19990528.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
May 26, 1999 - 1:00 P.M.
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Marsha H. Smith and Paul Kjellander and staff members Scott Woodbury, Don Howell, Bill Eastlake, Keith Hessing, Ron Law, Birdelle Brown, Joe Cusick, Carolee Hall, Bob Smith, Terri Carlock, Randy Lobb, Stephanie Miller, Tonya Clark, Bob Smith and Myrna Walters.
Items on the published May 26, 1999 Agenda were discussed and acted upon as recorded herein.
Commission President Dennis Hansen called the meeting to order.  
First order of business was consideration of Item 1 - Minutes of the May 11, May 13 and May 17, 1999 Decision Meetings. (Minutes have circulated to the Commissioners for their review and corrections have been made).
Commissioner Hansen asked approval of the minutes; vote taken; motion carried unanimously.
Next to be considered were the matters on the Consent Agenda. Those items were Nos. 2 thru 9. Commissioner Hansen announced that the Commissioners wanted to pull Item 7 from the Consent Agenda and move it to Matters in Progress. He asked for questions or comments on the other items.
Commissioner Smith said she would make a motion to approve Items 2 thru 6 and Nos. 8 and 9. Vote taken; motion carried.
MATTERS IN PROGRESS
7. Scott Woodbury’s May 24, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. GNR-W-97-1 (Grouse Point) Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Rates.
Commissioner Smith said she was not comfortable approving a rate that does not cover the revenue requirement calculated by the Commission and staff; so while the owner desires to continue collecting $20.00, the Commission finds that it does not meet revenue requirement and in light of the fact that the customers have been paying $20.00 for 2 ½ years, she would at least like to go to $25.00 to collect more of the revenue requirement than is collected at the $20.00. Think we have statutory obligation that revenue requirement be met and the $20.00 doesn’t do that.
Commissioner Hansen asked for other comments or questions and asked if someone from staff wanted to comment?
Bob Smith, staff auditor commented: The owner only requested the $20.00 and staff in reviewing the information available found that the other company(Statewide Construction) had not been segregated out and separate accounting records were not available, so staff worked out a budget with the owner and his financial advisor using estimates. In doing that calculation it produced an average revenue requirement per customer of $28.00 per month and would feel comfortable if the Commission decided to do that.
Said the other factor that staff tried to point out is the system is expected to be expanded to incorporate additional growth of the subdivision and they may eventually have as many as 120 customers in place of the 24 that exist at the present time. If and when that occurs, with development, the $28.00 would result in over collection.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there was further discussion.
Commissioner Smith made a motion that the application of Grouse Point Water Company for a certificate be approved and the proposed rates be put out on modified, and that the proposed rate be $25.00.
Vote taken on motion: motion carried.
10. Scott Woodbury’s May 19, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UWI-W-99-2 (United Water/Barber Water) Commission Denial of CAPA Intervention (Order No. 28048) CAPA Petition for Review.  
Scott Woodbury reviewed the matter.
Commissioner Hansen called for questions or discussion. Said he would comment - since he has been on the Commission, the Commission has been very liberal with allowing participation in matters. Do think sometimes there are some gray areas and the Commission could define more closely with the rules and regulations in place that govern or allow participation by parties in particular cases, but he was concerned that we have a party here that feels that by denying their right to participate, it  would have an effect on them and United Water customers in the future. Said he knew this was a different type of procedure that has been set up and the Commission made a good decision originally to deny the intervention saying the party could participate in the public hearing to get the points of view across. Where reconsideration has been asked for and they think the denial denies the full right to participate, then he would tend to think it is something we need to take a second look at and make sure we are treating them fairly and justly in this matter. Those were the comments he would give up front. Would not make a motion until he sees if there are other comments by the Commissioners.
Commissioner Smith said she would like to say that she thought the Commission has a process in this proceeding that didn’t call for formal, written testimony, etc., and that was the basis for her thinking intervention was not necessary. Given the filing that has been made, think the Commission should continue their policy of liberally granting interventions, while strictly monitoring the range and extent to which issues in the case get heard; that the Commission stick to the issues in the case and not let the intervenors take the case all over the board. Would have no problem with allowing intervention but would hope that the Chairman of the public hearing not allow the intervenor to engage in what she feels could be extensive, friendly cross examination of witnesses that would unduly lengthen the hearing which is basically to have the customers tell the Commission what they think and not have parties extracting a case out of them.
Commissioner Kjellander said as long as the minutes clearly reflect the comments of Commissioner Smith, to use when he chairs the hearing, he can live with this. His main objection was based on a very thin representation originally, he was having difficulty finding any real interest in the case. Think they have now done a better job, and given the perimeters laid out by
Commissioner Smith he thought he could live with it.
Motion was called for.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to grant intervention to CAPA in this matter and the intervention is granted based on the comments made by Commissioner smith that it is limited to the issues that are defined in the case. Motion was then voted on: motion carried.
Meeting was then adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 27th day of May, 1999.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary