20091023Report.pdf

SCOTT WOODBURY
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]
BARNO. 1895
RECE: \,1 ()
2mB Dei 23 AM If: 23
Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W. WASHINGTON
BOISE, IDAHO 83702-5918
Attorney for the Commission Staff
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
BAR CIRCLE "S" WATER COMPANY, INC. ) CASE NO. BCS-W-09-2
FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING AN )
INCREASE IN THE COMPANY'S RATES AND )
CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICE IN THE ) STAFF REPORT
STATE OF IDAHO. )
)
COMES NOW the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilties Commission, by and through its
attorney of record, Scott Woodbur, Deputy Attorney General, and in response to the Notice of
Scheduling, Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Comment/Protest Deadline issued on
September 23,2009 in Case No. BCS-W-09-2, submits the following Staff Report.
BACKGROUND
Bar Circle "S" is a water utilty that provides water service to approximately 1 60
residential and commercial customers on the Rathdru Prairie approximately 1 5 miles northwest
of Coeur d Alene in Kootenai County, Idaho. Certificate of Convenience and Necessity No. 296.
The Company's principal office and place of business is located at 2953 North Governent
Way, Coeur d Alene, Idaho.
On June 19,2009, Bar Circle "S" Water Company, Inc. (Bar Circle "S"; Company) fied
an Application with the Idaho Public Utilties Commission (Commission) for authority to
STAFF REPORT 1 OCTOBER 23, 2009
increase the water rates it charges its customers. The Company in its Application has requested
an annual revenue requirement increase of$80,335 or 119%. The Company is proposing to
spread the increase on a uniform basis to all rates and schedules, resulting in a metered water rate
change from $15.00 for the first 7,500 gallons to $32.92 and a change in additional consumption
charges from $0.95 per thousand gallons to $2.08 per thousand gallons. The Company proposes
to change first time connection fees from the current $750 to a basic meter installation fee of
$480. An additional charge of $2,500 would be assessed if a service line is not in place from the
Company's water mains to the customer's propert line. Finally, the Company proposes to
increase customer reconnection fees and implement a retured check charge and charge for
customer-requested service calls.
STAFF ANALYSIS
System Condition
As par of the evaluation process, Staff conducted a field tour of the water system on
July 27, 2009, accompanied by Rob Turipseed, operations manager and certified operator of
Bar Circle "S" water system. The tour involved inspecting the various components of the water
supply and distribution system, and focusing on Company projects that were recently completed
or are in the process of being completed.
Bar Circle "S" has curently two production wells as sources of water supply. Well
No.1, located in a pump house on East Garwood Road, is a 6-inch well equipped with a 15-hp
submersible pump with design capacity of 55 gpm. Well No.2, located at Circle S Trail, is a
16-inch well equipped with a 60-hp submersible pumping unit with a design capacity of about
483 gpm. Durng the tour, the pump at Well No.2 was pumping approximately 480 gpm at a
discharge pressure of20 psi. Both pumping units at Well NO.1 and Well NO.2 are discharging
water directly to the 185,000-gallon above-ground concrete tan located close to Well NO.1.
Operation of the well pumps is controlled by switches tied to the water levels in the concrete
tan. Four lO-hp centrifugal booster pumps operating in parallel are installed at the beginning of
the distribution line shortly after the concrete storage tank. Each booster pump has a capacity of
180 gpm at 75 psi, or a total capacity of 720 gpm when all the booster pumps are running. In
addition, one 11 O-hp fire pump operating in parallel with the booster pumps with a capacity of
1,500 gpm is also a key component of the system. Operation of the booster pumps and fire pump
is controlled by changes of pressure in the distribution system via the hydro-pneumatic tans.
STAFF REPORT 2 OCTOBER 23,2009
For normal operation, the pressure settings'ofthe booster pumps range from 38 psi to 72 psi.
The booster and fire pumps are equipped with a 250-kW back-up power generation unit.
The distribution network is comprised mostly of 4-inch to 12-inch PVC pipes, although
some older pipes are ductile and steel pipes. Water is delivered to various residential and
commercial customers using manually read service meters with sizes ranging from %-inch to
3-inch meters. During the tour, Staff also visited some typical customer meters being planed
for retrofitting to automated meter reading system. Bar Circle "S" curently serves a total of
approximately 160 residential and commercial customers.
Recent System Improvements
Since the Company's last rate case application in 1989 (Case No. BCS-W-89-1), it had
undergone several major improvements and expansion of the water system which includes: a)
installation of standby generator for the booster and fire pumps (2004); b) replacements of the
60-hp pumping unit in Well NO.2 (several times); c) mainline improvements (2002); d)
Garood reservoir improvements (2001); and e) well sites improvements (several times). In
addition, the Company recently installed a 6-inch recording flow meter on the discharge side of
the Company's booster pumps as required by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
(IDEQ) and plans to convert the Company's manual meter reading system to automated
electronic reading system.
As par of the Company's Application, Bar Circle "S" proposes to recover the capital
expenditures of the various system improvements discussed above by including them in rate
base. Detailed Staff discussions for ratemaking treatments of these improvements and evaluation
for prudency are discussed in the Staffs analysis below.
Revenue Requirement
The Company has asked to increase its revenue requirement by $80,335. This increase is
based on additions to rate base and increases in operating expenses. Staff has reviewed the
Company's Application and audited the Company's records. Based upon this review, Staffis
recommending an annual increase of$49,147 for the Company as shown on Attachment No. 1.
The difference is based upon both adjustments to rate base and anual operating expenses.
These adjustments are discussed below.
Rate Base Adjustments
Staff recommends that the plant in service costs presented by the Company be adjusted in
three (3) accounts.
STAFF REPORT 3 OCTOBER 23, 2009
1. Water line Improvements - The Company claims to have spent $ 1 1 1,53 1 for mainline
improvements completed by the Company in 2002 as shown in Plant and Depreciation Work
Papers, line 16, Column C. In reviewing this capital expenditure, Staff requested that the
Company (Production Request No. 16) provide the following: a) a description of this project and
an explanation as to why it was built; b) as-built project plans; c) a copy of any documents and
communication from IDEQ indicating approval of construction plans and operation of the
project; and d) cost breakdown into various categories, including materials, equipment rental,
labor, engineering, etc. for the development of the project.
In response to the Production Request, the Company cited the language from
Commission Order No. 28895, dated November 15,2001, in Case No. BCS-W-Ol-l giving prior
approval for expansion of the system and that the PUC Staffthoroughly investigated the project
in that case and the information requested should already be in the Commission's case fies.
Commission Findings:
The Commission has reviewed and considered the filings of record in
Case No. BCS-W-Ol-l including comments and recommendations of
Commission Staff. We find that present and future public convenience
wil be served by approving the purchase of the Garood Business Center
Water System by Bar Circle "S" and authorizing the Company requested
expansion of its certificated service area. We find Garood Purchase price
and estimated costs of interconnecting the two water systems to be reasonable...
In addition to the above project (Garwood interconnection with the Bar Circle "S" Water
System), the Company responded,
Bar Circle "S" completed approximately 1 ,600 feet of 8" water line
to loop a portion of its water system to improve system reliabilty and
maintenance of the system.
Staff reviewed Case No. BCS-W-Ol-l, including Staff Comments, Staff
Production Requests, Company responses to Staff Production Requests and Order No. 28895.
Staff found that the estimated cost of interconnection cited in Order No. 28895 was $64,000.
However, this cost was broken down into four categories:
1. Water line $41,0002. Generator 5,0003. Generator Building 12,0004. Control Unit 6,000Total $64,000
STAFF REPORT 4 OCTOBER 23, 2009
The actual cost of the generator was $5,500 (Response to Production Request No. 15),
the cost of generator building was $9,777 and the cost of the control unit was $12,947 (Response
to Production Request No. 17). These costs are separately listed as items to be recovered as
shown in the Company's Plant and Depreciation Work Papers. As shown above, Staff believes
that the cost of the water line found reasonable by the Commission was $41,000 not the total
amount of $64,000. The Company initially submitted invoices documenting the total costs of
$ 111,531 for the water line project. After additional discussions with the Company, it later
clarified that the $ 11 1,531 cost is broken down into two categories: 1) the actual cost for the
water line interconnection for Garwood and Bar Circle "S" is $67,810.80, and 2) the cost for the
construction of the 1,600 feet of8-inch water line loop is $43,720. The Company claims the
preliminar estimate of $41,000 as approved in Order No. 28895 was made before any
engineering estimates were prepared. While Staff expects that the estimate can be subject to
some changes, the difference in this case is quite large. It is about 65% over the original $41,000
accepted as a reasonable interconnection cost by the Commission. Some of the construction
costs were paid to Avondale Construction, an affiliated company of Bar Circle "S", but Staff was
unable to distinguish what amount of the total cost is attributed to Avondale Construction. Staff
believes that the actual cost of $67,81 1 for the interconnection project is not prudent and
reasonable and adjustments to this amount are recommended.
Staff believes a 15% contingency within the original cost estimate previously presented
to the Commission is fair and reasonable. Therefore, a total cost of$47,150 ($41,000 + 15%)
should be recommended as the allocated cost for the interconnection.
Similarly, the actual cost for the mainline loop project as presented by the Company is
$43,720. In the absence of various costs by category and other construction information
requested by Staff (Production Request No. 16), it was diffcult for Staff to assess the
reasonableness of the $43,719.95 cost for constructing the 1,600 feet of8-inch water line loop.
However, Staff obtained a telephone bid to construct this type of project at this time from a local
contractor in the area and the cost submitted was $24-25 per foot. This cost includes the cost of
pipe, fittings, excavation and fill, bedding, etc. Using the higher costs of $25 and applying a cost
contingency of 15%, the construction cost per foot is $28.75. Without adjusting to 2002 price
level, the estimated cost to construct a 1,600 feet of 8-inch mainline using $28.75 per foot is
approximately $46,000. Staff believes the actual cost incurred by the Company appears to be
reasonable. Therefore, the total cost of both projects should be $90,870 ($47,150 + $43,720) and
STAFF REPORT 5 OCTOBER 23,2009
not the $111,531 presented by the Company. Staff recommends an adjustment to the mainline
cost by $20,661 ($111,531 - $90,870). See Attachment NO.4.
2. Equipment (placed in service on 6/15/06) - This account represents the purchase of fire
hydrant locks. The Company had a problem with individuals taking water from the systems
hydrants without paying any compensation for the water. To solve this problem, the Company
purchased hydrant locks. The original order was for 66 hydrant locks for a total of$5,375
(average price: $81.44). The Company sold 7 to a third pary for $570, leaving the balance of
$4,805 or the balance claimed by the Company in this account. Staff determined that an
additional $1,171 was received by the Company from Diamond Bar Estates Water for hydrant
locks. Staff subtracted this amount from the account balance and reduced the account to $3,634.
See Attachment NO.4.
3. Automated Meter Reading - The Company has withdrawn its request to install the
automatic meter reading system at this time. See the Applicant's Reply to Production Request
No. 11, response to part D. As such, Staff removed all of the Company's proforma adjustments
for this system. The Company included the amount of $44, 985 in its calculation of rate base.
See Attachment NO.4.
Expense Adjustments
Staff reviewed the anual operating expenses submitted by the Company to support this
revenue increase. Based upon that review, Staff is proposing 5 adjustments as set forth in
Attchment NO.3.
1. Labor Expense: The Company has proposed an increase in the labor cost for the water
master and the bookkeeper over the amount paid in 2008. Both of these services are provided by
Avondale Construction Co., (Avondale) an affiiate company of the water company. The
increase is technically an increase in the contract amounts paid by the Company to Avondale for
the services provided by Avondale employees. The Company is asking that the anual amount
for the water master service be increased from $7,200 to $18,000 and that the anual amount for
the bookkeeping services be increased from $8,850 to $10,950.
The increase requested for the water master services is an increase of $ 1 0,800 or 150%.
Also, this calculates to $ 1 ,500 per month for water master services on a system that serves 154
customers. Staff contacted other water master services in the area and found one instance where
a water company only paid $1,300 per month for a water system that served over 300 customers.
This large of an increase canot be justified when there is no significant increase in labor or
STAFF REPORT 6 OCTOBER 23, 2009
services required that were not provided in the 2008. Staff does believe that some increase is
justifiable, and therefore is recommending that the contract amount for this service be increased
from $7,200 to $12,000 or a 67% increase. Staffs adjustment is a decrease of $6,000 ($18,000-
$12,000) as shown on Attachment No.3, line 7.
The increase requested for the bookkeeping services is an increase of $2, 1 00 or a 24%
increase. The Company currently only reads meters and calculates statements based on water
usage for 6 to 7 months of the year depending on weather conditions. For the other months
(because meters may be buried in the snow), the Company only bils the basic charge. If the
Company were to convert to the automated meter reading system, the customers would be biled
on actual usage every month. This would require additional bookkeeping services. Those
additional services are not now required with the Company's decision to not do automated meter
reading, and the increase for bookkeeping should not be allowed. Staff has increased the anual
amount by $50 to allow for increase in postage and other increased costs to do the biling
resulting in a $1,950 adjustment as shown Attachment No.3, line 14.
2. Pumping Power Expense: At the time the Company fied the Application, it included
power costs at the 2008 rate. Since the fiing, Kootenai Electrical Cooperative has increased
rates. Staff has worked with the Company to determine what the increase in cost wil be under
the new power rates, and Staff has increased the 2008 anual power expenses by $2,445 for an
annual pumping power expense of $17,4 78 or an increase of 16%. See Attachment NO.5 and
Attachment No 3, line 8.
3. Normalized Water Testing: The Company proposes an adjustment to its water expense
cost of$1,221 ($1,565 - $344). The Company presented cost calculations in its Water Testing
Schedule and Cost Worksheet showing a normalized anual testing cost of$1,565. The $344
was the water testing amount booked for the 2008 test year. Staff disagrees with its calculations
due to some errors in its assumptions. The Company indicates that total Coliform bacteria tests
are done per well source. There are two well sources in the Bar Circle "s" Water system.
IDEQ's Coeur d Alene office informed Staff that Coliform bacteria tests are only done in the
distribution system. According to IDEQ, Bar Circle "S" has obtained waivers for testing
contaminants in its water sources such as IOC-Asbestos, IOC-Cyanide, and Fluoride. In
addition, testing of synthetic organics is done every nine (9) years not three (3) years, and testing
of Radium 226 and Radium 228 is done once every nine (9) years, not every five (5) as the
Company has claimed. The normalized anual cost of water testing for Bar Circle "S" as
STAFF REPORT 7 OCTOBER 23,2009
provided by IDEQ is $746. See Attachment NO.6. Staff proposes to adjust the water testing
expense proposed by the Company of $1 ,565 be reduced by $818 to reflect the actual water
testing costs of $747. See Attachment No.3, line 11.
4. Professional Services: The Company included in its proposed anual expenses for
professional services the amount of$13,128. Staff has proposed reducing this amount by
$12,628 to a balance of$500. The Company included $1 1,628 of expenses paid to consultants
and engineers for services provided to the Company that related to the preparation and approval
of the intertie between the Company's system and the Double T Subdivision. These are not costs
that the customers of Bar Circle "S" are required to pay. The Commission in its Order approving
the extension of its service area to include Double T Subdivision stated that, "(P)ursuant to terms
of the Water Main Extension Agreement, the developer of Double T Estates Subdivision agrees
to pay Bar Circle "S" for the cost of construction of the water main extension and related water
system improvements to provide service to the Double T Estates Subdivision." These costs
should not be paid by the Company, and they should not be included in the revenue requirement
used to determine rates. Additionally, these costs are of a one-time nature and are not
reoccurring, and should not be included as an ongoing operational expense. Staff has not
reduced the amount of professional services expended for the preparation of its taxes, and has
therefore allowed $500 as a reasonable amount for anual professional services. See Attachment
No.3, line 17.
5. Depreciation Expense: With the adjustments that Staff recommended in the rate base
amounts, the depreciation on the adjusted costs wil be adjusted also. Attachment NO.4 sets
forth Staff s calculation of the anual depreciation expense based upon the rate base costs as
adjusted by Staff. The anual depreciation expense as determined by Staff is $15,989 and is
$4,316 less than the amount claimed by the Company. See Attachment No.3, line 25.
Rate Base Calculation
The Company's rate base including the adjustments proposed by Staffis set forth in
Attachment NO.2. The Company proposed a total rate base of$287,219. Staffis proposing that
total rate base be $207,891 or $79,328 less. The main differences are the result of the
adjustments explained above and calculated in Attachment NO.4. The other difference is in the
amount of working capital included in total rate base. Both the Company and Staff calculated
the working capital requirement by taking one-eighth of anual cash expenditures. Staff
STAFF REPORT 8 OCTOBER 23, 2009
determined that the Company's annual cash expenditures totaled $67,098. See Staff
Attchment NO.3. One-eighth of this amount is $8,387.
Capital Structure and Authorized Rate of Return
The Company's capital structure is deemed to be 100% common equity. Staff agrees
with the Company's treatment of the debt from the owners as common equity in the Company.
The Company requested a return on equity of 12%. Staff also adopted 12% as a reasonable rate
of return. The Commission in several recent small water cases has allowed a 12% rate of return.
Stoneridge Water Company in Case No. SWS-W-06-1, Order No. 30342; Falls Water Company
in Case No. FLS-W-05-1, Order No. 30027; Capitol Water Company in Case No. CAP-W-06-1,
Order No. 30198; Spirit Lake East in Case No. SPL-W-06-1, Order No. 30279.
Revenue Requirement Calculation
Staffs calculation of the Company's revenue requirement that reflects all of Staffs
adjustments is set forth in Attachment No.1, Colum C. The Company's net rate base as
adjusted by Staff is $207,891 (line 1) and produces a retur of $24,947 (line 3) at the
recommended rate of return of 12% (line 2). This return must be grossed-up to account for
federal and state taxes that will need to be paid on this revenue. The net to gross multiplier is
128.1% (see the bottom of Attachment No.1). When the gross-up factor is applied to the
authorized retur of $24,947, the Company must receive gross revenues of $3 1 ,955 to cover the
additional taxes to be paid with the additional income from the return on rate base. The total
revenue requirement increase is calculated by adding the net operating loss of ($ 15,832) from
Attachment No.3, line 27 to the grossed-up revenues of $3 1 ,955 for a total required increase of
$47,147.
The Company incurred costs in the preparation and filing of this rate case. Those costs
total $6,668. Staff reviewed the costs and found them to be reasonable. The Company proposed
that these costs be recovered in rates over a 3-year amortization schedule. Staff does not agree
with the 3-year amortization, and proposes that the rate case costs be amortized over 5 years. If
amortized over 5 years, rates would include an additional $ 1 ,334 to recover the costs. The
Company has not had a history of filing frequent rate cases with its last filing in 1989.
Therefore, it should not be able to amortize over the shorter 3-year period.
When the $1,334 for rate case costs recovery is added to the revenue requirement
increase of$47,813, rates for the Company should be increase by a total of$49,147. The
STAFF REPORT 9 OCTOBER 23, 2009
Company is currently receiving revenues of$67,255; therefore, the Company should be
authorized a revenue increase of73.08%.
Rate Design
The Applicant is proposing an across the board increase of 1 19.45% to all rates and
charges contained in its current water rate schedules. Application at 9. The Company believes
that equal percentage increase to all customer rate schedules is the most equitable and fairest
approach. In response to Staff Production Request No.4, the Company indicated that its
rationale in proposing across the board increase in its curent rate schedules is that the
consumption patterns have not changed significantly since the Commission established the
curent rate schedules. Staff attempted to analyze the water use patterns of customers by
comparing the monthly usage of customers by selecting a representative period closest to the
time the Commission established the curent rate schedule (early 1990s). However, complete
water use data are not available during that period, although 2001 data was parially available.
The Company also provided Staff with three years of water use data from 2006 through 2008.
Monthly readings, however, were not available during the winter period although the total
volume of water sold was recorded. The average monthly winter water usage per customer was
calculated by dividing the total of water sold by the number of months between readings and the
number of customers. Water use patterns were compared for all the fours years of available
records. As shown in the line graphs presented in Attchment 7, the pattern of monthly usage
per customer is quite similar and follows the same trend. Staff sees no reason to change the rate
strcture and Staff agrees with the Company and supports its proposal for a uniform rate
increase.
One customer of Bar Circle "S" wrote to the Commission that consumption usage should
be reviewed to determine whether the 1 9-year-old first 7,500 gallons should be increased to a
more realistic figure. The customer cited his 7-month usage of35,000 gallons. Staff reviewed
the average monthly usage during the three winter periods from 2005-06 to 2007-08. The
monthly usage ranges from a low of 7,668 to a high of 10,048 or an average of 8,925 gallons per
customer. See Attchment 8. Staff believes it is stil reasonable to maintain the first 7,500
gallons of water use as a basis for the fixed charge.
The same customer also asked the Commission about the average usage per household
(residential) and businesses (commercial) in Bar Circle "S" and raised the issue of equity
between the rates paid by the residential and commercial customers. In addition, the customer
STAFF REPORT 10 OCTOBER 23, 2009
pointed out that traditionally, business rates are higher because they are an operating expense.
Staff reviewed the water usage of residential and commercial customers in 2008 and found that
the total water usage for commercial customers was approximately 5.78 millon gallons and for
residential customers, 45.86 milion gallons, or 11.2% and 88.8%, respectively of the total
volume of water sold (51.64 milion gallons). In addition, at the end of the 2008 test period,
there were only 8 commercial customers compared to 147 residential customers (Company
response to Production Request No. 20). Staff believes that the commercial usage and the
number of customers are not significant enough to warrant a different rate design for commercial
customers.
Based on Staffs recommended revenue requirement increase of $49,147, a rate increase
of73.08% is required. At the recommended revenue requirement, the monthly rate for
residential customers increases from $15 to $25.96 for the first 7,500 gallons of water usage.
Changes to additional usage over 7,500 gallons will increase from $0.95 per 1,000 gallons to
$1.64 per 1,000 gallons. Staffs proposed rates are shown in Attachment 9. The average
monthly cost for a residential customer using the Staffs recommended rate with an average
usage of27,056 gallons per month will increase from $33.58 to $58.03.
Other Water System Operational Issues
Staff reviewed the monthly water production and consumption data for calendar years
2006, 2007 and 2008 and calculated the water losses due to leaks and unaccounted water loss.
Staff notes that the total volume of water pumped to the reservoir may not be necessarily the
