20030407Comment.pdf

Jean JewellFrom:Sent:To:Subject:Ed HowellSaturday, April 05 , 2003 9:42 AMJean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya ClarkComment acknowledgementWWW Form Submission:Saturday, April 05 , 20039:42:12 AMCase: GNR-W-02-Name: Mike MeehanStreet Address: 14201 N. Ramsey Rd.Ci t Y : Ra thdrumState: IDZIP: 83858HomeTelephone: 208-762-1229E-Mail: michaelrmeehan~icehouse. netCompany: Diamond Bar Wa ter Co.mailing list _yes _no: yesCommentdescription: This concernsapplicant Iresponse to those comments.the staff comments on this case as well as the1. It would appear that thetime. The staff had decidednotfaiir I and there was is contrary to the wishes offlat rate system.workshop and comments filed by the communi ty were a waste ofbefore anything else that a flat rate irrigation system wasway it was going to be considered let alone recommended. Thisthe users and the provider , allof wish to keep the current
2. If the staff wishes to talk about "fair " their proposed rate does not even come close
to meeting such a test. They propose to allow the applicant to charge $252/year (21 * 12)
for 90 , 000 gallons of water/year (7500 * 12)They completely ignored the fact that ofthe 34 users on the s ys tern for the period Oct. 2001 to April 2002 1 7 used les s than
, 000 gallons , the average being a little over 50k. They wish to charge any number of
people for water they do not use. Secondly, under thier proposal people who use more that
7500 gal. /month in the summer will be charged the excess rate , even though those same
people may use far less than the 7500 gals. during the winter months.
The staff was presented wi th an interacti ve spread sheet showing how the applicant I s need
could be met through a combination of a fixed monthly fee plus a charge for each 1000 gals
used in 12 month period beginning wi th the first. (I got the imprtession that the staff
was never given the file , that the techies printed out the first page and that was it)
All in all this process ws a waste of tiem as the staff decided what they would do.
3. As to the response that the applicant is a reluctant owner , nothing could be further
from the truth. At the annual meeting he volunterred to take the system if the homeownerswished. If he is truly now regretting that decision he can hire , from his development
company funds , not the water company, an engineering firm satisfactory to both he and the
Association , to do a complete study of the system. Upon presentation of taht study he can
ask the Association if they wish to reconsider.
As to the amortization of the computer software. If that is an allowable expense then thehours spent by the office staff should be reduced as this will be far more efficient than
entering things manually in a ledger.
If the Commission is truly interested in serving the customers and the applicant the
Commission will hold the hearing in northern Idaho so that all parties have a chance to
present their ideas and data , unfiltered by staff prejudicies.
Mi chael R. MeehanTransaction ID: 45942.Referred by: http: / /www. puc. s tate. id. us scripts /polyform. dll/ ipucUse r Add res s: 6 9 . 1 9 . 0 . 1Us e r Ho s tname: 69. 19 . 0 . 1