The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20100405_2906.pdfDECISION MEMORANDUM TO:CO MMISSI 0 NER KEMPTON COMMISSIONER SMITH COMMISSIONER REDFORD COMMISSION SECRETARY LEG AL WORKING FILE FROM:DANIEL KLEIN DATE:APRIL 1,2010 RE:FORMAL COMPLAINT OF JOHN BREWSTER On February 4 2010, the Commission received a "formal" complaint (attached) from John Brewster against Verizon Northwest, Incorporated. Mr. Brewster would like to be able to use his own contractor to place facilities for his line extension.. Mr. Brewster was unsatisfied with the outcome of the informal procedures to resolve his complaint and has filed this formal complaint. BACKGROUND Mr. Brewster is trying to obtain a line extension to his residence outside of Harrison Idaho. The Complainant and the Company have agreed on a route and configuration for the line extension. Mr. Brewster hired a contractor, Ditch Technologies, Inc., to trench and place conduit for the line extension. Mr. Brewster has received several quotes from Verizon for the remaining work that needs to be completed. The latest quote was for $38 133.78 (attached). Mr. Brewster feels this amount is too high, and asked his contractor, Ditch Technologies, to submit a bid to do the labor required for the job. Ditch Technologies submitted a bid of $5 037.50 for just the labor and $14 387.50 for the total job including labor and materials (attached). Due to the large discrepancy between the Company s bid and the contractor s bid, Mr. Brewster would like his contractor to do the work. Mr. Brewster filed an informal complaint with the Commission on December 2009 regard to his dispute with Verizon. Commission Staff contacted Verizon about allowing Mr. Brewster to use his contractor to place facilities and complete the line extension work. Verizon DECISION MEMORANDUM - 1 -APRIL 1 2010 restated its position that it does not allow private parties to place distribution cables as there is a binding contract with its single source provider as well as a labor contract to take into consideration. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION Mr. Brewster was not satisfied with the outcome of the informal complaint. Consequently, he filed a formal complaint. See Rules 23 , 25 and 54, IDAPA 31.01.01.023 024 and .054. Staff recommends that the Commission issue a summons to Verizon Northwest Incorporated and direct the Company to file a response to the complaint. COMMISSION DECISION Does the Commission wish to accept Mr. Brewster s formal complaint? Does the Commission wish to issue a Summons to Verizon? (h2.- Daniel Klein udmemos/Brewster complaint dec memo DECISION MEMORANDUM - 2 -APRIL 1 2010 /" L? JU1/~'1'1' DC-v tJ~j du-"'-. v(JCLY1 r -G- BATT FISHER PUSCH &'ALDERMAN LLP TTOR"EYS ."~D COU~SELO~S .,.T LA\-\' John R. Hammond, Jr.EmaiL irhaubattfisher.com February 3, 2010 Vi~ Hand Delivery Re:Requestfor Formal Complaint - ~...--, ------- c..-;;::, ,'S ~ l-n 0-" . .. --0 ~-n ~' ~.' . lj~ :;::--;::; . :f Jean Jewell Commission Secretary Idaho Public Utilities -Commission 472 W. 'Yashington 'p. O. Box 83720 Boise, Idaho 83720-0074 Dear Jean: \. Our firm, Batt Fisher Pusch &,Alderman LLP has been retained assistJohn Brewster of Harrison, Idahoin obtaining a line extension to his residence (the "Project") so that he can receive telecommunication servIces from V ehz6n Northwest, Incorporated , (" Verizon ). " Mr. Brewster and Verizon disagree over a few matters whicli has stallea the completion of the Project. On December 17 2009 our fmn filed an informal complaint with the Commission in reg?Id to these disagreements. The Commission Staff has attempted