actual volume of water delivered to the distribution system due to the residual amount of water
stored at the reservoir in between readings. However, Staff believes that this amount is not
significant enough to affect the water loss calculations. With the newly installed recording flow
meter, the Company wil be able to accurately record the volume of water delivered to the
distribution system in the futue. The calculated average yearly water system loss is 18%, 13%
and 6% in 2006,2007 and 2008 respectively. It is encouraging to note that the trend of water
losses in the Company's water system is going down to a reasonable leveL. It appears that the
Company is managing its system well in bringing down leaks and other losses to an acceptable
leveL.
Based on the data shown in Attachment 10, there are two months (August 2007 and
September 2008) when the recorded volume of water sold was more than the volume of water
pumped indicating a negative water loss. This discrepancy of data may have been caused by
STAFF REPORT 11 OCTOBER 23, 2009
meter reading errors or faulty water production meters or customer meters. Staff recommends
that the Company investigate the potential causes of these discrepancies and institute appropriate
actions to correct them.
As par of its review of the water system, Staff also looked at both the water quality and
water rights issues to assure that the Company can adequately and reliably provide service. A
Sanitary Surey was conducted by the Idaho Deparment of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) on
November 26,2007 on the Company's water system. A Sanitar surey is an onsite review of
the water source, facilties, equipment, operation and maintenance to assure a public water
system provides an adequate source of supply, and is distributing safe drinking water. Generally,
for community systems, IDEQ conducts a Sanitary Survey every five (5) years, with some
exceptions. According to IDEQ, effective 2013, a Sanitary Survey wil be conducted every three
(3) years. During the 2007 Sanitar Survey, IDEQ found a number of regulatory deficiencies
that must be addressed which were contained in its letter to the Company on November 28, 2007.
It is Staffs understanding that these are minor deficiencies and that the Company is working
with IDEQ to correct these deficiencies. With the exception of the required installation of a flow
monitor at the mainline immediately downstream of the booster pumps as discussed previously,
and the regulatory deficiencies in the 2007 Sanitary Surey, it appears that present system is in
compliance with IDEQ's Rules for Drinking Water Systems. In addition, no water quality
related or low water pressure complaints have been recently received by the Company and the
Commission.
Staff briefly reviewed the Company's water rights and it appears that its water rights
licenses are adequate to provide water to existing customers and future customers at full build
out of the present system. Staff was informed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources
(IDWR) that Bar Circle "S" has appropriately filed adjudication claims on Januar 22, 2009 for
the two water rights curently held by the Company.
New Customer Charges
The Company at present has an approved non-recurring charge for new customers
connecting to the water for the first time with a total fee of $750. This total fee is comprised of
$500 for installation of the water meter and $250 for water hook-up. Bar Circle "S" proposes to
change the fees to more accurately recover the Company's real cost of making a first time
connection to the water system.
STAFF REPORT 12 OCTOBER 23, 2009
Bar Circle "S" is proposing a basic installation fee of $480 if an existing service line and
meter base are already in place. In response to Staff Production Request No.9, the Company
provided a more detailed estimate for this cost which includes $392 for the cost of a new meter
and $88 for 3.5 hours oflabor to purchase, deliver and install the meter. The Company did not
specify the size of the meter in its estimate. Staff reviewed the proposed $480 cost of installng
new meters if existing service line and meter base are already in-place. Based on Production
Request No.8, the Company indicated that there are 28 vacant undeveloped properties within the
service area excluding the recently approved Double T Estates expansion. All of these lots have
a mainline service tap, service line to the property, meter box, meter base and 5-ft stub out line
on the customer side of the meter box.
Staff believes the proposed connection cost for new customers is high for several reasons.
First, in Commission Order No. 30455 (Case No. DIA-W-07-01, Diamond Bar Estate Water
Company) issued on October 22, 2007, the Commission approved a connection fee of $3 1 0 for
new customers with meter box already in place. Diamond Bar is in close proximity with Bar
Circle "S" and both systems are owned and operated by Mr. Robert N. Turnipseed. Assuming
the same cost was applied to Bar Circle "S" in 2007 and adjusting the cost from $310 (2007) to
$480 (2009), the increase is almost 55% in two years. Second, the quote provided by the GenPac
Water to Bar Circle "S" for a i -inch Record M70 meter with register and Orion Transmitter with
cable is $279 for 1 -inch meter and $230 for %-inch meter. Third, an independent quote obtained
by Staff from a service meter dealer in Coeur d' Alene indicated a cost of $207 for %-inch and
$301 for I-inch meter. Assuming that the remaining undeveloped properties wil be requesting
installation ofa I-inch meter (90% of the meters installed in Bar Circle "S" are 3/4-inch meters),
Staff believes a meter cost of$301 is reasonable estimate. Adding $88 for labor in installing the
meter based on Company estimate to the cost of meter ($301), the estimated total cost for new
hook-up is $389. Allowing a minor amount for contingencies, Staff recommends that the hook-
up fee for new installation when existing service line and meter base are already in place be set at
$400.
The Company is also proposing to charge new customers a $2,500 connection fee when
there is no service tap to the Company's water main or no meter box is in place on the property.
Staff requested the Company to provide a more detailed cost estimate for the proposed $2,500
connection charge (Staff Production Request No. 10). However, instead of providing Staff the
STAFF REPORT 13 OCTOBER 23, 2009
cost estimate requested, the Company cited Commission Order No. 30455 in Case No. DIA-W-
07-1 upon which the Applicant had relied in making the proposal in its Application.
Commission Findings:
We find the following charges to be reasonable and necessary:
(1) an increase in the connection for new customers where a service
line tap and meter box are already in place from $200 to $310;
(2) a hook-up fee where there is no service line tap or meter box of
$2,500; and (3) an additional charge to the $2,500 if the service line
tap must cross a road - to be determined on a case by case basis....
Staff does not disagree with the Company on the amount of $2,500 connection fee, but
Staff questions the merit of putting this as par of the Tariff when the Company is not expecting
any new connection with this condition. As previously discussed, the Company indicated that
the remaining 28 undeveloped properties within the Company's service area already have
mainline service tap and meter base. Staff recommends not to include the $2,500 connection fee
in this Tariff when there is no service tap to the Company's water main.
Bar Circle "S" proposes to remove the charges for new customer connection charges
from its existing non-recuring charges schedule to a new separate schedule. The Company
asserts that the new schedule makes the Company's Tariff simpler to understand. Staff does not
oppose the proposed change. There are other small water utilty companies that have separate
schedules for new customer charges or hook-up fees previously approved by the Commission.
Staff recommends that the Commission approve the Company's request to remove the charges
for new customer connection from its non-recuring charges schedule to a new separate schedule.
Bar Circle "s' is also proposing to model its proposed Tariff schedule after the curently
Commission-approved rate schedule for the Diamond Bar Estates Water Company. Bar
Circle "S" is located within few miles from Diamond Bar Estates and the Company utilzes the
same suppliers of materials, equipment and labor. The Applicant is proposing a new Tariff
schedule which is identical to the approved Diamond Bar Estates Tariff (Order No. 30455, Case
No. DIA-W-07-1) except the meter rates have been updated to reflect current cost.
Staff reviewed the Diamond Bar Estates Water Company Tariff for new customer
charges which is shown below:
F or a first time connection to the Diamond Bar Estates Water
Company system when an existing service line and meter base
are already in place on the property the cost is $310.00.
If there is no service line tap to the Company's water mains or
meter box in place on the property the cost is $2,500.00
STAFF REPORT 14 OCTOBER 23, 2009
When the installation of a new service line requires the Company
to bore a line under a road, all additional costs wil be charged to the
customer on a time and materials basis. The new customer may, at
their option, hire a Diamond Bar Water Company approved independent
contractor to perform the road bore and connection. The Company
wil require such contractor to show proof of bonding, licensing and
insurance and have at least five (5) years of experience at hot tapping
water lines. Diamond Bar Estates Water Company's Water Master wil
inspect and approve all the work being performed to insure compliance
with the Company's installation requirements.
Staff does not oppose the Company's proposal to have a new Tariff schedule for New
Customer Connection Charges similar to Diamond Bar Estates as cited above. As discussed
above, Staff recommends that the Company's hook-up fee for new connections be set at $400
when an existing service line and meter base are already in-place.
As previously discussed, however, the Company stated that the remaining undeveloped
lots already consist of existing mainline tap and meter bases. Staff believes it is not necessary to
include the connection fee for new service when no service line taps and meter bases exist and
when new service lines requires the Company to bore a line under the road. If the Company is
expecting this type of connection in its system, then that should be the time the Company should
make a proposal to the Commission. Putting these additional items in the Tariff may provide
some confusion to the customers. Staff believes these additional provisions in the Tariff are
unnecessary and recommends that they not be included in the proposed Tariff.
Non-Recurring Charges
The Company is proposing to increase its reconnection charges following disconnection
for non-payment and begin charging customers for returned checks and customer-requested
afer-hours service calls, as more particularly described below.
Returned check charges
In its Application, the Company has requested a retured check charge. The amount
requested in the Application's narative is $20.00, but the revised Tariff schedule for non-
recurring charges submitted with the Application shows a $ 1 5.00 charge. Staff assumes that the
Company is requesting the higher $20.00 amount mentioned in the Applicant's narrative. A
retured check charge reduces the cost incurred by the Company when a deposited check is
retured by the customer's financial institution for any reason, including non-sufficient funds.
STAFF REPORT 15 OCTOBER 23, 2009
A $20.00 retued check charge is consistent with what other regulated utilties charge and meets
statutory requirements. Staff recommends approval of a $20.00 retued check charge.
Reconnection Charges
The Company proposes to increase its charge for reconnections requested during normal
business hours from $ 1 0.00 to $20.00. This charge applies to reconnections performed following
an involuntar disconnection of service for non-payment. Normal business hours have been
identified by the Company as 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday excluding legal
holidays recognized by State of Idaho. The Company's requested amount is reasonable and
consistent with charges authorized by the Commission for other regulated utilities. Staff
recommends approval of a reconnection fee during normal business hours of $20.00.
The existing Company Tariff includes a $15.00 charge for reconnections for other than
normal business hours. In its Application, the Company proposes to "substitute an additional
$20.00 charge for customer requested service calls" in place of the existing $15.00 charge. It is
unclear under what specific circumstaces this new more broadly-defined charge would be
applied. The Tariff would be clearer if the after hours non-pay reconnection charge was
addressed separately from the after hours charge for other types of work performed by the
Company. Based on discussions with the Company, it is Staffs understanding that the Company
wishes to increase the charge for reconnection after an involuntar disconnection for
nonpayment from $15.00 to $40.00. The Company has not provided cost information to support
the increase, but Staff agrees that there normally are additional costs associated with dispatching
