint\Burbank_Complaint_memo2.docx

AMENDED DECISION MEMORANDUM 11
ATTACHMENT A
True and Correct Copy of Nicole Burbank’s Formal Complaint
(attached)

AMENDED DECISION MEMORANDUM 12
ATTACHMENT B
True and Correct Copy of July 28, 2021 Correspondence from Nicole Burbank
(attached)