tote solve this matter but' unfortunately was unable to get parties tocornpromise at this time. Accordingly, our client' , respectfully requests that ourfmn s letter of December 17 2009 be processed for further proceedings as a Formal Complaint under the Co~ssion s Rules of Procedure. Please contact me if you have any q:UeStions. , Sincerely, LDERMAN ~P JRH:dmh Attachment 1 John Brewster Formal Complaint Decision Memorandum 04/01/l 0 Page I of 5 T 208.331.1000 " F 208.331.2400 ,. P.Box 1308 Boise, id 83701 . Suite 500, US ,Bank Plaza 101 S. Capitol BI\ld. Boise, lei 83702 I d)~p 1;P BATT FISHER PUSCH , & ALDERMAN LLP -\TTORNEYS'AND COUNSELORS AT lAW John R. Hammond, Jr.Email: irh(1i)battfisher.com Deceinber 1.7, 2009 Via U.S. Mail Jean Jewell Conimission Secretary Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 W. Washington, P.O. Bo?, 83720 Boise, Idaho 83720-0074 Informal Complaint, ,....:) c:: :.g :1 .:.P C-;:::; 0. :......r...-'/ ~~~, ,r-'~ - -;:: .r:: iJJ: ~ ";;:: ,-;q-;.:: Re: Dear Jean: . Our firm;.Batt Fisher Pusch & Alderman LLP has been retaip.ed to assist John Brewster of Harrison, Idaho in obtaip.ing aJine extension to his residence (th~ "Project") so that he can receive telecommunication services from VerizonNorthwest, Incorporated ("Verizon ' . Mr. Brewster and Verizon disagree over a few matters whi~h has stalled the, completion of the Project. Although Verizon is a Title 62 telecommunication carrier; Mr. Brewster asserts that the Idah0 Publi~ UtilitIes Commission Staff (the '-'Staff') can review the disputes between the parties pursuant to the statutory authority granted to Idaho Public Utilities Cormilission (the Commission )in ldqho Code ~~ 62-6Q4(3)(b), 62-616,& 61-538. /jee also IDAPA 31.91.01.021. Mr. Brew~ter respectfully requests the Staffs ("Staff') assistance in resolving the di~putes he has with Verizon so that the Proj ect can be completed. The disputes involve the amount ofVerizoh cost estimate 'to c9mplete certain portions of work for the Project and whether or not Mr. Brewster can use the contractor of his choice to perform certain tasks toward the completion of the Project. " The line extension that is necessary to provide telecommunication seivice Mr. Brewster s residence is lengthy (over 7 900 feet). 'Due to the length and the estimated cosfto complete the Project, V erizon' s Price List would require Mr. Brewster to pay for all costs after Verizon applies a Three Thousand and No/lOO Dollars ($3 000.00) allowance.! Mr. Brewster , has already paid a required, initialengineering fee of Nine. Hundred and NolI 00 Dollars ($900.00)to Verizon. Mr. Brewster also hired Ditch Technologies, Inc., anIdaho corpor:ation , (" Ditch Technolo~gies ) at his own cost to cons!flict a trench and place conduit for the length of ). Verizon s Price List provides that "the Company will provide line extensioris up to $3;OOOregardless of the length . of the extension. ,The customer shall pay 100% of ~ll costs over $3 000. Price List at Section 4, O~ginalSheet 68. Attachment 1 John Brewster Formal Complaint Decision Memorandum 04/01/1 0 Page 2 of 5 208.331.1000 . F 208.331.2400 . P,Box 1308 Boise, Id 83701 . Suite 500 ~Sg.ank Plaza 101 S. CapitoU3lvd. Boise, Id 83702 . ' , Jean Jew((ll December 17, 2009 Page 2 of 4 the Project.2 Copper wire must be pulled thrQugh 'thi~ cnnduit for the ProjeCt, so that yerizon system can connect to Mr. Bre~ster s residence. Additionally, due to the length of the line extension, fifteen (15) pedestals mustbeplaced along the-length of the conduit and be atj:ached" to theinain copper wire. b;1 two separate !etters from