personnel outside of normal business hours to reconnect a customer's service. A $40 charge is
within the range of reasonable charges previously approved by the Commission for other
regulated utilties. Staff recommends approval of a $40.00 charge for reconnection due to
involuntar disconnection for nonpayment outside of normal business hours. Because the
Company's proposed Tarifflanguage is unclear, Staffwil work with the Company to clarify its
Tariff.
Customer-Requested Service Calls
The Company curently does not charge customers for work performed during normal
business hours for such services as turning on service for a new customer or shutting off and
turing on service associated with maintenance or repair of a customer's service line. The
Company has requested a $20.00 charge for all customer-requested service calls during times
STAFF REPORT 16 OCTOBER 23, 2009
other than normal business hours. This after hours charge will not apply to work done to the
Company's facilties or work performed after hours for the convenience of the Company.
The Company has not provided cost information to support this new charge, but Staff
agrees that there normally are additional costs associated with dispatching personnel outside of
normal business hours to perform work requested by a customer. The proposed charges allow
the Company to recover a portion of these costs. It is not clear to Staff why the Company is
requesting a charge for after hours service calls that is half the amount requested for after hours
reconnection of service following a disconnection for non-payment. It would be reasonable to
assume that the cost to the Company for the work performed would be the same in either
situation. Because cost data is not available, Staff is reluctant to recommend an amount higher
than that requested by the Company. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of a customer
requested service call charge of $20.00 for work performed outside of normal business hours.
Staff wil work with the Company to clarify the language in its Tariff to describe the
circumstaces under which the charge would apply.
Customer Notice and Press Release
The Company included a copy of the customer notice and the press release with its
Application. The Customer Notice was mailed to each customer coincident with the filing of the
Application on June 19,2009. The Company also sent a copy of the Press Release to two local
newspapers, the Coeur d Alene Press and the Spokesman Review, at the same time. The Notice
and the Press Release meet the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, IDAPA
31.01.01000 et seq.
Public notification for the customer workshop was done by the Commission through a
Press Release. The workshop was held on Wednesday September 30,2009, in Rathdrum. The
Commission has received seventeen (17) wrtten comments regarding this case as of October 22,
2009.
Company Tariff
As part of its review of the Company's filing, Staff has determined that the Company's
curent Tariff should be updated in conjunction with this case. The current Tariff consists of rate
schedules and a copy of the Commission's Uniform Main Extension Rules. However, it does not
include any detailed description of the Company's general policies and practices. Staff has
developed a Model Tariff that addresses issues commonly encountered by utilties. The General
Rules and Regulations for Small Water Utilities provide a foundation for the day-to-day
STAFF REPORT 17 OCTOBER 23, 2009
relationship between a water utility and its customers. The Model Tariff, which includes the
most curent version of the General Rules and Regulations for Small Water Utilties and the
Main Extension Rules, is available in electronic format, which will allow the Company and
Staff to work together to easily incorporate changes ordered by the Commission in this and
future cases. Staff recommends that the Company adopt the Model Tariff. Staff also
recommends that a copy of the Company's Tariff be made available to new customers and kept
on file in the Company's offce for review by all customers as required by the Commission's
Utilty Customer Relations Rules (UCRR), IDAPA 31.21.01000 et seq.
Annual Rules Summary
In response to production requests, the Company admits that it has not sent customers a
copy of the Annual Rules Summary as required under Rule 701, UCRR. Staff recommends that
the Company create a Rules Summary in compliance with Commission's rules, and that the
Company send a copy of the summary to all customers at the time of initiation of service and on
an anual basis thereafter. Staff is willng to work with the Company to create a summar.
Customer Biling
The Company does not read customer meters during the winter months when snow
accumulation prevents access to the meters. From November until April or May, depending upon
when the snow melts, the Company bils the customer the minimum charge. After the first
readings, which could occur as late as May, the Company aggregates the 7,500 gallon monthly
allowance for each month that no meter reading is taken and bils for all usage exceeding the
total aggregated allowance. If, for example, the customer has used more than 45,000 gallons
(7,500 gallons x 6 = 45,000) over the past six months, he or she wil be biled for usage
exceeding 45,000 gallons in the first monthly bil issued after a meter reading is taken. Staff has
no problem with this biling practice. However, the biling statement does not separate the
commodity charge from the monthly minimum charge, and in the example above, the excess
amount for the previous six months would appear as par of the current month's total biled
amount. The biling statement does not meet the contents requirements as described in Rules
201, UCRR. The biling statement does not separately identify monthly recuring charges, such
as the monthly base rate, commodity charges for water used during the biling period, or any
applicable non-recurring charges, such as the reconnection charges.
The statement identifies the meter read date and the due date, but it does not identify the
biling date as required by Rule 201.01, UCRR. The lack of a biling date makes it impossible to
STAFF REPORT 18 OCTOBER 23,2009
determine if the due date allows the minimum specified time as required under Rule 202.01,
which requires a minimum of twelve days between the biling date and the due date before the
bil becomes past due. Staff recommends that the monthly biling statements be revised to meet
the Commission's requirements.
Termination for Non-Payment
In response to production requests regarding its collection practices, the Company
submitted a copy of a notice entitled "Discontinuance of Service", which it sends out as the
Initial Notice of Termination. The contents of the notice submitted complies with the
requirements of Rule 305 of the UCRR. However, the Company stated in response to a
production request that "If Customer has not made any contact with Company, on the sixth day
the Company will make a phone call or deliver a note to Customer door that the following day
(7th) day the water service wil be terminated by 4:00 pm. Company has not had to terminate any
Customer's service within the allotted time frame." The Company did not provide a copy of its
note, so Staff is unable to determine ifit meets the requirements of the Commission's Rules.
The procedure as described does not meet the notification requirements of Rule 304, UCRR,
since it appears that customers are only given 6 days to comply instead of the minimum of 7 days
required by the Commission's Rules. In addition, it is not clear if the Company follows Rule
311, UCRR, which restricts the times of the day and the days of the week during which a
customer may be disconnected. Further investigation by Staff is necessary to determine whether
the Company's other practices and procedures comply with the Commission's Rules. If not,
Staff is willng to work with the Company to bring it into compliance.
Company Information
The Company needs to improve communication with its customers. The customer notice
and press release contained in the application are the only documentation presented to or on fie
with the Commission that identify the location of the Company's office. Biling statements list
the mailng address, a post offce box, and the telephone number for the owner and the operator.
The Initial Notice for termination lists the mailng address and the telephone number for
Avondale Construction, with which the Company contracts for services, but not an office address
where payment can be made in person to prevent disconnection. None of the documentation
identifies the normal business hours for the Company or identifies an emergency contact number.
It is important that all customers know how to contact the Company so they may make a
payment to prevent disconnection, review documents, or speak directly to Company personnel to
STAFF REPORT 19 OCTOBER 23, 2009
,,..'
discuss service and biling issues. Staff recommends that the Company revise its notices, bils or
other documentation to clearly indicate emergency contact information, Company business
hours, and Company location consistent with the Commission's Rules.
Complaint Records
Rule 401, U CRR, requires the Company to maintain a record of all customers callng to
complain or request a conference. The Company states that it has not received any complaints
for many years.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Staff recommends that the Company's annual revenue requirement be increased by an
additional $49,147 and that a new revenue requirement of $ 1 16,402, or an increase of
73.08%, be approved.
2. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the new rates proposed by the Staff in which
the 73.08% increase in revenue requirement is applied uniformly across all applicable
schedules.
3. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the $400 hook-up fee for new customers
when existing service line and meter base are already in place.
4. Staff recommends that the Commission deny the request of the Company to include in the
Tariff a $2,500 new connection fee for new customers when there is no service tap and no
meter box is in place on the property, and additional costs when the installation of a new
service line requires the Company to bore a line under a road.
5. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the request of the Company to remove the
charges for new customer connection charges from its existing non-recurring charges
schedule to a new separate schedule.
6. Staff recommends approval of the following non-recurring charges:
$20.00 reconnection charge for reconnections requested during normal business hours
after an involuntar disconnection;
$40.00 reconnection charge for reconnections requested during times other than normal
business hours after an involuntar disconnection;
$20.00 customer-requested service call charge for work performed at a customer's
request during times other than normal business hours; and
$20.00 returned check charge.
STAFF REPORT 20 OCTOBER 23, 2009
7. Staff recommends that the Company adopt the Model Tariff, including the most recent
version of the General Rules and Regulations and the Commission's Unifonn Main
Extension Rules.
8. Staff recommends that the Company review and update all notices, bils, and other
documents to comply with the Commission's Rules.
9. Staff recommends that the Company create a Rules Summar and distribute it to its
customers upon initiation of service and annually thereafter.
Respectfully submitted this ..1
). 3 day of October 2009.
Scott Woodbury
Deputy Attorney General
Technical Staff: Gerr Galinato
Joe Leckie
Chris Hecht
i:umisc:commentslcsw08. i swggjlch staff report
STAFF REPORT 21 OCTOBER 23, 2009
Bar Circle "s" Water Company
Calculation of Revenue Requirement
1 Rate Base
2 Rate of Return
3 Net Operating Income Requirement
4 Net Operating Income Realized
5 Net Operating Income Deficiency
Revenue Requirement Increase to
6 Net Operating Loss
7 Incremental PUC Fees (g 0.1662%
8 Gross Revenue Requirement to Overcome Loss
Revenue Requirement Increase
9 Subject to Income Tax
10 Tax Gross-up Factor
Required Revenue Increase
11 Subject to Gross-up
$30,407
128.09%
12 Revenue Increase Required
13 Amortize Rate Case Expenses
14 Total Revenue Increase Required
15 Total Revenue Collected in Test Year
16 Revenue Increase %
Tax Gross-up Factor Calculation
Gross-up Factor Calculation
17 Net Deficiency
18 PUC Fees
19 Bad Debts
20 Taxable Amount
21 State Tax (g 8%
22 Federal Taxable
23 Federal Tax (g 15%
24 Net After Tax
25 Net to Gross Multiplier
100%
0.1662%
0.0000%
99.8338%
7.9867%
91.8471%
13.7771%
78.0700%
128.09%
38,948 $31,955
$78,112 $47,813
$2,223 $1,334
$80,335 $49,147
67,255 $67,255
119.45%73.08%
Company
(A)
$287,219
10.59%
$30,407
-$39,099
$69,506
$39,099
$65
$39,164
$
Staff
(B)
$207,891
12%
$24,947
-$15,832
$40,779
$15,832
$26
$15,858
$24,947
Attachment 1
Case No. BCS-W-09-2
J. Leckie, Staff
10/23/09
Bar Circle "s" Water Company
Calculation of Rate Base
(A)(G)
Per Company Per Staff
Adjusted
Books Total
1 Plant in Service $337,592 $407,512 $330,695
2 Abandonment Costs 4,500
3 Accumulated Depreciation 135,217 135,550 $(131,191)
4 Net Plant in Service $202,375 $276,462 $199,504
5 Working Capital 10,756 $8,387
6 Total Rate Base $287,219 $207,891
At tachment 2
Case No. BCS-W-09-2
J. Leckie, Staff
10/23/09
Ba
r

C
i
r
c
l
e

"
S
"

W
a
t
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
In
c
o
m
e

S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
Co
m
p
a
n
y
St
a
f
f
s

A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
Pe
r
Ko
o
t
e
n
a
i
Wa
t
e
r
El
e
c
t
r
i
c

P
o
w
e
r
Te
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
De
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
Bo
o
k
s
Pr
o
f
o
r
m
a
La
b
o
r

C
h
a
r
g
e
s
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Ch
a
r
g
e
s
Fe
e
s
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
To
t
a
l
s
RE
V
E
N
U
E
1
Me
t
e
r
e
d

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

R
e
v
e
n
u
e
65
,
1
2
2
65
,
1
2
2
65
,
1
2
2
2
Fi
r
e

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
1,
3
8
3
1.
3
8
3
1,
3
8
3
3
Ho
o
k
-
u
p

F
e
e
s
75
0
75
0
75
0
4
Gr
o
s
s

R
e
v
e
n
u
e
67
,
2
5
5
67
,
2
5
5
67
,
2
5
5
OP
E
R
A
T
I
N
G

E
X
P
E
N
S
E
S
5
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

L
a
b
o
r
10
,
5
8
5
8,
6
6
0
8,
6
6
0
6
Me
t
e
r

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
2,
2
2
4
2,
2
2
4
2,
2
2
4
7
Wa
t
e
r

M
a
s
t
e
r

L
a
b
o
r
7,
2
0
0
18
,
0
0
0
(6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
)
12
,
0
0
0
8
Pu
m
p
i
n
g

P
o
w
e
r

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
15
,
0
3
3
15
,
0
3
3
2,
4
4
5
.
0
0
17
,
4
7
8
9
He
a
t
i
n
g

E
x
p

(
W
e
l
l
s

&

R
e
s
)
41
41
41
10
Pu
m
p

&

R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

A
l
a
r
m

E
x
p
52
8
52
8
52
8
11
Wa
t
e
r

T
e
s
t
i
n
g

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
34
4
1,
5
6
5
(8
1
8
.
0
0
)
74
7
12
Lo
c
a
t
e

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
13
2
55
2
55
2
13
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

&

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s

-

O
&
M
4,
5
8
8
4,
5
8
8
4,
5
8
8
14
Ad
m
i
n

L
a
b
o
r

-

B
o
o
k
k
e
e
p
t
i
n
g
8,
8
5
0
10
,
9
5
0
(1
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
)
9,
0
0
0
15
Ad
m
i
n

M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

&

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
1,
4
0
7
1,
4
0
7
1,
4
0
7
16
Re
n
t

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
2,
0
0
2,
4
0
0
2,
4
0
0
17
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

F
e
e
s
13
,
1
2
8
13
,
1
2
8
(1
2
,
6
2
8
.
0
0
)
50
0
18
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y

F
e
e
s
88
6
88
6
88
6
19
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

D
u
e
s
30
0
30
0
30
0
20
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
75
75
75
21
In
s
u
r
a
n
c
e

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
2,
9
0
3
2,
9
0
3
2,
9
0
3
~
c
.

(
)

~
.
22
Pr
o
p
e
r
t

T
a
x
e
s
88
2
88
2
88
2
o.
II
rt
23
St
a
t
e

I
n
c
o
m
e

T
a
x
e
s
63
2
63
2
63
2
..
m
rt
;
N
t
"

C
D
~.

2
4
Fe
d
e
r
a
l

In
c
o
m
e

T
a
x
1,
2
9
7
1,
2
9
7
1.
2
9
7
w
C
D
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l

o
f

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
73
,
4
3
4
86
,
0
4
9
67
,
0
9
8
..