Verizon, each dated January 9, 2009, the Company pr9vided Mr. Brewster with two different cost estimat~s for the Project. This correspondence has been , attached hereto as Exhibit A. The first Verizon estimate for the Project anticipated it would cost Twenty~Six Thousand Three. Hundred Seventy-Nine and 77/100 Dollars ($26 379 .7?) to pull 17 000 feet of copper wire in an und~rground conduit that had already-been placed byMr- . Brewster s contractor, Ditch Technolbgies .Inc. Additionally, Verizon st~ted that pulling the, wire would alsoinclude the placement of load cases, telephonic equipment and pedestal 'terminals to provid~ telephone service to Mr~ Brewster . residence. T4e second estimate projected that it would' cost Forty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-Six 'and 72/1 00 Dollars ($48 ,786.72) to plow 17 000 foot of copper wire into the ground to establish telephone serVice. Plowing wire into the grorindis not an option at this location as there is nearly twomil~s of rock along this route ~at would have made using this methQd extrernely cost prohibitive. , After Ieceiving these estimCl;tes Ch.ri~ Jasper of Ditch Technologies contacted Russell - Joyner 'of the Verizonengirieering office and asked how much it would cost, including the , placement ofload coils, to pull thecopperwire),900 feetto.the gate onMr.. Brewster.:sproperty: Mr.Joyner otallyrepresented to Mr. Jasper that the cost estimate would be close to Twelve Thousand and Noll 00 Dollars ($12 000.00) rather than the higher estimatespreviouslyprovided. Relying on N4. Joyner s oral estimate and t~e cost ~avings it' wouidprovide Mr. Brewster decided to use this the roughly Fourteen Thousand and NollOO Dollars ($14 000.00) difference to install fiber opti~ cable in the conduit from the gate to his residence thatwould provide better ,,:oice quality for telecommunications service andbetter video quality for the security system on his property. . ' . , . After much discussion t~e Parties 'agreed to change the route of the copper wire which reduced the length to 7 900 feet. On May 28, 2009, Verizon provided another estimate for the costs to complete the Project for the changedro.ute, which has been attached hereto as Exhibit B. ' In this estimate, Verizon projects that it would cost Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Seventeen , and 85/100 Dollars ($19 117.85) to pull copper wire 7 900 feet and place fifteenp€idestal , terminals along its length, an amount much more thanMr~ J?yner s oral representation ~iscussed , ' 2 Pursuant to Verizon s Price List the conduit is Hkely the pr~perty efMr. Biewster ifthis line extension is ' . completed; See Section 4, Orig41al Sheet7 ("Where the Company deter:nrille~ that underground conduit is to be , used for the service connection, the applicant/customer will provide the conduit and will oWn and maintain athis/her expense the conduit and underground supporting structure. Attachment 1 John Brewster Formal Complaint Decision Memorandum 04/01/1 0 Page 3 of 5 , , Jean Jewell December 17 2009 Page 3 of4 above. Verizon also estimated that it would cost Three Tho)lsand Three Hundred Thirty-Three and 62/100 Dollars ($3 333;62) for splicing labor.~ The sum ofVerizon s estimate for completing ,the above matters is Twenty-Two Thousand Four Hundred Fifty:-One and 4711 00 pollars($22;451.47). Concerned with the amount of this estimate; Mr. Brewster obtained from Ditch Technologies(~hris Jasper). Chris Jasper is a licensed Jdaho contractor (RCE 28440) who has performed'this type of work for Verizon arid Qwest Corporation on many occasions in the past. Ditch Techno 10 gies estimated the co~t to pull 7 900 feet of copper wire for the Proj ectwouldbe , Three Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty and Noll 00 Dollars ($3 950.00-). Additionally, Ditch Technologies estimated that it would cost Six Hundred Thirty-Seven and 50/1 00 Dollars ($637.50) to place fifteen (15) pedestal tenninals and FourHundred Fifty arid NQ/IOODollars . ($450.00) forall splicing labor. This bid hasal~,? been attached tothisco):respondence a Exhibit C" The differen~e between Verizon s bid and Ditch TechnQlogies bid for the same matters is Seventeen Thousand Four Hundred Thirteen and 97/100 Dollars ($17,413.97). It unclear at this time why V erizon sbid for this same work is so much higher and attempts have b~eri made to obtain information to explain this difference. Although Verizon has always willing to discuss this matter, to date, Mr.Brewste! has not been provided with a suitable explanation or information to explainthis difference. . . On August. 20, 2009, Venzonprovided an updated bid for the Project which again changed the,projected cost. In this ,bid, attached heret9 as ExhibitD Verizon estimates that it , will cost Twenti-FouiThousand Two Hundred Fifty-Rive and 21/10Q Dellars ($24 255.21)to pull 8700 feet of copper wire. Verizon also estimates that all work in relation to the pedestals will cost Two Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy- Three and 56/100 Dollars, ($2 813 .6) and that splicing labor will cost One Tholls-and Three HUndred Fort y-Four' and 751100 Dollars ($1 344.75). The total projected cost to complete these tasks as estimated by Veriion is Twenty- EightThousandF9ur Hundred Seventy-Three and 52/100 Dolhlrs ($28,473.52). The difference between this bidan4 that provided by Ditch Technologies is Twenty-Three Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-Six and 02/100 Dollars ($23,436:02). ' " , -. . " Due to the. significant difference in the bids between Ditch Technologies and V erizon Mr. Brewster has requested thatVerizon allow him to use Ditch Technologies to pull the copper wire and place the pedestals for this line extension. V ~rizon has informed Mr.Brewster that it cannot do this claiming that its Price Lis~ prohibits this. ,Further, Verizon has asserted that it is concerIied about potential discrimination issues if it allows Mr. Brewster to use his own cbntracto~. After revieWing Verizon s Price List Mr. Brewster does not believe that it would prevent the use o(Ditch:Technologies as thecoptractor who could contract directly with Verizon to pull the copper wire and place the necessaIy pedestals. - , ' , ' Attachment I John Brewster Formal Complaint Decision Memorandum 04/0 1/10 Page 4 of 5 Jean Jewell , December .17, 2009 Page 4 of 4 " Due to the length of this line extension it is reasonable that th(;: unusual-conditions portion of'Yerizon s line extension Price would beapplicahle. Section 4, Original Sheet 67 offue Price list provides that: - (aJ departure from the rate and specia1.conditionsspecified in ,this schedule may be ma'de on behalf ofthe Company when a line extension involves unusual ~r disproportionately large construction expenditures as compared with the usual , types of plant con~truction. ' Such departure may require a specific ruling by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission. Based on this language, it appea:rs that Verizon' s Price LIst provides for a means of handling line extensions like the one necessary for Mr. Brewster~ s Project and would provide the Company with flexibility in how to c,?mplete such matters. 'For example, employing this language~ Verizon colild receive guidance.or authority from the CommissiOli or guidance from the,Staff , that would allow itto contract with Ditch Techn~logies to complete a portion of this Project. Such guidance or decision could help to insulate Verizon frorn potential discrimina~ion claims iii,the' future. ' , " ' ' . Based on the ~ontent ofVerizoIi s Pri6eList, the qualifications of Ditch Technologies the disparity between the bids provide4 by V erizonand Ditch Technologies, and the fact that, , , Ditch Tecbnologies has already placed the conduitfQr this line ext~nsion, Mr. Brewster respectfully-requests that Staff discuss with,the parties the possibility of Ditch-T(;:chnologies being aJlowed by Verizonto perf()rm the tasks identified in that compapy s bid discussed above for the Project, either contracting with hlm ordirectly with Verizon, if necessary. In the alternative Mr. Brewster respectfully requests that the Staff review -the bids of both parties to help determine an equitable cost estimate for the completion of the tasks identified herein. , Sincerely, BATT FISHE - pu ;:: LP Jo Ha.mrriond, Jr. . JRH: drnh Enclosure cc : John Brews ter Attachment 1 John Brewster Formal Complaint' , ' Decision Memorandum 04/01/1 0 Page 5 of 5 "" , ., ~ ml! ' , .! , " " , ., / ri' , h1 ( ~ ~ ' P2 ' B , P L A C E LO A D CA S E I R E P E A T E R HO U S I N G 1 P O O l vB o l l ' 75 4 7 B ( S P L ) SP L TH I S U N I T CO V E R S TH E P R O P E R "2 2 1 0 "' , 16 J . D J 16 J , P6 L A , P L A C E PE D E S T A L , TH I S U N I T CO U E R S 1 P O O J vB o l l ' 76 4 0 A ( P L A ) P L A TH E P L A C E M E N T OF A N AB O V E GR D U N "2 2 1 0 14 ' B , 99 , 99 , SO " , S T R A I G H T S P L l C E 1 - 50 P R S - S 0 2 A , S0 2 D 15 0 0 1 vB o l l ' 77 " B ( S P L ) S P L CO V E R S TH E P E R M A N E N T CO N N E C T 27 5 1B , 16 , 16 , "2 2 1 0 13 4 4 , 51 " , S E T - UP P E D E S T A L , TH I S U N I T 1N C L U D E S 15 0 0 2 vB o l l ' 7" B B ( S P L ) S P L PR E P A R A T I O N OF T H E SH E A T H 19 , ,', 19 , "2 2 1 0 13 7 4 , as , as , "" , P L C O P P E R IN C O N D U I T . 1 . 5 - T H I S UN I T 2 P O 0 2 IC G S 75 6 4 A ( P L A ) P L A CO V E R S TR A N S P O R T A T I O N AN D P 79 0 0 26 4 . 4 26 4 . 4 26 4 . 4 "2 2 1 0 2B O 6 2 S CA B L E A N T A - 2S m L E D 2 6 / 2 5 N O Cf T 67 0 0 B7 0 D 26 0 m 10 0 "2 5 5 , 2 P D 0 4 vB " " ' 75 4 7 A ( P L A ) P L A LO A D 77 0 2 S P R " M H S P 1 5 F T "2 2 1 0 24 0 1 6 9 CD I L L O A D 77 0 m R B B M H S P 1 5 F T 24 0 1 6 9 4O 4 , 4O 4 , 4O 4 , TO T A L M A T E R I A L S A N D C O N S T R U C T I O N / S P L I C I N G L A B O R $ 29 0 6 0 , IC G S PL A HR S X 7 5 , 0 " 2 2 1 0 62 5 IC G S 75 , 0 2 4 2 2 1 0 75 0 IC G S X 7 5 , 0 2 4 2 2 1 0 45 0 IC G S HR S X 7 5 0 2 4 2 2 1 0 75 0 1C G S X 7 5 , 0 2 4 2 2 1 0 JO O 1C G S X 7 5 , ' ' " n " , 0 2 4 2 2 1 0 IC G S x 7 5 , 0 2 4 2 2 1 0 26 2 5 TO T A L D I R E C T I N P U D D O L L A R S F R O M I C G S - WE B $ 59 2 5 MI s c , Ve r i z o n N o r t h W e s t C o r p o r a t e L o a d i n g d o l l a r s $ TO T A L E S T I M A T E D C O S T T O C U S T O M E R JB 1 3 3 ' ... . . . 0.. ~ E ro ;: 1 E - g ~ 5 N ~ E .. . . . . C1 ) i: : ~ ~ C1 ) C 1 ) ~ .. . i: O . - - . . . . tI ) - ro . . a ' (3 0 t: 0 C1 ) ; ; a : -: : x : - , a 0 07/06/2009 13:32 FAX 2087655475 THE BREWSTER COMPANIES 141 004/004 PROPOSAL f~.-r' ~/C4/e..sD,:J.ch I ~C " ... .:z- ."".bun.. a fT i..( ~ 89 () AI """'- -:z;;;J, 838l I';~ B Co ~ , - PERFORMED A" ~Il.. d '" I.!?' WORK TO ADDRESS PRoI'OSACNO. SHEer NO. DATE '1.,28./"9, PHONE NO.ARCHITECT We hereby propose to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of \.~' All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for above work, and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of Dollars ($ with payments to be made as follows: Re'pectfully '"Omitted Any LIltamUan or tlCIVIILII,"\ IrOll' nuavo cpanlnnniiona Involvlnn axllll CCJ~I" ~ .' ~ 1'0'111 b~ ex~ured only upon wlltlan erdar. aM 1"111 OOcOO1.. an ~ra ~hRrge PerOVOr ~nd nbeve the ea~maIB. All agr8Bmant~ ~'Un"r1\10nl upon BlOke!;. ac.cldenl!!. ar dalllYs buyand QUI eMlr,)1 Note - This proposal may be withdrawn by us il not accepted within 30., days. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payments will be made as outlined above. Signature --. -------i Date Signature ilb, D811B..-. MAIII"NMr.,I"."PROPOSAL Attachment 3 John Brewster Formal Complaint Decision Memorandum 04/01/10 o0 f 3 o , G , p i " \0 0 ' # 2 tP 2 .. . . is . . ~ E ;: : 3 ' - ~" O 0 .. . . . Q ) (. J . . . 0 7 ~ E , , .. . . Q) ~ ~ ~ Q) ~ o .. . . . .. 2 t : Q . - -- - g ~ . ~; : ; :t : : . . c g- - - ~ ~ 0 TH O M P S O N L A K E TH I S W I R E D R C A D O E S N O T BE L O N G T O G T E JT J S L O W O V E R C H A N N E L AN D G O E S F O R E V E R PE R R I N M A Y . MA R C H I q q 0 '" ( J ' ~ X:' 0 .f f .i '! ; , , ~ ~ .$ p ,f J J- NI G H "'- 3 8 , " RT I e o x 1 7 6 CO E U R D ' A L E N E R I V E R cf - ~ N CO A L R I V E R WI L D L I F E _T . "' . " " 5 3 NO T E AR E A - VE R I Z Q N to I l RI " " ' " V O L T !J T . uS E " e u R . JT . FI L E : WP I xx x HA R I S O N c: l d g n I 1 1 3 0 1 3 P O A D A U l w p 1 . d g n 2 / 9 / 2 0 1 0 1 2 : 0 1 : 3 0 P M '" 8 ~ ~ ~ . . . ,! f j r l -.; .q 1 0 8 I P P I 1I 1 7 7 0 / 6 6 2 C L S 2 5 TH E O " . 2 5 .. . . . . "i 5 . . ~ E 03 ~ '+ - 0 e" O O 0 ~ N .. . . 5 ~ "" " t E , , .. . . . . Q ) ... . . . 1: : ~ ;; 8 Q) S : : O EO . . . . 0 " " " .. a Q : ) . ~ - - - g c ' ~; ; t: . . s : : : ( . ) -- - ~ ~ 0 g NO T E AR E A - VE R I Z O N CJ W N Kil O V O l T S 0.0 0 MA , IJ T . U S E I I B U R . JT . EX P Q S € O FI L E : HA R I S O N c: l d g n I 1 1 3 0 1 3 P O A O A U l w p 2 . dg n 2 / 9 / 2 0 1 0 1 2 : 0 2 : 4 9 P M NO T E AR E A - 0..~E ' " ro : : 3 " " " ~" ' O o t: : 1 a M .. . . ( j ) ~O b J ) ~E " (j ) - 1: : ~ ~ (j ) ( j ) .. . . .. a p : : ) . - -- - u c ' .. c u O :t : : 0 (j ) ~ -- = r : -, 0 0 Kil O V O L T S EK P O S E O FI L E : HA R I S O N c: l d g n I 1 1 3 0 1 3 P O A O A U l w p 3 . dg n 2 / 9 / 2 0 1 0 1 2 : 0 3 : 5 7 P M - - - - - - - NO T E AR E A - c:l d g n l 1 1 3 0 1 3 P O A O A U l w p 4 , dg n 2 / 9 / 2 0 1 0 1 2 : 0 5 : 0 3 P M BL U E L A K E is ' -- - - - - - CO E U R D ' A L E N E R f t l E R .. . . . s:: '0 . .~E ' " ro ;: 3 ' H E" O 0 0 ~ 7 ~ 5 ~ tE " .. . . . 1 1 ) - i: : ~ ~ II ) I I ) s : : 0 .. . . 0' - ~ c o - - - - " () S : : ' ~ . - () o t: 0 1I ) ; ; a : : ~. . . . , H - p - - p - VE R I Z O N 9W N KI L O V O l T S Ex P O S E O FI L E : HA R I S O N H - . - - - H NO T E AR E A - c: l d g n l 1 1 3 0 1 3 P O A D A U l w p 5 , dg n 2 / 9 / 2 0 1 0 1 2 : 0 6 : 0 5 P M KI L O V O L ' S IM A R Y V 'J ' . US E " " U R . J'. DA T E : Ex P O S E D FI L E : HA R I S O N C;; P. . :: : 8 \ 0 ~= 4 - ; e" O o 0 a "' " 5 ~ "" " ~ 8 ~ ... . . . ( l ) Q.. . ~ ~ ~ (l ) ~ 0 .. . . co . - . . . . . . . C,) ~. J : : ; g ~ ga g NO T E AR E A - c: l d g n l 1 1 3 0 1 3 P O A O A U l w p 6 , dg n 2 / 9 / 2 0 1 0 1 2 : 0 7 : 5 8 P M i5 . SI . O 0; ; ; : : 3 4-0 ~ " 0 0 !: a l . O .. . . . Q ) "" " 0 OJ ) ,, " i3 S c i ' : +- ' Q ) 1: : ~ :; 2 Q) ~ o .. . . . .. a i : Q . - -. . . . . . u ~ . ~ 0 ,. . s : : u -. . . . . . t: : 0 Q) " " ~. . . . . BR E W S T E R VE R I Z O N 9W N KIL O V O L T S ..P O S E O FI L E : WP 6 HA R I S O N