(
)

Z

:
:
o
;
:

0

:
3

2
5
De
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
12
,
9
8
9
20
,
3
0
5
(4
,
3
1
6
.
0
0
)
15
,
9
8
9
\D

1
-
-
,

C
D
'
To
t
a
l

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
86
,
4
2
3
10
6
,
3
5
4
83
,
0
8
7
CD

:
:

2
6
lJ

r
t
'

2
7
Ne
t

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

I
n
c
o
m
e
(1
9
.
1
6
8
)
(3
9
,
0
9
9
)
(1
5
,
8
3
2
)
()
u:

u
:

w
i
rt
i
II
:E
HI
i
HI

0
\D iN
~
c
.

n
:
:
o'

P
J

r
t
T
o
t
a
l
s
..

u
.

r
t
'
NI
:
(
J
P
J
W
(
J

(
)
..

(
)

Z

:
:
!
o
X
'

0

S
'-

1
-
.
,

(
J

!
(J

~
!
td

r
t
n
!
u.

u
.

i
i
.
rt

i
PJ

~
Hi

i
Hi

0
'-iN
Ba
r

C
i
r
c
l
e

"
S
"

W
a
t
e
r

C
o
.
De
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
Ye
a
r

E
n
d
e
d
As
s
e
t
We
l
l
Re
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
35

H
P

P
u
m
p
La
n
d
We
l
l

S
i
t
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
We
l
l

P
u
m
p

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pu
m
p
60

H
P

P
u
m
p
Ga
r
w
o
o
d

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
Wa
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
Ku
b
o
t
a

T
r
a
c
t
o
r
We
l
l

S
i
t
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
We
l
l

S
i
t
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
We
l
l

S
i
t
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
We
l
l

S
i
t
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
60

H
P

P
u
m
p

Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
f
o
r
m
a

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

N
e
w

A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

&

A
I
6"

R
e
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

F
l
o
w

M
e
t
e
r
Ab
a
n
d
o
n

6
"

W
e
l
l
Au
t
o
m
a
t
e
d

M
e
t
e
r

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
60

H
P

P
u
m
p

R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
11
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
8
Da
t
e
Co
s
t
Li
f
e
An
n
u
a
l
Aq
u
i
r
e
d
De
p
r

E
x
p
Ag
e
1/
1
/
1
9
7
8

$
21
,
0
8
7
40
52
7
1/
1
/
1
9
7
8

$
22
,
6
0
0
40
56
5
5/
1
4
/
1
9
8
7

$
7,
0
0
1
15
46
7
12
/
1
/
1
9
9
0

$
2,
2
5
0
12
/
1
/
1
9
9
0

$
2,
9
5
8
15
19
7
1/
9
/
1
9
9
5

$
6,
7
8
1
15
45
2
8/
8
/
1
9
9
6

$
11
,
0
7
8
15
73
9
12
/
1
/
1
9
9
8

$
33
,
9
9
7
15
2,
2
6
6
9/
2
4
/
2
0
0
1

$
50
,
0
0
0
40
1,
2
5
0
9/
1
/
2
0
0
2

$
90
,
8
7
0
40
2,
2
7
2
9/
1
/
2
0
0
2

$
15
,
1
0
0
7
2,
1
5
7
6/
1
5
/
2
0
0
3

$
9,
7
7
7
15
65
2
6/
1
5
/
2
0
0
4

$
12
,
9
4
8
15
86
3
8/
1
5
/
2
0
0
4

$
5,
5
0
0
7
78
6
6/
1
5
/
2
0
0
5

$
14
,
1
7
9
15
94
5
6/
1
5
/
2
0
0
6

$
1,
0
0
0
15
67
6/
1
5
/
2
0
0
6

$
3,
6
3
4
7
51
9
11
/
1
5
/
2
0
0
7

$
5,
0
0
0
15
33
3
$
31
5
,
7
6
0
15
,
0
5
7
Ac
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i

B
o
o
k
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Va
l
u
e
4,
7
4
5
5,
0
8
5
De
p
r

E
x
p
52
7
56
5
31 31 22
De
E
!
16
,
3
4
2
17
,
5
1
5
7,
0
0
1
2,
2
5
0
18
2,
9
5
8
14
6,
3
2
9
45
2
45
2
12
8,
8
6
2
2,
2
1
6
73
9
10
22
,
6
6
5
11
,
3
3
2
2,
2
6
6
7
8,
7
5
0
41
,
2
5
0
1,
2
5
0
6
13
,
6
3
1
77
,
2
4
0
2,
2
7
2
6
12
,
9
4
3
2,
1
5
7
2,
1
5
7
5
3,
2
5
9
6,
5
1
8
65
2
4
3,
4
5
3
9,
4
9
5
86
3
4
3,
1
4
3
2,
3
5
7
78
6
3
2,
8
3
6
11
,
3
4
3
94
5
2
13
3
86
7
67
2
1,
0
3
8
2,
5
9
6
51
9
1
33
3
4,
6
6
7
33
3
13
1
,
1
9
1
18
4
,
5
6
9
14
,
3
9
3
#
St
a
f
f

A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t

t
o
Co
m
p
a
n
y
'
s

B
a
l
a
n
c
e
As
s
e
t

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
1
(2
0
,
6
6
1
)
2
(1
,
1
7
1
)
20
0
9
9,
9
3
5
15
66
2

n
e
w

i
n

2
0
0
9
0
9,
9
3
5
66
2
20
0
9
4,
5
0
0
5
90
0

n
e
w

i
n

2
0
0
9
0
4,
5
0
0
90
0
3
(4
4
,
9
8
5
)
(2
,
9
9
9
)
5/
2
5
/
2
0
0
9
50
0
15
33

n
e
w

i
n

2
0
0
9
0
50
0
33
14
,
9
3
5
15
9
6
0
14
,
9
3
5
15
9
6
$
33
0
,
6
9
5
16
,
6
5
3
13
1
,
1
9
1
19
9
,
5
0
4
15
,
9
8
9
Bar Circle "S" Water Co.
Electric Power Costs
AT CURRENT RATES
Facilities KWh KWh KWh Demand Demand Demand Total Prorate
SMALL WELL 1/1 Charge Biled Rate Charge Billed Rate Charge Bill 112 Month
Decmber 2007 15 5,760 0.075 432.00 18 447.00 223.5 223.50 Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
Januar 2008 15 6,120 0.Q5 459.00 12 47400 474.00 Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
Februar 2008 15 6,920 0.Q5 519.00 73.6 534.00 53400 Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
March 2008 15 5,880 0.Q5 441.00 14.8 456.00 456.00 Schedule #2. Less than 50KW
April 2008 15 8,480 0.075 636.00 30.4 651.00 651.00 Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
May 2008 15 7,280 0.075 546.00 26.8 561.00 56100 Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
June 2008 15 12.600 0.075 945.00 38.4 960.00 960.00 Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
July 2008 15 16,560 0.075 1,242.00 38.8 1.257.00 1.57.00 Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
August 2008 15 11,320 0.075 849.00 39.6 864.00 864.00 Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
September 2008 15 7.840 0.075 588.00 32.4 603.00 603.00 Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
October 2008 15 6,640 0.Q5 498.00 22.8 513.00 513.00 Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
November 2008 15 7,280 0075 546.00 16 561.00 561.00 Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
Decmber 2008 t5 8,360 0.Q5 627.00 18 642.00 642.00 Schedule #2. Less than 50KW
Januar 2009 15 8,360 0.Q5 627.00 16.4 642.00 321 321.00 Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
Prorated 12 month Total 112.340 8,620.50
LARGE WELL 1/2
December 2007 200 1,904 0.049 93.30 53.97 2.75 1092 304.21 152.1068 152. II Schedule #6, 51 to 1,000 KW
January 2008 200 1,873 0.049 91.8 53.64 2.75 10.01 301.79 301.9 Schedule #6, 51 to 1,000 KW
Februar 2008 200 4.667 0.049 228.68 54.5 2.75 11.96 440.65 440.65 Schedule #6, 5 i to 1,000 KW
March 2008 200 3,719 0.049 182.23 53.52 2.75 9.68 391.91 391.91 Schedule #6, 51 to 1,000 KW
April 2008 200 5,622 0.049 275.48 53.48 2.75 9.57 485.05 485.05 Schedule #6,51 to 1,000 KW
May 2008 200 7,010 0.049 343.49 53.52 2.75 9.68 553.17 553.17 Schedule #6, 5 i to 1,000 KW
June 2008 200 18,049 0049 884.40 53.63 2.75 9.98 1,094.38 1,094.38 Schedule #6, 51 to 1,000 KW
July 2008 200 25,049 0.049 1,227.40 53.72 2.75 10.23 1.43763 1,43763 Schedule #6, 51 to I,OOOKW
August 2008 200 16.03 0049 784.15 53.69 275 10.15 99429 994.29 Schedule #6, 51 to 1.000 KW
September 2008 200 7,408 0.049 36299 53.59 275 987 57286 57286 Schedule #6. 51 to 1,000 KW
October 2008 200 1,943 0.049 95.21 53.53 275 9.71 30491 304.91 Schedule #6, 5 I to 1.000 KW
November 2008 200 1,940 0.049 9506 54.41 275 1213 307.19 307.19 Schedule #6, 51 to 1,000 KW
December 2008 200 3.125 0.049 15313 54.96 2.75 13.64 366.77 36677 Schedule #6. 51 to 1,000 KW
January 2009 200 3,240 0.049 158.76 54.33 2.75 11.91 370.67 185.3338 185.33 Schedule #6, 51 to 1,000 KW
Prorated 12 month Total 98,980 7,588.04
Prorated 12 month Total for Both Wells 16,208.54
AT NEW RATES
Facilities KWh KWh KWh Demand Demand Demand Total Prorate Percent
SMALL WELL 1/1 Charge Biled Rate Charge Biled Rate Charge Bil 112 Month Increase
December 2007 15 5,760 00775 446.40 18 461.40 2307 230.70 3% Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
January 2008 15 6,120 0.0775 474.30 12 489.30 489.30 3% Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
February 2008 15 6,920 0.0775 536.30 73.6 551.0 551.0 3% Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
March 2008 15 5,880 0.0775 455.70 14.8 470.70 470.70 3% Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
April 2008 15 8,480 00775 657.20 30.4 67220 672.20 3% Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
May 2008 15 7,280 0.0775 564.20 26.8 579.20 579.20 3% Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
June 2008 15 12,600 0.0775 976.50 38.4 991.0 991.0 3% Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
July 2008 15 16,560 0.0775 1,283.40 38.8 1.298.40 1,298.40 3% Schedule #2. Less than 50KW
August 2008 15 11,320 0.0775 87730 39.6 892.30 892.30 3% Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
September 2008 15 7,840 0.0775 607.60 32.4 62260 622.60 3% Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
October 2008 15 6.640 0,0775 514.60 22.8 529.60 529.60 3% Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
November 2008 15 7,280 0.0775 564.20 16 579.20 579.20 3% Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
December 2008 15 8.360 0,0775 647.90 18 662.90 662.90 3% Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
Januar 2009 15 8,360 0.0775 647.90 16.4 662.90 331.45 331.45 3% Schedule #2, Less than 50KW
Prorated 12 month Tota 112,340 8,901.5
LARGE WELL 1/2
December 2007 225 1.904 0.0555 105.67 53.97 3.15 12.51 343.18 1715888 171.9 13% Schedule #6, 51 to 1,000 KW
January 2008 225 1,873 0.0555 103.5 53.64 3.15 11.47 340.42 340.42 13% Schedule #6,51 to 1.000 KW
Februar 2008 225 4.667 0.0555 259.02 54.5 3.15 13,70 497.72 497,72 13% Schedule #6, 5Ho 1,000 KW
March 2008 225 3,719 0.0555 206.40 53.52 3.15 11.09 442.49 442.49 13% Schedule #6, 5 I to 1,000 KW
April 2008 225 5.622 0.0555 312.02 53.48 3.15 10,96 547.98 547,98 13% Schedule #6,51 to 1,000 KW
May 2008 225 7,010 0.0555 389.06 53.52 3.15 11.09 625.14 625 14 13% Schedule #6,51 to 1,000 KW
June 2008 225 18,049 00555 1,001.72 53.63 3.15 11.43 1,238.15 1,238.15 13% Schedule #6,51 to 1,000 KW
July 2008 225 25.049 00555 1,390.22 53.72 3,15 11.72 1.626.94 1.626.94 13% Schedule #6, 51 to 1,000KW
August 2008 225 16.03 0.0555 888.17 53.69 3.15 11.62 1,124.79 1,124,79 13% Schedule #6, 51 to 1,000 KW
September 2008 225 7,408 00555 411.14 53.59 3,15 1131 647.45 64745 13% Schedule #6. 5t to 1.000 KW
October 2008 225 1,943 0,0555 10784 53.53 3 15 1112 343.96 343,96 13% Schedule #6. 51 to 1,000 KW
November 2008 225 1,940 0,0555 10767 54.41 3,15 13.89 346.56 346.56 13% Schedule #6.51 to 1.000 KW
December 2008 225 3.125 0.0555 173.44 54.96 3.15 1562 41406 41406 13% Schedule #6. 5 I to 1,000 KW
Januar 2009 225 3,240 0,0555 179,82 54.33 3.15 13.64 418.46 2092298 209.23 13% Schedule #6, 51 to 1,000 KW
Prorated 12 month Tota 98,980 8,576.49
Prorated 12 month Total for Both Wells 17,47784
Percent Increase in tota bils, both wells 7.8310%
At tachment 5
Case No.BCS-W- 09-2
J.Leckie,Staff
10/23/09
We
l
l

#1

Ni
t
r
a
t
e
An
n
u
a
l
l
y
9
$
20
.
0
0
$
18
0
.
0
0
$
20
.
0
0
We
l
l

#1

Ni
t
r
i
t
e
On
c
e

i
n

9

y
e
a
r
s
1
$
20
.
0
0
$
20
.
0
0
$
2.
2
2
We
l
l

#1

Pr
i
m
a
r
y

I
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
s
On
c
e

i
n

9

y
e
a
r
s
1
$
19
5
.
0
0
$
19
5
.
0
0
$
21
.
6
7

1
*
*
We
l
l

#1

Sy
n
t
h
e
t
i
c

O
r
g
a
n
i
c
s
On
c
e

i
n

9

y
e
a
r
s
1
$
1,
0
9
5
.
0
0
$
1,
0
9
5
.
0
0
$
12
1
.
6
7
We
l
l

#1

So
d
i
u
m
On
c
e

i
n

3

y
e
a
r
s
3
$
20
.
0
0
$
60
.
0
0
$
6.
6
7
We
l
l

#1

Ar
s
e
n
i
c
On
c
e

i
n

3

y
e
a
r
s
3
$
20
.
0
0
$
60
.
0
0
$
6.
6
7
We
l
l

#1

Vo
l
a
t
i
l
e

O
n
:
i
a
n
i
c
s
On
c
e

i
n

9

y
e
a
r
s
1
$
16
0
.
0
0
$
16
0
.
0
0
$
17
.
7
8
We
l
l

#1

Gr
o
s
s

Alp
h
a

On
c
e

i
n

9

y
e
a
r
s
1
$
75
.
0
0
$
75
.
0
0
$
8.
3
3
We
l
l

#1

Ra
d
i
u
m

2
2
6
On
c
e

i
n

9

y
e
a
r
s
1
$
12
0
.
0
0
$
12
0
.
0
0
$
13
.
3
3
We
l
l

#1

Ra
d
i
u
m

2
2
8
On
c
e

i
n

9

y
e
a
r
s
1
$
11
0
.
0
0
$
11
0
.
0
0
$
12
.
2
2
We
l
l

#1

Ur
a
n
i
u
m
0i
i
s
1
$
55
.
0
0
$
55
.
0
0
$
6.
1
1
We
l
l

#2

Ni
t
r
a
t
e
An
n
u
a
l
l
y
9
$
20
.
0
0
$
18
0
.
0
0
$
20
.
0
0
We
l
l

#2

Ni
t
r
i
t
e
On
c
e

i
n

9

y
e
a
r
s
1
$
20
,
0
0
$
20
.
0
0
$
2.
2
2
We
l
l

#2

Pr
i
m
a
r
y

I
n
o
r
ç
i
a
n
i
c
s
On
c
e

i
n

9

y
e
a
r
s
3
$
19
5
.
0
0
$
58
5
.
0
0
$
65
.
0
0
We
l
l

#2

Sv
n
t
h
e
t
i
c

O
r
ç
i
a
n
i
c
s
On
c
e

i
n

9

y
e
a
r
s
1
$
1,
0
9
5
.
0
0
$
1,
0
9
5
.
0
0
$
12
1
.
6
7
We
l
l

#2

So
d
i
u
m
On
c
e

i
n

3

y
e
a
r
s
3
$
20
.
0
0
$
60
.
0
0
$
6.
6
7
We
l
l

#2

Ar
s
e
n
i
c
On
c
e

i
n

3

y
e
a
r
s
3
$
20
.
0
0
$
60
.
0
0
$
6.
6
7
We
l
l

#2

Vo
l
a
t
i
l
e

O
r
g
a
n
i
c
s
On
c
e

i
n

9

y
e
a
r
s
1
$
16
0
.
0
0
$
16
0
.
0
0
$
17
.
7
8
We
l
l

#2

Gr
o
s
s

Alp
h
a

On
c
e

i
n

9

y
e
a
r
s
1
$
75
.
0
0
$
75
.
0
0
$
8.
3
3
We
l
l

#2

Ra
d
i
u
m

2
2
6
On
c
e

i
n

9

y
e
a
r
s
1
$
12
0
.
0
0
$
12
0
.
0
0
$
13
.
3
3
We
l
l

#2

Ra
d
i
u
m

2
2
8
On
c
e

i
n

9

y
e
a
r
s
1
$
11
0
.
0
0
$
11
0
.
0
0
$
12
.
2
2
I We
l
l

#2

Ur
a
n
i
u
m
On
c
e

i
n

9

y
e
a
r
s
1
$
55
.
0
0
$
55
.
0
0
$
6.
1
1
i-
C
-
(
)
;
l
I
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

L
e
a
d

&

C
o
p
p
e
r
5
r
o
u
n
d
s

i
n

3

y
e
a
r
s
15

$
30
.
0
0

I

$
45
0
.
0
0
$
50
.
0
0
o.
ll

r
t
I
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

I

T
o
t
a
l

C
o
l
i
f
o
r
m
I
Mo
n
t
h
l
v
I
10
8
1

$
15
.
0
0

1
$
1,
6
2
0
.
0
0

I

$
18
0
.
0
0
..
ai

r
t
N
t
"

C
D

l
l
w
C
D
0
$
6,
7
2
0
.
0
0
..
O
!
2
:
:
0;
:

0

S
1
$
74
6
.
6
7
\.

1
-
-

.
CD
CD
::
~
tJ

r
t
()
*D
a
t
a

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,

C
o
e
u
r

d
'
A
l
e
n
e

O
f
f
c
e
.
u:

u
:

0
'
1
**
L
e
s
s

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

P
r
i
m
a
r
y

I
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
s

c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

W
e
l
l

N
O
.
2

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e
r
e

w
a
s

n
o

d
e
t
e
c
t
a
b
l
e

r
e
a
d
i
n
g
rt

i
ll

:
E
fo
r

t
h
e

l
a
s
t

3

y
e
a
r
s

f
o
r

W
e
l
l

N
O
.
1
.
i-

i
i-

0
\.iN
Bar Circle "5" Water Company
Case No. BCS-W-09-2
Water Usage Per Customer, Gallons per Month
Month 2001*2006 2007 2008
January 8,252 7,668 10,312 9,291
February 8,252 7,668 10,312 9,291
March 8,252 7,668 10,312 9,291
April 8,808 10,076 12,058 9,291
May 25,485 28,608 31,732 27,211
June 32,966 34,131 50,208 37,923
July 55,451 78,141 85,882 67,417
August 72,826 96,909 92,286 77,572
September 48,808 55,897 55,955 47,304
October 8,252 10,312 10,734 10,942
November 8,252 10,312 9,291 9,568
December 8,252 10,312 9,291 9,568
Total 293,853 357,702 388,373 324,668
Average 24,488 29,808 32,364 27,056
*Data is not available for winter period from 11/1/01 to 12/31/01;
assumed the same monthly winter usage using 1/01 to 3/01 data.
Monthly Usage per Customer - Bar Circle iisii
120,000
100,000..
eu
E 80,000 ..20010
1;_2006::u..60,000eu ~2007CLIIC40,000 ~2008.2iãc:
20,000
rS~ ~(; ,,0- ~i~ _ "'~~ ~'l~v "V _"'~ ~"" "'- "V,,'b ~~ "',s~ ,:~ ~ ~ ~ ~') ,:~ ~ ..èF ~ ~~ ,&r¿ OV ~r¿ ("r¿,.ß~ ~o Ç)r¿
At tachment---7-
Case No. BCS-W-09-2
G.D. Galinato, Staff
10/23/09
Bar Circle "S" Water Company
Case No. BCS-W-09-2
Monthly Water Usage
Average Monthly Winter Usage per Customer
Winter Total Water Total Total No. of Ave. Usage
Period Sold in Winter Number of Months of per Customer
(gallons)Customers Winter Rdg.(gallons/mo.)
2005-06 6,993,171 152 6 7,668
2006-07 9,404,500 156 6 10,048
2007-08 8,695,980 160 6 9,058
Average 8,925
Attachment 8
Case No. BCS-W- 09-2
G.D. Galinato, Staff
10/23/09
Bar Circle "5" Water Company
BCS-W-09-02
Tariff Design
Co. Proposal Staff Proposal
Revenue Collected in Test Year $67,255 $67,255
Revenue Increase Required $80,335 $49,147
% Increase in Revenue 119.45%73.08%
METERED WATER RATES
Company Proposed Staff Proposed
Monthly Water Usage Current Tariff Tariff Tariff
0-7,500 gallons ($)$15.00 $32.92 $25.96
over 7,500 gallons ($/1,000 gal.)$0.95 $2.08 $1.64
COMMERCIAL FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE
Current Tariff Company Proposed Staff Proposed
Type $/month Tariff ($/month)Tariff ($/month)
For each Fire Hydrant $9.50 $20.85 $16.44
For each Separate Building $48.13 $105.62 $83.30
At ta.chment 9-
Case No. BCS-W-09-2
G.D. Galinato, Staff
10/23/09
i-
Q
n
:
i
o.

s
i
r
t
..
Ö
O
l
r
t
tv
.

r
o
s
i
w
(
)
..
Q

Z
:
:
o
s
i

0

E
l
i
\.

1
-

r
o
,
1-
-

:
:
f
::

t
J

r
t
si

n
rt

(
f

i
-
o
i

0
~
:
E
I
(f

0
rt

\
.
si

i
Hi

t
v
Hi
Ba
r

C
i
r
c
l
e

"
s
"

W
a
t
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

B
C
S
-
W
-
0
9
-
2
Vo
l
u
m
e

o
f

W
a
t
e
r

P
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
,

S
o
l
d

a
n
d

L
o
s
t
Ye
a
r
Wi
n
t
e
r
-
6

m
o
s
.
Ap
r
i
l
Ma
y
Ju
n
e
Ju
l
y
Au
g
u
s
t
Se
p
t
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
To
t
a
l
We
l
l

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
)
20
0
6
12
,
8
7
9
,
8
0
0
2,
2
7
7
,
9
0
0
5,
1
0
9
,
8
0
0
5,
7
9
3
,
0
0
0
12
,
9
1
1
,
0
0
0
15
,
7
4
0
,
7
0
0
9,
9
7
9
,
2
0
0
64
,
6
9
1
,
4
0
0
20
0
7
13
,
9
9
5
,
9
0
0
2,
4
0
0
,
4
0
0
5,
5
2
4
,
3
0
0
8,
7
3
5
,
3
0
0
14
,
2
5
1
,
5
0
0
14
,
3
5
8
,
1
0
0
10
,
2
9
6
,
3
0
0
1,
8
2
5
,
7
0
0
71
,
3
8
7
,
5
0
0
20
0
8
10
,
2
8
5
,
8
8
0
4,
7
9
5
,
8
0
0
6,
4
7
8
,
6
0
0
10
,
9
9
2
,
7
0
0
12
,
7
0
1
,
6
0
0
7,
3
9
0
,
2
0
0
2,
2
4
7
,
7
0
0
54
,
8
9
2
,
4
8
0
Vo
l
u
m
e

o
f

W
a
t
e
r

S
o
l
d

(
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
)
20
0
6
6,
9
9
3
,
1
7
1
1,
5
3
1
,
5
1
9
4,
3
4
8
,
4
9
0
5,
1
8
7
,
8
4
0
11
,
8
7
7
,
3
6
0
14
,
7
3
0
,
2
3
0
8,
4
9
6
,
3
7
0
53
,
1
6
4
,
9
8
0
20
0
7
9,
4
0
4
,
5
0
0
1,
8
8
1
,
0
5
0
4,
9
5
0
,
1
9
0
7,
8
3
2
,
4
6
0
13
,
3
9
7
,
5
8
0
14
,
3
9
6
,
5
8
0
8,
7
2
9
,
0
3
0
1,
6
7
4
,
5
7
0
62
,
2
6
5
,
9
6
0
20
0
8
8,
6
9
5
,
9
8
0
4,
3
5
3
,
8
1
0
6,
0
6
7
,
7
1
0
10
,
7
8
6
,
7
9
0
12
,
4
1
1
,
5
2
0
7,
5
6
8
,
5
6
0
1,
7
5
0
,
6
6
0
51
,
6
3
5
,
0
3
0
Vo
l
u
m
e

o
f

W
a
t
e
r

L
o
s
s
e
s

(
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
)
20
0
6
5,
8
8
6
,
6
2
9
74
6
,
3
8
1
76
1
,
3
1
0
60
5
,
1
6
0
1,
0
3
3
,
6
4
0
1,
0
1
0
,
4
7
0
1,
4
8
2
,
8
3
0
-
11
,
5
2
6
,
4
2
0
20
0
7
4,
5
9
1
,
4
0
0
51
9
,
3
5
0
57
4
,
1
1
0
90
2
,
8
4
0
85
3
,
9
2
0
(3
8
,
4
8
0
)
1,
5
6
7
,
2
7
0
15
1
,
1
3
0
9,
1
2
1
,
5
4
0
20
0
8
1,
5
8
9
,
9
0
0
-
44
1
,
9
9
0
41
0
,
8
9
0
20
5
,
9
1
0
29
0
,
0
8
0
(1
7
8
,
3
6
0
)
49
7
,
0
4
0
3,
2
5
7
,
4
5
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

L
o
s
s
20
0
6
46
%
33
%
15
%
10
%
8%
6%
15
%
18
%
20
0
7
33
%
22
%
10
%
10
%
6%
0%
15
%
8%
13
%
20
0
8
15
%
9%
6%
2%
2%
-2
%
22
%
6%
No
t
e
s
:

a
)

D
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

2
0
0
5
-
0
6

w
i
n
t
e
r

s
e
a
s
o
n
,

m
e
t
e
r

r
e
a
d
i
n
g
s

w
e
r
e

f
r
o
m

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

1
,

2
0
0
5

t
o

A
p
r
i
l

1,

2
0
0
6
.
b)

D
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

2
0
0
6
-
0
7

w
i
n
t
e
r

s
e
a
s
o
n
,

m
e
t
e
r

r
e
a
d
i
n
g
s

w
e
r
e

f
r
o
m

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

1
,

2
0
0
6

t
o

A
p
r
i
l

1,

2
0
0
7
.
c)

D
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

2
0
0
7
-
0
8

w
i
n
t
e
r

s
e
a
s
o
n
,

m
e
t
e
r

r
e
a
d
i
n
g
s

w
e
r
e

f
r
o
m

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

1
,

2
0
0
7

t
o

M
a
y

1
,

2
0
0
8
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2009,
SERVED THE FOREGOING STAFF REPORT, IN CASE NO. BCS-W-08-2, BY
MAILING A COPY THEREOF, POSTAGE PREPAID, TO THE FOLLOWING:
ROBERT N TURNIPSEED
PRESIDENT
BAR CIRCLE "S" WATER CO
PO BOX 1870
HA YDEN ID 83835
E-MAIL: avondalecon(ßverizon.net
ROBERT E SMITH
2209 N BRYSON RD
BOISE ID 83713
E-MAIL: utilitygroup(ßyahoo.com
.~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE