efferson Utilities, Inc.
February 13,2012
Mr. Walt hey, Director Environmental Engineering West Virginia Bureau for Public Health Office of Environmental Health Services Environmental Engineering Division 350 Capitol Street, Room 313 Charleston, WV 25301-3713
Re: Moratoria Lifting-Harpers Ferry Campsites //-O b58-uflfc Dear Mr. Walt Ivey:
I am writing to formally request a structured lifting of the moratorium on new water customers in Jefferson Utilities’ (JUl)’s water system serving Harpers Ferry Campsites. As you know, JUI operates what we refer to as our Mountain System which previously consists of three separate water systems serving the communities of Keyes Ferry Acres, Harpers Ferry Campsites and Westridge Hills which are now being interconnected. Each of these systems has operated under moratoria on new customer connections for many years prior to their acquisition in 2000 by JUI.
The water systems serving Keyes Ferry Acres and Westridge Hills have, until recently, had moratoria imposed by the West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC). The water system serving the community of Harpers Ferry Campsites has moratoria imposed by the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health (BPH). The moratorium in Harpers Ferry Campsites was enacted by the BPH by order date September 22,1989. A copy of this order is included at Exhibit A in my attached direct testimony in PSC Case Number 11-0658-W-PC. The moratoria have been extremely burdensome on property owners in these communities. Additionally, the utilities have been denied revenue from new customers. The affect of the moratoria has caused the communities to wither, reducing the number of residencies and reducing property values. In fact, during the ownership of these systems by JUI, the customer total has dropped from 379 to 332; a loss of 47 customers or a 12.4% reduction.
In 2001, JUI obtained approval from the West Virginia BPH for a plan to upgrade a substantial portion of all three systems under WVBPH Permit # 14,996. In 2001, Jefferson Utilities constructed a water treatment plant on Cardinal Trail (now Twilight Time Lane) in Harpers Ferry Campsites in conformance of that plan.
270 Industrial Boulevard e Kearneysville, WV 25430 0 (304)728-2077 e Fax: (304)728-7326 Page 2 West Virginia Bureau for Public Health
In 2010 Pentree, Inc. completed plans for an upgrade and replacement of virtually all of the three Mountain water systems. The engineering plan was paid for with a Design Grant from the USEPA through the West Virginia BPH. The plans for this work were approved under West Virginia BPH Permit # 18,631. The plans included a directional drilled crossing of the Shenandoah River at Millville. This crossing is still being anticipated to be constructed by JUI when funding is available. However, we are proceeding with upgrades using the water sources in the Mountain Systems.
In February of 2010, we received approval of a rate increase from the PSC. The rate increase included the implementation of a Line Replacement Surcharge. The proceeds from the surcharge were to be specifically used to replace designated lines in the Mountain Communities and in the Walnut Grove System. The surcharge is $12/month/customer. Annual revenues are approximately $330,000.
We have been pursuing the construction improvements paid for with surcharge revenues in the Mountain System since late 2010. To date we have installed 15,287 feet of water line and 11,378 feet of electrical conduit. This work is being installed in conformance with BHP Permit # 18,631 being augmented with the raw water lines and conduits to deliver raw water to the Mountain water plant in conformance with BPH Permit # 14,996. Surcharge revenue expended in line replacement in the Mountain Systems has now totaled over $650,000.
Our work to date has provided new water lines extending a 12” line from the water plant westward along Keyes Gap Road to Kelly Drive in Keyes Ferry Acres. This includes 6” and 8’extensions on Twilight Time Lane, Double Run Drive, Deer Run, Old Oak Lane, Bear Run, Kelley Drive and Cedar Hill Drive. New 2” lines have been installed on Lakewood Drive, Beverly Place, Stone Bear Lane and others. Three additional distant wells, Keyes Ferry Acres South Backup, Keyes Ferry Acres South, and Campsites R-Section wells are now tied into the Mountain water plant supplementing the well at the plant. Water to supply the new lines is treated with aquamag to sequester iron and manganese and disinfected at the Mountain water plant. The water plant has a 30,000 gallon clear well and pumping capacity to deliver over 500 gpm to the newly laid water lines for domestic and fire-fighting purposes. We also have installed seven fire hydrants on the new distribution system piping. In addition, we now have approximately 260 of the active services in the Mountain Communities metered.
The present well capacity being delivered to the Mountain water plant from the 4 wells now tied in is approximately 93 gpm or 134,000 gpd. Based on the 210 customers now served from the Mountain water plant using 150 gpd/customer, total consumption would be 31,500 gpd. Accordingly, our present excess capacity is 102,000 gpd. The tie-in of the additional wells to the Mountain water plant and the Westridge wells will further improve our reserve source capacity. Page 3 West Virginia Bureau for Public Health
At the end of 2011, we extended the new distribution system to tie in the R-Section and Partridge Lane Section of Harpers Ferry Campsites. This was planned in the first phase of work to be accomplished with surcharge revenues as was approved by the PSC. We are continuing pipe laying work in the Mountain System paid for with surcharge revenues. This work will extend an 8” line eastward along Cedar Hill Drive, then northward on Walnut Hill Drive and eastward on Burkett Road in order to extend the adequate new lines into the Westridge Hills Community. Under the present surcharge expenditure plan, we will be extending an 8” line to the Jeep Trail well located in Westridge.
We are continuing to seek additional well source capacity in the Westridge community. The Jefferson County Commission drilled a well in Westridge which yields 50 gpm at a location 500 feet north of our existing Jeep Trail well. JUI is seeking an agreement to be able to use this new well to increase our source capacity. The Westridge aquifer produces better quality water with lower iron and manganese. JUI has already laid out a plan concept for how this well can be used. It could be readily incorporated into the existing Westridge System. The additional capacity would be available to all of the Mountain Systems once our pipe laying reaches the Jeep Trail well location.
All water supplied to all of JUl’s customers in Harpers Ferry Campsites is supplied from the Mountain Water Plant. There is no longer any justification for a moratorium on service connections which can be made from the new lines installed in conformance with BPH Permit # 18,631. The water service supplied from these new lines is just as dependable and adequate in flow capacity and pressure as other public water systems, including Jefferson Utilities’ Valley System.
Accordingly, we request that the BPH act to lift the moratorium for lots in Harpers Ferry Campsites which can be served from the new lines laid and from all extensions of these lines laid in conformance with BPH Permit # 18,631. We believe these areas are easily defined and will expand as additional new mains are laid and will not overburden the existing inadequate distribution system. In fact, the flow the existing distribution system is being improved by the temporary tie-ins to the new, much larger, lines. In Jefferson County, a water availability letter from the utility is required to obtain a building permit. Jefferson Utilities proposes to only issue those letters of availability for service from lines which have been replaced and lines which will continue to be replaced in accordance with BPH permit # 18,631.
Last year, JUI requested approval for the same conditional lifting of the moratoria in Keyes Ferry Acres and Westridge Hills from the PSC. By Order dated January 17,2012 in PSC Case # 11-0658-W-PC, the PSC approved JUl’s petition to conditionally lift the moratoria. A copy of that order is attached. I am also including a copy of my direct testimony in PSC Case 11-0658-W-PC with all exhibits and a copy of the PSC Staff Memorandum in this Case. Page 4 West Virginia Bureau for Public Health
Of course, Brad Reed and Alan Marchun are both familiar with the tremendous improvements that have been accomplished in JUl’s Mountain Water System. Please contact me if you or your staff wish to discuss this request further.
I I Lee Snyder, President
Enclosures
cc: Sandra Squire, Executive Secretary, PSC Dandridge McDonald- Steptoe &Johnson Todd Swanson- Steptoe &Johnson Brad Reed- District Health Services FINAL JQINT STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: SANDRa SQUIRE DATE: August 11,2011 Executive Secretary
FROM: RONALD ROBERTSON, E, JR. c, Staff Attorney $q PSt Q%\@'f SUBJECT: CASE NO. 11-0658-W-PC JEFFERSON UTILITIES, INC.
On May 10, 2011, Jefferson Utilities, Inc. (JUI) filed a petition for Commission approval of a structured lifting of the moratorium on new water customer connections in its three (3) water systems (Mountain systems) serving the communities of Keyes Ferry Acres, Harpers Ferry Campsites and Westridge Hills in Jefferson County, West Virginia.
Attached is the internal memorandum of Jonathan Fowler, P.E., Engineer, Engineering Division, that provides a background of JUI's Mountain systems, a description of each Mountain system and recent JUI's improvements in the Mountain systems. Mr, Fowler has also included a copy of previous Commission's formal cases that have dealt with the moratorium issue on JUI's three (3) Mountain water systems. Based on a review of the information filed by JUI, the Engineering Division and the Legal Division recommend a partial lifting of the moratorium on new connections with certain limitations,
Limitations should include the following requirements:
1, All new customers shall be served be one of two means as follows;
a. Via a utility service line directly connected with one of the new, upgraded water mains or
b, Via a utility service line connected to a new "side-line" (extension) of short . length (500 feet or less) with the new side-line being directly connected to one or more of the new, upgraded water mains. These smaller "side-lines" shall be of such size (diameter) as is required by hydraulic analysis but, shall in no event be less than 2" nominal diameter.
2, No new customers shall be connected with any of the older unimproved water mains, CASE NO. ll-0658-W-PC August 11,2011 Page 2
3, All new customers must be supplied from the Mountain Water Treatment Plant or from the new Westridge Hills water source, once that new source has been properly integrated into the Mountain System and has received all necessary approvals from the WV Bureau for Public Health.
4. For all customers being supplied via hydropneumatic storage, the total peak demand for all customers (existing customers plus proposed customers) should not exceed the peak capacity of the water supply, The. capacity of the supply shall be determined either by engineering analysis or by actual recent testing of the source; all in accordance with the requirements of the WV Bureau for Public Health.
5, The rescission of the moratorium on new customer connections within the Harpers Ferry Campsites system (PWSID #3301960 & 3301963) shall be subject to the utility first obtaining the concurrence of the Environmental Engineering Division of the WV Bureau for Public Health and, in any event, shall also be subject to the limitations set out above.
REWS Attachments cws !+ G:\Home\RROBERTSOWO1 1 MEMOS\l10658b.wpd PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA ENGINEERING DIVISION
FINAL INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 10,201 1 TO: Ron Robertson, Esq., Staff Attorney - . Legal Division
FROM: Jonathan Fowler, P,E,, Engineering Division
SUBJECT: Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jefferson Utilities, Inc.
On May 10,201 1 Jefferson Utilities, Inc. (utility) filed a request for a “structured lifting” of the Commission imposed moratorium on new customer connections on the Keyes Ferry Acres and Westridge Hills water systems, The utility asserts that improvements to these two 2 systems have been made and that more improvements are underway and that these improvements will allow a lifting of the moratorium. In addition, the utility asserts that they are also requesting a lifting of the moratorium imposed on the Harpers Ferry Campsites water system fiom the WV Bureau for Public Health, (Note that these three water systems are collectively referred to herein as the “Mountain Systems”.)
Background
All of the Mountain Systems obtain raw water from wells and all provide a relatively-low degree of treatment (generally, chlorination and chemical- sequestration) distribution is via small-diameter piping utilizing mostly hydropneumatic storage tanks, At the present time, the water quality is considered to be acceptable from a public health perspective, generally meeting the WV Bureau for Public Health (BuPH) standards for drinking water quality.
The Mountain Systems suffer from two (2) inherent problems; first, they were fullanced and constructed (in the 1960’s thru the 1970’s) by private party developers in furtherance of land development activities with no independent inspection or quality control. Tradeoffs were made and corners were cut during construction in order to speed-up completion and save costs. This adversely affected the quality of the infkastructure. Case No. 11-0658-W-PC August 10,201 1 Page 2 of 6
Next, the age of these systems, which is now approaching forty (40) years in the oldest sections, coupled with the poor quality of the initial construction and the‘lack,until recently, of any real maintenance or main replacements, has lead to a situation where these systems exhibit ongoing operational problems. It has been these ongoing operational problems, producing a potential for public-health issues or customer service issues, which lead to the present situation whereby these systems are all now operating under a moratorium.
. Description of Svstems
A summary description of these systems (excerpted from information collected by Staff during recent rate ease proceedings) is now provided to acquaint the reader with the essential details of these systems.
The Keyes Ferry Acres system (PWSID #3301918, #3301965 & #3301976) serves about 128 residential customers (circa 2008) using groundwater obtained from five (5) wells which feed three separate systems. Two (2) of the three (3) primary wells have reported yields in the range of 60 gpm which indicates a relatively high yield well for this type of geology. Treatment at all sites consists of chlorination and the addition of a sequestering agent which assists in controlling aesthetic problems due to iron and manganese, There are no gravity storage tanks and all of the storage for distribution is via hydropneumatic means. The distribution system is reported to contain about 55,000 feet of two inch (2”) and smaller plastic and metallic lines. This system is currently operating under a moratorium imposed by the Commission in Case Number 8 1-492-W-CN pursuant to a “Hearing Examiner’s Decision” issued on April 6, 1982 (copy attached).
The Westridge Hills system (PWSID #3301943) provides service to about 73 residential customers (circa 2008) using groundwater supplied by one (1) relatively high-yield (40 gpm) rock well (the “Jeep Trail” well). Treatment consists of chlorination with distribution storage being provided in two (2) tanks which serves about half of the customers via gravity and by using a booster pump, which serves the remaining customers via pressurized storage. The distribution system consists of about 37,000 feet of small diameter plastic lines which, like .the other systems lines, are in poor condition and in need of replacement, This system is currently operating under a moratorium which was frst imposed by the Commission in Case Numbers 83-691-W-C, 83-661-W-C and 83-51 1-W-C pursuant to a “Hearing Examiner’s Decision” issued May 17, 1984 (copy attached), We note that the moratorium on this system was lifted for a period of several months pursuant to a “Final Order” issued on January 12, 1987 in Case + Case No, 11-0658-W-PC
August 10,2011 b Page 3 of 6
Number 86-55 8-W-PC (copy attached) however; the moratorium was subsequently reestablished in an order issued on December 5, 1989 in Case Numbers 87-842-W-PC, 88-426-W-19A and 88-464-W-C (copy attached).
The Harpers Ferry Campsites system (PWSID #3301960 & 3301963) actually consists of two systems, the Cardinal Trail system (#3301963) which obtains water from one well and; the “R”-Section system (#3301960) which obtains water from two (2) wells (the Partridge Lane well and the Lake View Drive well), The Cardinal Trail system is served by the Mountain Water Treatment Plant (MWTP)’. A recent construction project has now connected the MWTP to a total of three supply wells with reported yields totaling about 68 gallons-per-minute (gpm) or, about 98,000 gallons-per-day (gpd). In addition, another construction project anticipated to be completed later this calendar year will connect the R-Section well to the MTWP and will bring the total raw water supply capacity at this plant to 93 gpm or about 134,000 gpd.
The two (2) R-Section wells are both low-capacity rock wells, Distribution for the campsites systems is via hydropneumatic storage tanks moving water through an undersized network of about 45,000 feet of 2” and smaller, plastic (PVC & PE) water lines. These lines are quite old, approaching 40 years in places, were constructed of substandard materials using poor quality construction methods and can provide only the bare minimum level of domestic water service. The Harpers Ferry Campsites system is currently operating under a moratorium imposed by the WV Bureau for Public Health which was affirmed by the Commission in a “Recommended Decision” issued on May 17,199 1 in Case Number 89-215-W-P (copy attached).
Recent Improvements
The utility has been making improvements to the Mountain Systems over the course of the previous two (2) years; it is these improvements, coupled with the utility’s plan for Mer,ongoing improvements which form the foundation for the request to lift the moratoriums,
* The MWTP is a recently-constructed (less than 10 years old) facility housing chemical feed systems, a large hydropneumatic pressurization tank and finished water pumping system. (This facility can also deliver limited volumes of water for fire fighting in the event of emergency.) The new 12” line which was recently installed along Keyes Gap Road is fed from this plant as are all of the new 8” and 6” lines in the area. Case No. 11-0658-W-PC August 10,20 1 1 Page 4 of 6
Based upon the utility’s application and additional information furnished to the Engineering Division by the applicant, the following improvements have been completed; . 0 A new twelve inch (12”)diameter main line has been installed extending from the existing Mountain Water Treatment Plant (MWTP) along Keyes Gap Road to Kelly Drive. This is consistent with the overall plan for replacing of the Mountain Systems as approved by BuPH in their Permit No. 18,63 1.
New six inch (6”) and eight inch (8”) diameter mains have been installed on Twilight Time Lane, Double Run Drive, Deer Run, Old Oak Lane, Bear Run and Cedar Hill Drive. These line replacements are also consistent with the work defined in BuPH Permit No. 18,631. The total footage of new six inch (6”),eight inch (8”) and twelve inch (12”) lines installed is reported at 9,465 feet.
Additional raw water lines have been installed in order to connect two (2) additional wells to the MWTP (as discussed previously).
0 About 6,700 feet of new underground electrical conduit has been installed in order to connect the MWTP with the additional wells.
Five (5) new fire hydrants have been installed along the new larger- diameter mains as listed above. (This is the first time that any .of the Mountain Systems distribution lines have been able to supply fire flows.)
Two (2) new test wells have recently been completed (reportedly paid for by the County Commission) in the Westridge Hills area. Preliminary data indicate that these wells can produce adequate quantities (1 00-250,000 gpd, or more) of good-quality groundwater from the sandstone aquifers underlying this area. (How and when these new wells may best be utilized in resolving the water supply problems of the Mountain Systems is an open issue; Jefferson Utilities has initiated talks with the County Commission concerning the best way to utilize these wells.)
In addition, the following improvements are either underway or are planned to be completed by the end of this calendar year; Case No. 11-0658-W-PC August 10,2011 Page 5 of 6
0 The R-Section well, with an estimated yield of 25 gpm, will be connected with the MWTP, as discussed above.
* 0 The “R-Section” distribution lines in the Harpers Ferry Campsites (HFC) area will be connected to the new larger-diameter lines which are being extended outward from the MWTP. (See item above, also.)
0 The “Partridge Lane” section of the HFC distribution system will be connected to the new, larger-diameter mains supplied from the MWTP. This will allow the low-yield Partridge Lane well to be taken out of service.
The next phase of construction, planned for the following calendar year, will include;
0 An extension of new eight inch (8”) diameter main will be constructed along Cedar Hill Drive, Walnut Hill Drive and Burkett Road and will supply water fkom the MWTP to the Westridge Hills area2.
Conclusion & Recommendations
Based upon the improvements detailed herein and Staffs current knowledge of these systems, we believe that the applicant’s request for a partial lifting of the moratorium on new connections is reasonable, with certain limitations.
Limitations should include the following requirements;
1. All new customers shall be served be one of two means, as follows;
a. Via a utility service line directly connected with one (1) of the new, upgraded water mains or,
b, Via a utility service line connected to a new “side-line” (extension) of short length (500 feet or less) with the new side-line being
The construction of this segment of new main may allow water from the new Westridge Hills wells to be used as the source of supply for the all or part of the Mountain System, However, this is currently an open issue and talks have just begun between the Utility and the County on how to best utilize this new water source. Case No, 11-0658-W-PC August 10,201 1 Page 6 of 6
directly connected to one or more of the new, upgraded water mains. These smaller “sidelines” shall be of such size (diameter) as is required by hydraulic analysis but, shall in no event be less than two (2”) nominal diameter.
2. No new customers shall be connected with any of the older, unimproved water mains.
3. All new customers must be supplied from the MWTP or, from the new Westridge Hills water source, once that new source has been properly integrated into the Mountain System and has received all necessary approvals from the WV Bureau for Public Health.
4. For all customers being supplied via hydropneumatic storage, the total peak demand for all customers (existing customers plus proposed customers) should not exceed the peak capacity of the water supply. The capacity of the supply shall be determined either by engineering analysis or by actual, recent testing of the source; all in accordance with the requirements of the WV Bureau for Public Health,
5. The rescission of the moratorium on new customer connections within the Harpers Ferry Campsites system (PWSID#3301960 & 3301963) shall be subject to the utility first obtaining the concurrence of the Environmental Engineering Division of the WV Bureau for Public Health and, in any event, shall also be subject to the limitations set out above,
Attachments PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
At a session of the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA in the City of Charleston on the 17‘h day of January 2012.
CASE NO. 11-0658-W-PC JEFFERSON UTILITIES, INC. a public utility, Petition for consent and approval to lift moratorium on new water customer connections to system serving the communities of Keyes Ferry Acres, Harpers Ferry Campsite and Westridge Hills.
COMMISSION ORDER
The Commission adopts a Joint Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement and grants a conditional and partial lifting of the moratorium in effect for Jefferson Utilities, Inc.
Backmound
On May 10, 201 1, Jefferson Utilities, Inc. (JUI) filed a petition for Commission consent and approval to lift the moratorium on new water customer connections to the water systems in the communities of Keyes Ferry Acres, Harpers Ferry Campsites and Westridge Hills in Jefferson County, West Virginia (collectively, the ‘‘Mountain Systems”).
After review of JUI responses to Staff data requests, on August 1 1, ,2011, the Staff filed a recommendation that the Commission grant a partial lifting of the moratorium with certain limitations. On August 15, 201 1, JUI filed a letter stating it agreed with the Staff recommendation.
The Commission Consumer Advocate Division (CAD) is an intervenor in this case. Comm’n Orders August 26,20 11; September 7,20 1 1.
By Order issued September 7, 2011, the Commission adopted a procedural schedule including a hearing date, and ordered the Executive Secretary to public notice of I.
the hearing. The public notice stated that interested persons could appear ahd make comment at the hearing.
The notice of hearing was published in THE SPIRITOF JEFFERSONADVOCATE in September.
On October 20,201 1, JUI filed the pre-filed direct testimony of B. Lee Snyder.
On November 2, 2011, Staff filed the pre-filed direct testimony of Jonathan Fowler, P.E. and CAD filed the pre-filed direct testimony of Byron Harris.
On November 10, 201 1, Staff filed rebuttal testimony of Jonathan Fowler and JUI filed rebuttal testimony of B. Lee Snyder.
The November 18.20 1 1 Hearing
The Commission conducted a hearing in this case on November 18, 201 1, with JUI, CAD and Staff in attendance. Mr, B, Lee Snyder testified on behalf of JUI and sponsored two JUI Exhibits consisting of his pre-filed direct and rebuttal testimony and marked as BLS-D and BLS-R. Mr. Snyder also testified with respect to Commission Request Exhibits One and Two, which were both maps. Mr. Byron Harris testified for CAD and sponsored his pre-filed direct testimony marked as CAD Exhibit BLH-D. Mr. Jonathan Fowler testified as the Staff witness and sponsored his pre-filed direct and rebuttal testimony marked as Staff Exhibits JMF-D and JMF-R,
A transcript of the November 18, 201 1 hearing was docketed in the case file on December 2,201 1.
Joint Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement
On December 19, 201 1, JUI, CAD and Staff filed a Joint Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement stating that the parties agreed that the Commission should lift the moratoria subject to certain conditions.
DISCUSSION
The Keyes Ferry Acres system serves about 128 residential customers using groundwater obtained from five (5) wells which feed three separate systems. Two (2) of the three (3) primary wells have reported yields in the range of 60 gallons per minute (gpm) which indicates a relatively high yield well for this type of geology. Treatment at all sites consists of chlorination and the addition of a sequestering agent which assists in controlling aesthetic problems due to iron and manganese. There are no gravity storage tanks and all of the storage for distribution is via hydropneumatic means. The distribution system is reported to contain about 55,000 feet of two inch (2”) and smaller 2 plastic and metallic lines. This system is currently operating under a moratorium imposed by the Commission in Case No. 81-492-W-CN pursuant to a “Hearing Examiner’s Decision” issued on April 6, 1982. Staff Exh. JMF-D, attached Exh. FD- 1,
The Westridge Hills system provides service to about 73 residential customers using groundwater supplied by one relatively high-yield (40 gpm) rock well (the “Jeep Trail” well). Treatment consists of chlorination with distribution storage being provided in two (2) tanks which serves about half of the customers via gravity and by using a booster pump, which serves the remaining customers via pressurized storage. The distribution system consists of about 37,000 feet of small diameter plastic lines which, like the other systems lines, are in poor condition and in need of replacement. This system is currently operating under a moratorium which was first imposed by the Commission in Case Nos. 83-691-W-C, 83-661-W-C and 83-511-W-C pursuant to a “Hearing Examiner’s Decision” issued May 17, 1984. The moratorium on this system was lifted for a period of several months pursuant to an Order issued January 12, 1987 in Case No. 86-558-W-PC however; the moratorium was subsequently reestablished by Order issued December 5, 1989 in Case Nos. 87-842-W-PC, 88-426-W-19A and 88- 464-W-C. Staff Exh. JMF-D, attached Exh. FD-1.
The Harpers Ferry Campsites system actually consists of two systems, the Cardinal Trail system (#330 1963) which obtains water from one well and; the “R’- Section system (#3301960) which obtains water from two (2) wells (the Partridge Lane well and the Lake View Drive well). The Cardinal Trail system is served by the Mountain Water Treatment Plant (MWTP). A recent construction project has now connected the MWTP to a total of three supply wells with reported yields totaling about 68 gpm or, about 98,000 gallons-per-day (gpd). In addition, another construction project anticipated to be completed later this calendar year will connect the R-Section well to the MTWP and will bring the total raw water supply capacity at this plant to 93 gpm or about 134,000 gpd, The two (2) R-Section wells are both low-capacity rock wells. Distribution for the campsites systems is via hydropneumatic storage tanks moving water through an undersized network of about 45,000 feet of 2” and smaller, plastic (PVC & PE) water lines, These lines are quite old, approaching 40 years in places, were constructed of substandard materials using poor quality construction methods and can provide only the bare minimum level of domestic water service. The Harpers Ferry Campsites system is currently operating under a moratorium imposed by the WV Bureau for Public Health which was affirmed by the Coinmission in a Recommended Decision issued on May 17, 1991 in Case No. 89-215-W-P. Staff Exh. JMF-D, attached Exh. FD-1. The hearing evidence informed the Commission as to JUI’s progress to date and plans for continued improvements and replacement of lines for the water systems, including fire protection in the three communities. Testimony of Mr. Snyder, Hr. Tr. 23- 83; JUI Exhs. BLS-D, BLS-R Testimony of Mr. Fowler, Hr, Tr, 120-124; Staff Exh, JF- D and attached Exh, FD-1; Comm’n Request Exhs. 1 and 2. The work includes the installation of fire hydrants, JUI has used proceeds from a Commission authorized
3 surcharge to perform the improvements. Snyder, Hr. Tr, at 37, 41-48, 50-52; JUI Exhs. BLS-D at 19-20,26, attached Exhs. H and I.
Following the hearing, the parties reached agreement on disputed issues in this case.
The Joint Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement
The Cominission commends the parties for reaching a resolution in this case. The Commission believes that moratoria that prevent new public utility service connections should be a status of last resort to be lifted as soon as quality utility service can be safely and efficiently provided. The conditions stated in the Joint Stipulation appear to be designed to provide new water connections in a safe and responsible manner,
The Commission notes one concern regarding the intended meaning of settlement provision 14.A.(ii) on page three of the Joint Stipulation. The Commission believes that the provision is intended to indicate that if there is capacity on a new “side line” and a customer can be connected to the side-line without adversely affecting service to other customers, the utility will make the connection. The Commission does not interpret the provision as an attempt to alter the main extension rules contained in the Rules for the Regulation of Water Utilities, 150 C.S.R, 7 or to limit an extension to five hundred feet, If a resident applies to JUT for a service connection to one of the Mountain Systems and the utility denies the application in reliance on settlement provision 14.A.(ii), the Commission will evaluate the issues presented in a resulting formal complaint and will not apply a five hundred foot limit unless there would be an adverse impact on other customers if the five hundred foot extension were made.
The Commission concludes that the attached Joint Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement is in the public interest and will adopt it in resolution of the issues in this case,
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JUI has used and is using the Commission authorized surcharge to make improvements to the Mountain Systems. Snyder, Hr. Tr. 23-83; JUI Exhs. BLS-D, BLS- R; Fowler, Hr. Tr. 120-124; Staff Exh. JF-D and attached Exh. FD-1; Comm’n Request Exhs. 1 and 2.
2. The parties have agreed to a conditional partial lifting of the moratoria in effect for the Mountain Systems. Joint Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement, attached.
4 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Moratoria that prevent new public utility service connections are a status of last resort to be lifted as soon as quality utility service can be safely and efficiently provided.
2. The conditions stated in the Joint Stipulation appear to be designed to provide new water connections in a safe and responsible manner.
3, The Commission believes that provision 14.A.(ii) on page three of the Joint Stipulation is intended to indicate that if there is capacity on a new “side line” and a customer can be connected to the side-line without adversely affecting service to other customers, the utility will make ‘the connection,
4. The Commission does not interpret provision 14.A.(ii) as an attempt to alter the main extension rules contained in the Rules for the Regulation of Water Utilities, 150 C.S.R. 7 or to limit an extension to five hundred feet,
5. If a resident applies to JUI for a service connection to one of the Mountain Systems and the utility denies the application in reliance on settlement provision 14,A.(ii), the Commission will evaluate the issues presented in a resulting formal complaint and will not apply a five hundred foot limit unless there would be an adverse impact on other customers if the extension were made.
6. It is in the public interest to approve the attached Joint Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement in resolution of the issues in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Commission adopts the attached Joint Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement in resolution of this proceeding, subject to the Commission interpretation of provision 14.A.(ii) discussed herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on entry of this Order, this case is closed and will be removed fiom the docket of open cases. The future filings contemplated in the Joint Stipulation will be docketed as closed entries.
5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Executive Secretary of the Commission serve a copy of this Order by electronic service on all parties of record who have filed an e-service agreement, and by United States First Class Mail on all parties of record who have not filed an e-service agreement, and on Commission Staff by hand delivery,
JMLltt 110658cd.doc
6 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST ViRGZNLA CHARLESTON
CASE NOv11-0658-W-PC JEFFERSON UTILITIES, INC, Kearneywillc, Jcfferspn Counly Pelitioii to lift moratoria on new customer connections.
JOINTITIPULATXON ANI) AGREEMENT FOR SETTLXMENT Ptirsuant to W. VA. CODE9 24-1-9 and Rules 11 and 13.4 of the Commission’s Rules qf
Pi%ctim mid Prvcedure, JeVerson Utilities, Inc. (“Jefferson Utilities”), the Staff of thhc
Commihsion, and the Consunier Advocate Division of the Commission (the “CAD”) (the
“Stiplstisg Parties”) join in -this Joint Stipulation slid Agrecmcnt for Settlement (“Joint
Stipulation”), and, in support thereof>respectfully represent as follows:
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Jcrterson IJatililies is a public utility authorized to provide water service to qproxirnatdy 2,153 customers in Jefferson County, West Virginia. 2, Jefferson Utilities owns and operates eight (8) water systems, which include: Q) Walnut Grove; (ii] Meadowbrook; [iii) Shenandaah Junction; (iv) Bardme; (v) Keyes Ferry
Acres; (vi) Westridye Ilills; (vii) D6brfieltl; and (viii) I-Iarpas Perry Cmp5ites.
3. The Keyes Ferry Auas, Westridge Hills, and Harpers Ferry Campsites systeins we collcotiveiy lmown as the “Mountain Systems.” 4. Each of the Mountain Systems is currently consQahed by a moratorium prohibiting new customer GOlWC~ioIlSiinpnsed by the Commission in vaious cases pursuant to
Rule 4.13 of the Comn‘tissiun’s Rukv for the Governmen1 qf Wutcr Utilities, specifically: (i) Keyes Ferry Acres (Case No. 81-492-W-CN); (ii) Weslridge Hills (Case Nos. 87-842-W-PC, S8-
426-W-l9A, 88-464-W-C); and (iii) Harpers Ferry Campsites (Case No. 89-21 5-W-P)'. 5. On May 10, 201 1, Jefferson Utilities filed a petition socking the Commission's consent and spproval for a strumred lifting ofthe moratoria.
6. On August 11, 201 1, Staff filed its Find Joint Staff Meinorandurn wherein it recomnmeiided that Jcl'ferson Utilities' petition, bo granted, subject to certain conditions.
7. On August 15, 2011, Jefferson Utilities filcd a letter noting its concuirrencc with Staffs Find Joint Stafl'Mcmorandun and conditions.
8. 'lhc CAD was panted intervenor status in this matter.
9. Several members of the puiblic tiled letters in support of Jefferson Utilities' petition,
10. On Scptembor 7,201 1, the Commission entwcd an order that, among other things, cstablished a schedule for pre-fiied testimony and a hearing date.
11. In tho course of the discavery phnse of this proceeding, numcmuis requests for data and information wcre filed and responded to by the parties.
12. An evidentiary heariug was held on November 18,201 1,
13. During the days and weeks leading up to and follawing the November 18, 2011 hearing, settlemcnl discussions took place aimed at resolviiig all of the issues in this case. As a result of these negotiatiofis, thc tStipulatingParties have been able lo reach an agreement which cpnipletely rcsolvcs all of thc issues between 'them. The sgreements ofthe Stipulflting Parties are as follows:
b ' Tho moratorium imposed by Ihe Commission on the Harpers Feny Campsites sysiem was an affirmadon of iho moratorium imposcd by the West Virginia Division of Health pursuant to u September 22, 1989 ordor.
Ci15910S70.2 2 111. SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS
14. The Stipulating Parties agee that Jefferson Utilitics’ request for a parkial lifting of the moratoria for the water systems serving Keyes Perry Acres, Ifwpers Ferry Campsites and
Westridge Hills is reasonable and the moratoria should be lifted, subject to tho following conditions:
A. All new custoniors shall bc served by one of two metans, as follows:
(i) Via a utility scrvice line directly connected wit11 one (1) of the ncw, upgraded water mains; or
(ii) Via a iirility servicc line connected to a new “si&-line” (extension) of short length (SO0 fect or less) with the new side-line being directly connected to one or more of thc new, upgraded water mains, Tho small “side-lines” shall be of such size (diamcter) as is required by hydraulic anulysis, but shall in no wcnt be less than 2-inch nominal diameter. H. No new oustoniers shdl be connected with any of the older, unimproved water mains.
C. All new customers must bc supplied fiom Jefferson Utilities’ Mountain Water Treatment Plant (“MWTP”) or from the new Westridge Hills watcr sourcc, onw that iicw source has been properly integrated into thc Mountain System and has received all necessary approvals fiom the West Virginia Bureau of Public Health (93PH”). D. For ail custpmcrs being supplied via hydropneumatic storage, the total pcak demand for all customers (existing customers plus proposed customers) should not exwd thc pc& capacity for the water supply. The capacity of thc supply shall be determined either by engineering malysis or by actual, recent testing of the saurcci a11 in accordance with the requireinents ofthe BPII.
C1459 10170.2 3 E, The rescission of the moratorium on new customer connections within the
Harpers Ferry Campsites system (PWSID #3301960 and 3301963) shdl be subjcct to Jefferson
IJtilitios' firsl obtaining the concurrence of the Environmental Enginceritig Division of the RPH
and, in any event, shall also be subjcct to the limitations set aul above.
P. Jefferson Utilities will file for three (3) yeass an annual repart as a closed entry in this case setting forlli for each of thc Mountain Systems the followiiig information:
(i) A list of construction coinpletod during the previous twelve (12) months, and construction plans for tlic next twelve (12) mpnths;
(ii) The number of ncw and existing custuniers connected to the new faciliiies;
(iii) Verification thsrt there continues lo be adequate supply, trCatnieiit and distribution capacity 'to servc existing and new customers; and
(iv) A copy of Uia annual report tegarding thc use of the $12.00 pcr customer poi month surcharge that Jefferson Utilities iilcs in connection with tho commitments it made in the Joint Stipulation and Agreeinciit for Settlement from Case No. 08-0S44-W-42A2. G, JUI shdl sirbmit a letter from its President, MT.Snyder to supplement the record in this procecding and ccrtifying that the R-Section in I-lwpers F~TYCampsites has been tied-in to the MWTP and that the Partridge Lane Section has been ticd-in via a1 exisling two and one-half inch fiiie between Ihc R-Scotion and the Partridge Lme Suction. H. Jefferson Utilities will file an applicatiod with the BPH to lift the moratorium imposed by that agency on new customer connections in Harpers Feny Campsites,
'rhc filing will be made within thirty {10) days of the date of an order entered in this case lifting
* PNnuant t9 the JQiilt St"lpultrtionnnd &qet$ment for Settleibant frbm tho 2008 caw, Jofferson Uti\ttieS 18 obligated to "file an annual report showing the surcharge revenue collected, the amount of such revenues spent, thc nurtibcr of fcot ofwater lines replaced and the number ofwater mewinstallcd."
CI 1591057u.2 4 the Coniinission-imposed moratoria. Further, Jefferson Utilities will make quarterly updates 8s a closed cntry filing in this. case reporting on the status of its application to the BPH to 1i.t.l the Haryers Ferry Campsites moratorium.
15. The Stipulating Parties agfee this Joint Stipulation is in the public interest and rcproseats P consensus of a broad range ofinterests. The Joint Stipulation is fair, reasonable and supported by the record. The Stipulating Partias acknowledge that it is the Comniission’s discretion, however, to accept, reject or modify any Joint Stipulation. In the event that this Join\
Stipulation is rejectsd or modificd by the Conirnission, it is expressly understood that the
Stipulating I’artics are not bound to aeccpi this Joint Stipulation ELS modified or rejected md niay avail theinselvcs of whatever rights are amilablc to them by law mclildiny requesting to reconvenc the hearing, and may pursue fully all issues and positions Iie~~inas if no proposed settlomunt or stipulation had been agreed to. In such circumstances, &is Joint Stipulation shall not be admissible far any purpose othcr than enforcemelit of this patagrapb.
111. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, on thc basis af tho foregaing, tlie Stipulating Parties rcspectfully request the Commission make approppiate findings of fact and conclusions of law adopting and approving this Joint Stipularion. Respectfully submitted this 14th day of Dccbmmhcr, 2011. Couiiselfor Jeflersorr Wfilities,Inc, AL- E. Dandiidge MoDondd (WVSR No. 2439) Todd M. Swanson (WVSB No. 10509) STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC POSYOffice Box 1588 Charleston, West Virginia 25326-1 588 (304) 353-8000
C11591OS70.2 5 Counselfor the Cummissiutr Sfqff
Piibllp Service Commission of West Virginia Post Office Box 8 12 Charleston, West Virginia 25323-0812 (304) 353-0336
Counselfvr the Cortspmer Advocnte Divisioti
David A. Sade (WVSB No. 3229) Coiisum& Advocate Division 700 Union Building 723 Kanawha Boulevard, East Chrirleston, West Vlrginia 25301
6 Chase Tower, Eighth Floor Writer’s Contact Information P.O.Box 1588 (304) 353-8 1 13 -Telephone 353-8 180 -Facsimile Charleston, WV 25326-1588 (304) [email protected] (304) 353-8000 (304) 353-8180 Fax ATTORNEYS AT LAW www.steptoe-johnson.com
October 20,20 1 1
VU HAND DELIVERY Sandra Squire, Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301
Re: CASE NO. 11-0658-W-PC JEFFERSON UTILITIES, INC. Kearneysville, Jefferson County Petition to lift moratoria on new customer connections.
Dear Mrs. Squire:
For filing on behalf of Jefferson Utilities, Inc. in the above captioned proceeding, please find an original and twelve (12) copies of the Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder.
I ask that you please file the enclosed testimony and distribute the additional copies to the appropriate parties at the Commission. Also, please date stamp the file copy provided and return it with our messenger.
Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely, &2--a--- E. Dandridge McDonald
EDWtms Enclosures cc: B. Lee Snyder (w/ enclosure) Service List (w/ enclosure)
450600.00061
CH5861854.2 West Virginia Ohio Kentucky Pennsylvania CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, E. Dandridge McDonald, one of counsel for Jefferson Utilities, Inc., do hereby certify ,, that a copy of the Direct Testimonies of B. Lee Snyder has been served upon the following by first class mail, postage prepaid this 20th day of October, 201 1, addressed as follows:
VUHAND DELIVERY Ron Robertson, Jr., Esquire Legal Division Public Service Commission of West Virginia Post Office Box 8 12 Charleston, West Virginia 25323-08 12
David Sade, Esquire Consumer Advocate Division 700 Union Building 723 Kanawlia Boulevard, East Charleston, West Virginia 25301
// E. Dandridge McDonald (WVSB No. 2439)
CH586 1854.2 38 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHAFUESTON
CASE NO. 11-0658-W-PC
JEFFERSON UTILITIES, INC. Kearneysville, Jefferson County Petition to lift moratoria on new customer connections.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF B. LEE SNYDER
October 20,2011 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jefferson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 Q. Please state your name, business address, employment, and experience in the water
2 and wastewater industries.
3 A. My name is B. Lee Snyder and my business address is 270 Industrial Boulevard,
4 Kearneysville, West Virginia, 25430. I am employed by Jefferson Utilities, Inc. (ccJUI’7
5 or “Jefferson Utilities”) as its President. I have over 38 years experience in the water and
6 wastewater industry. I am a Class I1 Water Plant Operator, a Class I1 Wastewater
7 Treatment Plant Operator and a Water Distribution System Operator. I have a Bachelor
8 of Science in Biology and am currently studying in the MBA Program at Shepherd
‘9 University.
10 Q. Are you familiar with the issues in this case?
11 A. I am familiar with the issues in this matter and have been involved from the start of this
12 inquiry process.
13 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this case?
14 A. I will briefly describe Jefferson Utilities’ Harpers Ferry Campsites, Westridge Hills, and
15 Keyes Ferry Acres water systems (collectively, the “Mountain Systems”). I also will
16 describe the current moratoria imposed on the Mountain Systems and Jefferson Utilities’
17 efforts over the years to have the moratoria lifted.
18 My testimony will also address the issues identified in the Commission’s
19 September 7, 201 1 Order, which are: the proposed water supply for new connections and
20 whether that supply would be available to improve service to existing customers; the
21 status and intended use of wells owned by the Jefferson County Commission and
22 whether, absent a lifting of the moratorium, those wells would be available to improve
23 service to existing customers; the number and locations of new customers who have filed
CH58618 54.3 1 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jeflerson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 service applications and are ready to take service from newly constructed mains; and the
2 number of existing customers whose service will be transferred from old lines to the
3 newly constructed mains.
4 I will also address the issues and concerns the Consumer Advocate Division
5 (“CAD”) has raised in opposition JUI’s request to lift the moratorium.
6 Finally, I will explain why the Commission should approve Jefferson Utilities’
7 petition to permit a lifting of the moratorium.
8 Q. Please describe the Mountain Systems.
9 A. The Mountain Systems serve the communities of Keyes Ferry Acres, Westridge Hills and
10 Harpers Ferry Campsites, All three communities were started in the 1960s, long before
11 they were acquired by Jefferson Utilities. Westridge Hills and Harpers Ferry Campsites
12 have some lots which were intended for camping; as a result, some lots are very small.
13 However, in most cases these small lots have been combined to provide sufficient space
14 for a home site with a septic system. Keyes Ferry Acres was marketed for residential
15 homes, although originally many homes were constructed as weekend homes for families
16 in the Baltimore and Washington, DC areas.
17 Westridge Hills and Harpers Ferry Campsites did not prohibit mobile homes, so
18 those two communities have a substantial number of mobile homes on fured foundations.
19 Keyes Ferry Acres prohibited mobile homes by covenant. Accordingly, there are no
20 mobile homes in Keyes Ferry Acres.
21 For reasons unknown to me, the developers of each of the three communities
22 decided to install water distribution systems throughout each subdivision. Over the last
23 40 to 50 years, these systems became public water systems and regulated by the West
CH5861854.3 2 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jeferson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of E. Lee Snyder
1 Virginia Department of Health (“Health Department”) and the Commission. I know of
2 no approvals of the design of any of these systems by the Health Department and they
3 were not regulated by the Commission until well after they were constructed and put into
4 operation.
5 The distribution systems in all three communities were inadequately sized when
6 installed. Westridge Hills and Harpers Ferry Campsites have largely PVC pipe in
7 diameters of 3 inch, 2.5 inch, 2 inch, and 1.5 inch. Keyes Ferry Acres has mostly
8 polyethylene pipe in diameters of 1 ?4inches and 1 ?4 inches. The distribution system in
9 Keyes Ferry Acres is the most problematic of the three communities due to the pipe
10 diameter as well as the frequent line breaks in the old, poor quality polyethylene pipe.
11 Another problem with the Keyes Ferry Acres distribution system is the buildup of deposit
12 within some of the pipe that has further reduced the carrying capacity in certain areas.
13 The source of supply in for the Mountain Systems comes from nine operating
14 wells. These wells vary in yield with the highest indicated to be 40 gpm. Historically,
15 one well has served Westridge Hills, five wells have served the five sections of Keyes
16 Ferry Acres, and three wells have served the three sections of Harpers Ferry Campsites.
17 The supply problem in the Mountain Systems has largely been one of the limited yields
18 from individual wells. The well yields are inadequate to keep up with the daily domestic
19 consumption. Problems would occur when leaks drove the system demand above the
20 yield from an individual well which previously had been serving as many as 50
21 customers.
22 Most of the wells have pressure tanks. Over the years, Jefferson Utilities has
23 added additional chlorine contact volume to each well system to provide sufficient
CH586 1854.3 3 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jefferson Utilities, lnc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 chlorine contact time. Westridge Hills has a small storage tank that holds approximately
2 5,000 gallons. This tank supplies most customers. Westridge also has a hydropneumatic
3 system that supplies the highest portion of the system.
4 Q. Do you or any of your companies own real estate within the Mountain Systems? 5 A. Yes, Through my company Oak Meadow, LLC (“Oak Meadow”), I own lots in Keys
6 Ferry Acres. Jefferson Utilities’ opponents constantly throw up the fact that Oak
7 Meadow owns these lots. The ownership of these lots by Oak Meadow simply provided
8 me with an additional motive to work toward a complete lifting of the moratoria in each
9 of the Mountain Systems.
10 Oak Meadow purchased the lots from Howard Speaks in 2000 when Jefferson
11 Utilities purchased the Keys Ferry Acres water system. Subsequently, Oak Meadow has
12 purchased additional lots from owners who contacted Oak Meadow about selling their
13 lots. Oak Meadow now owns approximately 320 lots. These lots probably constitute no
14 more than 150 viable home sites and that number assumes that septic system permits can
15 be obtained.
16 - Oak Meadow is in the unfortunate position of having owned these lots for over a
17 decade now with no way to use them for their intended purpose, since no building permit
18 will be issued in Jefferson County unless a water supply is available. Like other owners
19 of vacant lots in the Mountain Systems, Oak Meadow pays real-estate taxes each year
20 with no way to utilize the lots for home construction.
21 Jefferson Utilities’ opponents have continually made accusations that somehow I
22 was directing a benefit to the lots Oak Meadow owns over lots owned by others. I take
23 strong exception to all these statements and I challenge anyone to provide evidence of
CH5861854.3 4 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC JeSferson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony ofB. Lee Snyder
1 how I have ever acted in that fashion. Oak Meadow’s lots are diffused throughout Keyes
2 Ferry Acres. If Oak Meadow is ever able to market lots for home construction, the
3 benefit it receives will be no different from all other owners of vacant lots in Keyes Ferry
4 Acres, Westridge Hills and Harpers Ferry Campsites.
5 Q. Please describe briefly why each of the Mountain Systems is under a moratorium
6 forbidding the connection of new customers.
7 A. As noted, the moratoria on new customer connections in each of the Mountain Systems
8 were imposed long before Jefferson Utilities acquired them. The Commission’s records
9 are hll of cases involving the Mountain Systems, only a few of which will be discussed
10 below.
11 Westridge Hills
12 The moratorium for this system was instituted by the Commission in combined
13 Case Nos. 83-691-W-Cy83-661-W-C, and 83-511-W-Cyby final order entered June 6,
14 1984.
15 The moratorium was briefly lifted in Case No. 86-558-W-PCYfinal order entered
16 January 12, 1987, after a new owner, Westridge Water Works, acquired Westridge
17 Utilities, hic. Only 10 months after the moratorium was lifted, in consolidated Case Nos.
18 87-842-W-PC, 88-426-W-19A and 88-464-W-Cythe new owner asked the Commission
19 to reinstate the moratorium because the main well pump was operating at maximum
20 capacity and low pressure was being experienced during peak hours in some homes, A
21 temporary moratorium was ordered until the necessary improvements were completed,
22 but the moratorium still stands.
23 Harpers Ferry Campsites
CH5861854.3 5 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jefferson Utilities,Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 The moratorium for this system was initiated by the West Virginia Division of
2 Health (“Health Department”) by order entered September 22, 1989, a copy of which is
3 attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Campsite Property Owners’ Association, however, had
4 already requested a moratorium for its system with the Commission on April 7, 1989 in
5 Case No. 89-215-W-P. While this case was pending before an administrative law judge,
6 the Health Department entered its order. This pushed the Commission into upholding the
7 Health Department’s decision, thus granting the Association’s request. The reasons the
moratorium was instated by both agencies are listed in detail in the Commission order 8 ._ - - - -.
9 entered June 6, 199 1. ,
10 Keyes Ferry Acres
11 Keyes Ferry Acres has had numerous cases relating to the moratorium, including
12 Case No. 8 1-492-W-CN, Keyes Ferry Acres, Inc. (“KFA, Inc.”), during which it became
13 clear that the entire system was in need of extensive updating and redesign because lines
14 in some spots were buried less than 14 inches deep; the diameter of the distribution pipe
15 line was too small for the demands placed upon it; there were no blow-offs to eliminate
16 dirt from the lines when repairs were made; there were no vacuum release valves to
17 release air from the main; many users had low or no pressure at times; and many
18 experienced excessive dirt, silt, and metallic/mineral substances in their water supply
19 causing them to have to purchase expensive water filtration systems. In addition to these
20 problems, no plans or drawings of the present system existed, nor any plans showing
21 scheduled improvements. After much litigation in this and other cases, on May 1, 1986,
22 Staff filed a petition with the Commission requesting that the Commission place Keys
23 Ferry Acres into receivership.
CH5861854.3 6 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jexerson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 By order entered May 23, 1986, the Commission initiated a receivership
2 proceeding and at the July 16, 1986 hearing, KFA, Inc. pleaded nolo contendere to the
3 charges, and stated its financial inability to upgrade the system and that it had no
4 objection to being placed into receivership. Case No. 86-272-W-SC, order entered
5 November 25, 1986, was a proceeding against KFA, Inc. instituted upon the
6 Commission’s own motion. It was ordered that: the Legal Division immediately file a
7 petition for the Jefferson County Circuit Court to issue an order attaching the assets of
8 KFA, Inc. and place it into receivership. The Utilities Division immediately filed an
9 action plan for the implementation of its stipulated monitoring of the cash out-flow of
10 KFA, Inc. and monthly statements until the time a receiver was appointed; and that the
11 Utilities Division file a report on its investigation into the possible increase of main line
12 pump pressure within seven days.
13 By order entered November 3, 1987 in Jefferson County Civil Action No. 87-P-
14 36, Frank Foight, I11 was established as the receiver of KFA, Inc. Mr. Foight stepped
15 down, and the Jefferson County Public Service District (“JCPSD”) became the appointed
16 receiver of Keyes Feny Acres Water Company. It was still a privately-owned public
17 utility owned by KFA, Inc. By final order entered April 20, 1987, combined Case Nos.
18 83-053-W-C and 81-492-W-CNYthe show cause proceeding was dismissed based upon
19 these developments.
20 Q. When did Jefferson Utilities acquire each of the Mountain Systems?
21 A. Jefferson Utilities’ acquisition of the Mountain Systems occurred as follows: (i) Harpers
22 Ferry Campsites, Case No. 98-1521-W-PCYCommission Order, November 17, 1999; (ii)
23 Keyes Ferry Acres, Case No. 98-1444-W-PCYCommission Order, November 17, 1999;
CH5861854.3 7 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jeferson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 and (iii) Westridge Hills, Case No. 99-1632-W-PCY Recommended Decision February 24,
2 2000, Final Order March 15,2000.
3 Q. Please explain why Jefferson Utilities acquired the Mountain Systems.
4 A. In 1999, Shirley Dougherty contacted me to request that I propose an alternate plan to &e
5 Blue Ridge Water Project for the water systems serving Harpers Ferry Campsites. At
6 that time, the JCPSD was proposing the Blue Ridge Water Project which was designed to
7 extend a water main from Charles Town to serve the three Mountain Communities of
8 Harpers Ferry Campsites, Westridge Hills and Keyes Ferry Acres. After looking into the
9 situation, I concluded that if the Blue Ridge Project was not built, the Mountain Systems
10 needed to be operated and improved by one utility company. A that time, Jefferson
11 Utilities’ water system was growing quickly. Our goal was to be the public water utility
12 serving the areas outside of municipal water systems in Jefferson County.
13 I negotiated purchase arrangements with the owners of each of the three Mountain
14 Systems. At that time, the JCPSD was the receiver for the Keyes Ferry Acres System.
15 The JCPSD of course wanted to be able to pursue its Blue Ridge Project. Therefore, we
16 entered into an agreement that if the JCPSD were able to successfully move their project
17 toward construction within 18 months, Jefferson Utilities would either sell the Mountain
18 Systems to the JCPSD or purchase bulk water from the JCPSD’s Blue Ridge Project.
19 The JCPSD tried to partner with the West Virginia-American Water Company to
20 construct the Blue Ridge Water Project. The JCPSD sent out a survey to prospective
21 customers of the water project. Unfortunately, the return rate on the survey cards was
22 very low and the majority of those returning the cards indicated they would not take
CH586 18 54.3 8
_c Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jeferron Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 service from the project. The results of the survey caused the JCPSD to abandon the
2 project.
3 Jefferson Utilities closed on the purchase of all three systems by mid-2000. In
4 2001, JUI prepared its first plan to upgrade the systems and secured Health Department
5 Permit No. 14,996. In 2002, Jefferson Utilities filed its first rate increase case in the
6 Mountain Systems. This set off the first big opposition by customers and others to
7 Jefferson Utilities’ obtaining adequate rates to cover the cost of serving the Mountain
8 communities.
9 Now, after having operated the Mountain Systems for 11 years, I must say that if I
10 had this to do over I would not have acquired the Mountain Systems. They have been
11 nothing but a drain on Jefferson Utilities finances and my personnel finances. The
12 systems have,also demanded a disproportionate amount of my time. However, it is too
13 late to turn back now. I truly believe that what Jefferson Utilities has accomplished in the
14 three Mountain Systems is extraordinary; especially given the inadequacy of rates, the
15 resources consumed by the unwarranted 2006 complaint case that lasted until 2008, the
16 relentless political involvement of half a dozen or more persistent opponents to growth in
17 Jefferson County, and the absence of any funding for improvements since 2002.
18 Q- What has Jefferson Utilities done throughout the years to have the moratoria lifted?
19 A. Over the past 14 years, many improvements have been made. The most problematic lines
20 have been replaced. Most of those replacements have been with pipe that is sized in
21 accordance with the final system replacement plans. Our work has greatly reduced the
22 pressure problems that previously existed. Below is a summary of Jefferson Utilities
23 efforts:
CH5861854.3 9 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jefserson Utilities, hc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 m After acquiring the Mountain Systems, Jefferson Utilities immediately started
2 improving the systems by installing chlorinators on each well and added aquamag feeders
3 to sequester the iron and manganese in the water to mitigate the discoloration problem
4 from the chlorine oxidizing these dissolved metals. Jefferson Utilities then added
5 chlorine contact tanks to provide the required contact time for disinfection. Subsequent
6 improvements included electrical equipment, pressure tanks, well pmps, booster pumps,
7 controls, additional storage, adding valves, lowering lines and installing meter setters to
8 provide shut off valves.
9 n In 2001 Jefferson-U'i1iti.i- .. te_ceived -a-p.em&-fj-om the Health D3qent to
10 construct certain additions and improvements to the Mountain Systems, a copy of which
11 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The permit allowed the construction of the Mountain
12 Water Plant on what was Cardinal Trail in Harpers Ferry Campsites, described below.
13 II In 2002, we constructed the Mountain water plant on what was Cardinal Trail in
14 Harpers Ferry Campsites. It includes a 30,000 gallon storage/chlorine contact tank and
15 two high service pumps to deliver over 500 gallons per minute to the distribution system.
16 This capacity allows the insulation of fire hydrants. It is for this reason that we have been
17 constructing the new distribution system starting at the water plant. The new distribution
18 system construction is being paid for with JUI surcharge revenues.
19 In 2002 Jefferson Utilities negotiated an arrangement with Don Orser whereby
20 Mr. Orser would allow Jefferson Utilities to use a well he owns in Harpers Ferry
21 Campsites which was reported to yield 50 gpm. The location of the well was such that it
22 would have served the Partridge Lane Section of Harpers Ferry Campsites which had the
23 most severe capacity problems of any part of the three Mountain Systems. The
CH5861854.3 10 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC JefSerson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 agreement called for Jefferson Utilities to supply roughly six service taps to Mr. Orser in
2 return for the use of the well. I thought that was a fair deal because it would have been a
3 win-win for the Jefferson Utilities and Mr. Orser. Furthermore, Mr. Orser would have
4 only gotten the taps if the well was as good as it was reported and JUI actually used it.
5 We took this agreement to the Health Department to seek its approval for an exception to
6 the moratorium since they administered it. The Health Department refused to agree to
7 allow any moratorium relief for Mr. Orser. Therefore, nothing happened. The additional
8 well resource was not obtained.
9 In 2002, Jefferson Utilities first proposed the public/private partnership idea to the
10 JCPSD. At that time, Paul Pritchard was the Chairman of the JCPSD Board. I was not
11 successful in obtaining Mr. Pritchard’s support for the public/private partnership.
12 8 On the weekend beginning Friday, July 4,2003, a fire destroyed one of the pump
13 houses in Harpers Ferry Campsites. Jefferson Utilities personnel, including me, worked
14 24 hours straight in order to reestablish water service for the 50 customers on that well
15 system by Monday morning. After the fire, we had to go into emergency mode to
16 quickly establish a water pumping and treatment facility. Fortunately, we already had
17 plans approved. We started building the new plant by acquiring a 30,000 gallon tank and
18 placing it on a foundation in its intended location. We had to get the water plant building
19 built before freezing weather. By December of 2003, we had the plant enclosed and
20 heated. We continued to work through 2004 to complete the building and make it operate
21 as it was intended by the plans. The only shortfall was that we had only one well
22 supplying the water plant. However, that worked fine because the well kept up with
23 demand previously and with the new plant we had 30,000 gallons of storage The
CH5861854.3 11 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jefferson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 Cardinal Trail plant became operational with chlorination, aquamag feed, 3 0,000 gallons
2 of storage and 500 gpm of pumping capacity.
3 In 2003, the Health Department petitioned the Commission to launch a general
4 investigation regarding Jefferson Utilities’ efforts to have the Mountain Systems
5 moratorium lifted (Case No. 03-0767-W-PC). Ultimately, pursuant to a November 15,
6 2004 order, the Commission denied BPH’s request to initiate a general investigation. In
7 so doing, the Commission recognized Jefferson Utilities’ efforts to improve the Mountain
8 Systems and that Jefferson Utilities had done much more than its predecessors to have the
9 moratorium lifted.
10 1112003, Jefferson Utilities petitioned the Commissjon to, among other things, lift
11 the moratorium on the Mountain Systems and to allow a capital capacity fee to finance a
12 portion of the improvements needed to lift the moratorium (Case No. 03-2019-W-PC-T),
13 This case was heavily litigated and went on for close to four years. Despite Jefferson
14 Utilities’ efforts to have the moratorium lifted, the Commission ultimately denied the
15 petition.
16
17 m In 2004, we filed a request with the Health Department to transfer the Harpers
18 Ferry Campsites moratorium to the Commission. Jefferson Utilities thought that the
19 improvements accomplished by constructing the Cardinal Trail water plant warranted
20 some relief from the moratorium. In addition, Jefferson Utilities thought that it would be
21 more workable if all three Mountain Systems moratoria were administrated by one
22 agency, and that agency was the Commission. The Health Department refused to agree
23 to turn their moratorium over to the Commission. So, even though we had a water plant
CH5861854.3 12 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jefferson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 that was permitted and built in accordance with their requirements and could deliver 500
2 gpm, it resulted in no relief in their moratorium.
3 8 From 2006 through 2009, Jefferson Utilities defended a complaint case that
4 involved a request to completely rebuild the Mountain Systems and various allegations
5 that Jefferson Utilities was not properly operating and maintaining the Mountain Systems
6 (Case No. 06-0817-W-C). The case was ultimately settled after extensive (and
7 expensive) litigation. As part of the settlement, Jefferson Utilities agreed to, among other
8 things, install meters on all active residences within the Mountain Systems and to
9 develop a water sampling and analysis plan for the Mountain Systems.
10 m In 2008, the Leffersnn Caunty Commission commissioned a study by Dunn
11 Engineers to determine what improvements were needed to the Mountain Systems.
12 Jefferson Utilities provided information to the engineers and responded to the Dunn
13 Reporf, a'copy oFwh.6h is attached hereto as Exhibit C. In 2009, and as part of the Joint
14 Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement in Case No. 08-0544-W-42A, Jefferson
15 Utilities received Commission approval for a $12 per customer, per month surcharge
16 from all its customers, the revenue of which is treated as a contribution in aid of
17 construction and used to replace water pipelines and to install meters. The Joint
18 Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement also included a detailed work plan for line
19 replacement and meter installation.
20 In 20 10, Jefferson Utilities received Commission approval for a publidprivate
21 partnership agreement with JCPSD. The agreement, among other things, anticipates
22 Jefferson Utilities and JCPSD pursuing a joint project to connect Jefferson Utilities'
23 Mountain Systems to certain sources of supply owned by Jefferson Utilities in its Valley
CH5861854.3 3 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC JefSerson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 Systems. One of the benefits of the publidprivate partnership would be that Jefferson
2 Utilities and JCPSD will be able to pursue low interest funding that can be used to
3 construct additions and improvements to the Mountain Systems.
4 rn In 2010, Jefferson Utilities’ outside engineering firm completed plans and
5 specifications for an upgrade and replacement of virtually all of the Mountain Systems.
6 The engineering work was paid for with a design grant from the United States
7 Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) through the West Virginia Bureau of
8 Public Health. The plans for the work were approved by the BPH pursuant to Permit No.
9 18,631, a copy of which is attached here to as Exhibit D. Some of the work to be
10 undertaken includes: (i) construction of a 12-inch water main from the water plant to the
11 “R” Section and Partridge Lane Sections of Harpers Ferry Campsites; (ii) extending an 8-
12 inch main along Cedar Lane to Partridge Lane; (iii) extending the 12-inch main to the
13 South Section of Keyes Ferry Acres; (iv) extending an 8-inch main up Cedar Hill Drive
14 to Kelly Drive; (v) extending an 8-inch main to tie in the A and B Sections of Harpers
15 Ferry Campsites; (vi) constructing a raw water line and electrical control conduit with the
16 distribution water lines to each of seven wells; (vii) modifying each existing well site to
17 eliminate the need to heat well houses, and tying well pipes directly to the raw water line
18 with a check valve and meter; (viii) modifying the electrical equipment to provide for
19 control of each well from the Mountain System’s water plant; (ix) upgrading the Orser
20 well and tying it to the raw water transmission line; (x) installing chlorination and
21 aquamag feed at the Mountain System’s water plant; and (xi) installing water meters at
22 each tie in location to the existing water systems to facilitate leak detection.
CH5861854.3 14 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC JeSfeellson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testiinony of B. Lee Snyder
1 Cui-rently, we are continuing our work to lay new piper under the line replacement
2 surcharge, extending the raw water line connecting R-Section, installing services off of
3 the new lines and installing new meters on existing metered customers. We are on
4 schedule to have all Mountain System customers metered by the end of 2012. We are
5 continuing out mapping work; especially in the Mountain Systems. Of course, we
6 continue to meet out unrelenting demand for leak repairs and work orders.
7 Q. Would you please discuss Jefferson Utilities’ current activities to upgrade and
8 improve the Mountain Systems?
9 A. The results of Jefferson Utilities significant efforts over the years are now paying off for
10 the customers of the Mountain Systems. First, the large &inch and 12-inch lines from the
11 water plant are being extended to more distant locations where the existing lines are
12 temporarily tied into the new adequate mains. Second, as the new lines pass existing
13 service locations, those customers are tied into the new line. Third, as Jefferson Utilities’
14 lays the new distribution lines, it also lays 4-inch raw water lines which allow the water
15 from each distant well to be directed to the Cardinal Trail water plant. As a result, the
16 Cardinal Trail water plant has a water source that is much more adequate to serve current
17 customers.
18 The next phase of line replacement which we have outlined to the Commission e 19 will extend a line into Westridge in order to reach the existing Jeep Trail well. This will
20 allow the additional water resource there to be added to the combined distribution system
21 that is being built. It is expected that by the time the 8-inch main is extended to Jeep
22 Trail, an arrangement will be reached to allow the new well 500 feet north of the existing
CH5861854.3 15 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jefferson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 Jeep Trail well to be incorporated to provide an even greater water resource for the water
2 distribution system.
3 The construction of new adequately sized mains also provides the resource to
4 supply additional customers along these lines. It is for this reason that we have requested
5 a conditional lifting of the moratoria on new customer connections in Westridge Hills and
6 Keyes Ferry Acres.
7 Q. Please discuss Jefferson Utilities’ efforts over the years to obtain funding to improve
8 the Mountain Systems?
9 A. Jefferson Utilities has invested a large amount of time and resources trying to obtain
10 funding to improve the Mountain Systems. Below is a summary of Jefferson Utilities’
11 efforts:
12 s In 2002, Jefferson Utilities obtained Commission approval of a Joint Stipulation
13 and Agreement for Settlement that resulted in, among other things, a rate increase for the
14 Mountain Systems (Case No. 02-0080-W-42T). Prior to that increase, the rates paid by
15 customers of the Mountain Systems had not changed since the late 1980s or early 1990s.
16 The agreement also established,that a portion of the revenue generated by the increased
17 rates would be dedicated to servicing $100,000 in new debt to be invested in extensions
18 to improve service to the Mountain Systems. Moreover, the agreement provided for
19 Jefferson Utilities to implement an economically feasible metering program.
20 In 2003, Jefferson Utilities sought Commission approval for a capital
21 improvement fee that would have been used to help improve the Mountain Systems (Case
22 No. 03-2019-W-PC-T). Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a copy of Jefferson Utilities’
CH5861854.3 16 Case No. 1I-0658-W-PC Jefferson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 proposal in the capital improvement fee case. The case was heavily litigated and
2 ultimately dismissed by the Commission.
3 E In 2008, Jefferson Utilities received a $200,000 grant from the USEPA to pay for
4 the design of improvements and upgrades to the Mountain Systems.
5 R In 2009, and as part of the Joint Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement in Case
6 No. 08-0544-W-42AYJefferson Utilities received Commission approval for a $12 per
7 customer, per month surcharge fiom all its customers, the revenue fiom which is used for
8 improvements to the Mountain Systems.
9 R In 2009, Jefferson Utilities and the JCPSD submitted an application to the
10 Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council (“IJDC’’) seeking funding for the utilities’
11 publidprivate partnership. The submission of the IJDC application was the culmination
12 of several years of work which actually started in 2002 when we frrst approached the
13 JCPSD about a publidprivate partnership. During 2008 and 2009, Jefferson Utilities
14 thought there would be a stimulus funding package moved through Congress as had been
15 discussed during the campaign preceding the 2008 presidential election. As it happened,
16 approval of the public/private partnership took a lot longer than I had hoped. The
17 opponents to growth in Jefferson County took every opportunity they could to attempt to
18 shoot it down. Eventually, the JCPSD acted on and approved the publidprivate
19 partnership on May 14,2009.
20 The next challenge was to hire an engineer to design the project. The proper
21 procedures were followed and negotiations were commenced with the firm which was the
22 first choice of both the JCPSD and Jefferson Utilities. At this time, Jefferson Utilities
23 had already been awarded the $200,000 EPNBPH Design grant. The engineer was to be
CH5 86 18 54.3 17 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jefferson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 paid with these funds. Unfortunately, we could not come to an agreement with the first
2 engineering firm we selected. Therefore, we went to our second choice. We were able to
3 reach an agreement on a contract with Pentree, Inc. Pentree, Inc. launched into the
4 design plan worlung closely with Jefferson Utilities.
5 After the completion of the plans, we worked with the JCPSD to prepare an IJDC
6 application. The project was discussed at several JCPSD Board meetings and a public
7 meeting was held in the area of the project to solicit public input.
8 During this timeframe, Case No. 06-0817-W-C was going to hearing. In the
9 resulting settlement, Jefferson Utilities obtained the pledge of COBRA, aka John Maxey,
10 who is not a Jefferson Utilities customer, to agree to support the public/private
11 partnership before the IJDC. Mr. Maxey apparently did submit a letter of support.
12 However, the outcome was not that simple. The makeup of the JCPSD Board had
13 changed by one member. After the IJDC application was prepared the majority of the
14 Board would not support the filing of the IJDC application with the source water for the
15 project provided through a pipe line extension from JUI’s existing 16-inch main near
16 Millville to cross under the Shenandoah River at Millville.
17 A lot was said in opposition to the river crossing. Alleged fears ran from the
18 drying up water sources in the Valley to concerns about the practicality of making a
19 directional drilled river crossing. The Town of Harpers Ferry even threatened to sue the
20 JCPSD if it were to file the IJDC application with a river crossing in the plans.
21 h order to obtain a majority vote to file the IJDC application, it was necessary to
22 amend the application to change the water source. At the time of our application, we felt
23 the only reliable source was the river. However, this added a $6,000,000 surface water
4 CH586 1854.3 18 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jefferson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 plant to the project cost. The IJDC application was submitted with the river water plant
2 in the project. After review, the IJDC returned the application with a suggestion that we
3 find a more economical solution.
4 It is now my hope that a project can be agreed upon which would recognize the
5 one good well constructed by the Jefferson County Commission and drill additional wells
6 as necessary to supply the project. During the last few months since the well was drilled,
7 my time has been consumed by the multiple cases JUI has participated in before the
8 Commission.
9 Jefferson Utilities has also pursued private financing options. During the initial
10 financing of the purchase of the three Mountain Systems, Jefferson Utilities obtained a
11 loan for $230,000 for the purchase and initial upgrade of the three systems. The loan was
’ 12 approximately $130,000 more than the purchase price for the Mountain Systems. The
13 additional money was used to, among other things, help construct the Cardinal Trial
14 water plant. Jefferson Utilities also made applications to the West Virginia Housing
15 Development Fund to improve the Mountain Systems in 2001 and 2004. Neither
16 application was approved by the West Virginia Housing Development Fund.
17 Q. Please address the specific questions posed by the Commission in its September 7,
18 2011 order, beginning with “the proposed water supply for new connections and
19 whether that supply would be available to improve service to existing customers.”
20 A. As I explained earlier in my filing and testimony, what JUI has already accomplished
21 with the surcharge revenues has allowed us to direct the flow of water from three wells to
22 the Mountain water plant. We expect to direct a fourth well to that plant this year. If we
CH5861854.3 19 Case No. 11-06.58-W-PC Jeferson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 can renew our agreement with Don Orser, we would expect to be able to use his well on
2 Cedar Run Drive as well.
3 I provided data to the Commission Engineering Staff as to the amount of water
4 presently being used and the amount available from existing sources. We have
5 determined that upon connection of the R-Section well to the Cardinal Trail water plant,
6 our available source capacity is 102,000 gallons per day greater than the amount of water
7 consumed by the customers which will be connected to the Cardinal Trail water plant,
8 JUI also would utilize two other existing wells if necessary or we could drill an
9 additional well if that becomes necessary. Our preference would be to try to wait for the
10 present line replacement project to reach Jeep Trail well. This would allow the utilization
11 of the Jeep Trail well and hopefully the well drilled by the County Commission. If we
12 need to drill additional wells, it would be our preference to drill wells in the Westridge
13 community. The water quality is much better in that area. The Jeep Trail and County
14 Commission wells analysis show much lower concentration of iron and manganese in
15 those wells.
16 Q* Please address “the status and intended use of wells owned by the Jefferson County
17 Commission and whether, absent a lifting of the moratorium, those wells would be
18 available to improve service to existing customers.”
19 A. Jefferson Utilities has been in contact with the Jefferson County Commission, the
20 Westridge Hills Home Owners Association and Mike Maloy at AS1 (the County
21 Commission’s consultant) regarding the use of these wells. I think that an arrangement
22 can be worlced out to allow JUI to use the County Commission drilled well, which is
23 located 500 feet north of JUI’s Jeep Trail well. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a copy of
CH5861854.3 20 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC JefSerson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
~~
1 a letter I wrote to the Westridge Home Owners and an e-mail I wrote the County’s
2 consultant, ASI, about how the well could be used.
3 I believe my proposed approach is the only reasonable choice to bring the benefit
4 of the additional water source to the customers as expediently as possible. However,
5 John Maxey has been actively advocating the transfer of the land and wells to the JCPSD
6 in an attempt to keep Jefferson Utilities from simply tying the new well into its existing
7 system. One might well ask why Mr. Maxey would try to intervene in this situation
8 where it is quite obvious that Jefferson Utilities should install a pump and facilities to use
9 the well to the most expedient benefit of the customers. The answer can only be that MI.
10 Maxey simply will do anything he can to attempt to disadvantage Jefferson Utilities in its
11 goal to improve its service in the Mountain Systems. Mr. Maxey’s real focus is to make
12 it harder for Jefferson Utilities to provide its service to any new customers which would
13 result in the residential growth he abhors.
14 Q. Please address “the number and locations of new customers who have filed sewice
15 applications and are ready to take service from newly constructed mains.”
16 A. Jefferson Utilities does not have any service applications pending for new services in the
17 Mountain Communities. If Jefferson Utilities is able to obtain a conditional lifting of the
18 moratoria on the Mountain Systems, it will seek to make the owners of vacant lots aware
19 of the opportunities that they have to obtain service. Given the present depression in the
20 housing industry, I do not expect to see any rush for securing water service. However,
21 even if we were to receive no applications for service over the next year, I would still
22 pursue this conditional lifting of the moratoria because it is the right thing to do.
CH5861854.3 21 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jefferson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 Q. Please address “the number of existing customers whose sewice will be transferred
2 from old lines to the newly constructed mains.’’
3 A. During our construction of new lines, Jefferson Utilities has always transferred the
4 existing customer from the old lines to the new lines. As soon as the new line is tested
5 and disinfected, we begin the process of transferring customers to the new line. A total of
6 42 customers as of the date of this writing have been transferred to the new lines. There
7 are no existing customers in the areas adjoining new lines whose service has not been
8 transferred to the new lines. In addition to the improved service to the customers which
9 are transferred to the new lines, it is important to complete the transfer to allow the
10 existing lines to be taken out of service so as to eliminate their propensity to leak.
11 Q. The CAD has expressed several concerns and recommended several conditions. Has
12 Jefferson Utilities addressed these concerns?
13 A. Yes. On August 22, 20 11 and September 2, 20 1 1, Jefferson Utilities filed pleadings in
14 response to the concerns raised by the CAD, copies of which are attached hereto as . - ., 15 Exhibit G.
16 Q. Please explain why the Commission should approve the petition in this case, as
17 modified by Staff’s recommendations.
18 A. In its petition, Jefferson Utilities asked the Commission to lift the moratorium for lots in
19 Keyes Ferry Acres and Westridge Hills that can be served from new lines installed by
20 Jefferson Utilities pursuant to BPH Permit No. 18,631. The moratorium should be lifted
21 as requested because recent construction gives Jefferson Utilities the ability to serve new
22 customers without j eopardizing service to existing customers. Jefferson Utilities’ work to
23 date has included extending a 12-inch line from the water plant westward along Keyes
CH5861854.3 22 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jeffeon Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 Gap Road to Kelly Drive in Keyes Ferry Acres. This includes a 6-inch and 8-inch
2 extension on Twilight Time Lane, Double Run Drive, Deer Run, Old Oak Lane, Bear
3 Run, and Cedar Hill Drive. The water supply to the new lines is treated with aquamag to
4 sequester iron and manganese and disinfected at the Mountain System’s water plant. The
5 water plant has a 30,000 gallon clear well and pumping capacity to deliver over 500 gpm
6 to the newly laid lines for domestic and firefighting purposes. Jefferson Utilities has also
7 installed five fire hydrants along the lines that have been replaced. Finally, two
8 additional wells, Keyes Ferry Acres South Backup and Keyes Kerry Acres South, are
9 being tied into the Mountain System’s water plant.
10 Several customers have made filings with the Commission in support of the
11 petition.
12 On August 11,20 11 , Commission Staff issued its Final Joint Staff Memorandum
13 (“Final Memo”). In the Final Memo, the Engineering Division noted the history ofthe
14 Mountain Systems and the various problems Jefferson Utilities inherited. The
15 Engineering Division also noted Jefferson Utilities’ significant efforts to improve the
16 Mountain Systems. Ultimately, Staff recommended that Jefferson Utilities’ petition be
17 approved, subject to certain conditions. I have reviewed the conditions recommended by
18 Staff and agree that they are consistent with what Jefferson Utilities proposed. Thus,
19 Jefferson Utilities supports Staffs final recommendation that a partial lifting of the
20 moratorium on new connections be granted.
21 The focus of the moratoria has always been on how to stop an increase in demand
22 on the systems by eliminating the possibility of additional customers being connected.
23 Frankly, many of the existing customers have no problem with the moratoria continuing
CH5861854.3 23 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jefferson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
I. since it effectively eliminates them having any new neighbors. This may be fine for them
2 but the real disadvantaged parties are the lot owners who have owned lots for many years
3 and have not been able to use their lots or sell them for a reasonable sum. These people
4 largely suffer in silence.
5 Fortunately, the Jefferson County Health Department has a local rule that
6 prohibits the issuance of a well drilling permit in areas served by public water. This rule
7 has benefited the Mountain Systems. If it were possible to obtain well drilling permits, I
8 believe many such permits would have been sought and perhaps issued. Well drilling
9 would be destructive to JUI’s operation of the Mountain Systems in that it would reduce
10 the field of potential JUI customers.
11 The local rule prohibiting well drilling was litigated and appealed to the State
12 Supreme Court in the case of Glen Cogle. The court upheld the local rule. However,
13 while JUI would like to provide service to Mr. Cogle, as long as the moratoria are in
14 place, it cannot do so.
15 Jefferson Utilities’ opponents continue to advocate for an abolition of the local
16 rule on well drilling. Last year, those opponents went to the Board of Health to lobby for
17 the issuance of well drilling permits in the Mountain Systems. Jim Surkamp, at that time
18 a County Commissioner, actually lobbied the Board of Health to issue perrnits for wells
19 to serve groups of homes which he suggested could replace the need for JUI’s Mountain
20 Systems. Clearly, the opponents to growth in Jefferson County, of which Mr. Surkamp is
21 one, oppose JUI for the growth we have facilitated. Fortunately for JUI’s customers, Mr. \ 22 Surkamp lost his bid for reelection and the Board of Health has sustained its policy \ 23 against permitting wells in areas served by public water. However, this might not always i
CH5861854.3 24 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jeferson Utilities, Inc. Dkect Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
~~
1 be the case. This is another reason JUI must pursue a lifting of the moratoria in order that
2 we not have to compete with well drilling.
3 As I discussed previously, the Bureau for Public Health administers the
4 moratorium in Harpers Ferry Campsites. SUI asked the Health Department to transfer the
5 administration of the moratorium to the Commission. We were not successful in
6 obtaining the Health Department’s concurrence in that matter. It is my understanding
7 that the Health Department had earlier agreed to have the Commission administer the
8 moratorium in Westridge Hills.
9 We have chosen to seek the Commission’s conditional lifting of their moratoria
10 first. If we are successfid, we will make a similar request of the Health Department.
11 I would also suggest that it is fundamentally unfair to the lot owners in the
12 Mountain Systems to continue a moratorium which denies them the use of their land
13 without adequate justification. The additional customers can be served without
14 diminishing the quality of service to any existing customer. Furthermore, it is an
15 unnecessary burden on all existing customers of Jefferson Utilities to continue moratoria
16 that restricts the company’s ability to earn income from facilities that are adequately
17 constructed. Income from new customers can only be helpful to allow Jefferson Utilities
18 recover its cost of service. Adding new customers to the new lines in the Mountain
19 Systems will increase Jefferson Utilities revenue. This increase in revenue without a
20 significant corresponding increase in cost will reduce Jefferson Utilities’ cost of service
21 per customer.
22 Q. Please discuss the $12 surcharge and how it is being collected.
CH5861854.3 25 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jejjfemon Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
A. In 2009, and as part of the Joint Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement in Case No.
08-0544-W-42A, Jefferson Utilities received Commission approval for a $12 per
customer, per month surcharge from all its customers, the revenue of which is treated as a
contribution in aid of construction and used to replace water pipelines and to install
meters. The Joint Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement also included a detailed
work plan for line replacement and meter installation.
Jefferson Utilities deposits surcharge revenues into a separate account on a
monthly basis. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a report on surcharge collections and expenditures. 9 -
10 Q. Please discuss how the $12 surcharge is being used.
11 A. While Jefferson Utilities has not finished all the work as laid out in the work plan, it
12 anticipates completing such by the end of the calendar year. Attached hereto as Exhibit I
13 is the additional work Jefferson Utilities anticipates accomplishing with the surcharge
14 revenue. The work outlined in the exhibit will require more than one year to complete
15 and continues Jefferson Utilities’ plan to create a backbone of adequately sized water
16 mains to connect all of the individual operating well systems in the Mountain Systems.
17 Additionally, the work will allow the new wells in Westridge Hills to be utilized to
18 provide water to all of the Mountain Systems to most effectively use the new well
19 capacity to benefit all customers.
20 Q. Over the past 11 years that you have operated the Mountain Systems, what have
21 you observed with regard the customer count?
22 A, Regrettably, over the past 11 years, the number of customers has actually decreased
23 substantially. The total customer count in the three Mountain Systems now stands at 330.
CH586 1854.3 26 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jeffemon Utilities,Inc. Direct Testimony of B. Lee Snyder
1 This is a reductio11 of over 50 customers froin the count when we took over the systems.
2 This is primarily due to the degradation of the housing stock. These communities badly
3 need a boost in terms of community renewal. Conditionally lifting the moratoria would
4 be a good start toward improving the future of these communities.
5 Q. Does this conclude your direct testimony?
6 A. Yes, it does, although we have several discovery requests outstanding and I may want to
7 address the responses at the hearing.
8
CH5861854.3 27 Case No. 11-0658-W-PC Jefferson Utilities, Inc. Direct Testimony of B.Lee Snyder
1 LIST OF EXHIBITS 2 3 4 A September 22, 1999 Health Dept. Order re: Harpers Ferry Campsites
5 B September 5,2001 Health Dept. Permit No. 14,996
6 c Response to Dum study
7 D Health Dept. Permit No. 18,631
8 E May 1,2004 Upgrade plan
9 F Lee Snyder letter to customers re: new wells
10 G August 22 and September 2,201 1 pleadings in response to the CAD
11 H Surcharge revenue
12 I Work plan for surcharge revenue
CH5861854.3 28
BEFORE THE ;EST 'JIRGINIA DiVISiOll OF HEALTH IN THE I%TT~OF aRPER$ FERRY ChiPSlTES WATER SYSTEM, JEFFERSON COUNTY.
The WEST VIRGINIA DIYISIOH OF HEALTH has made various invertigatiahs in the above styled matter. As a result of these investigations and a revSew of infomation available in the Piles of Environmental Engineering, the Division aaes hereby make the follawing findings and canclusians: 7. The water system serving Harpers ferry Campsites supplies piped water to approximately 161 homes, The water system is a public water supply as defined by Chapter 16, Article 1, Section 9-A of the West Virgfnia State Code, 7931, as amended, Sections 4.03 and 4.13 of the "Public Water Supply Regulations" and Section 4.8 of the "Public Water Supp'ty Operator Regulations. 'I 2. Harpers Ferry Campsites . water system utilizes drilled wells as a source of water supply. Based upon the complexity of treatment provided, the system is classfffed as a Class 1-D publfc water supply system, 3. The operator of record 'for the Harpers Ferry Campsites water system is Shirley Dougherty; Mrs, Dougherty 1s a Class 1-0 certified water treatment plant operator, 4, Harpers Ferry Campsitess are served by three separate water systems (AM) section, Partrfdge Lane and R section. (At81 sect?on consists of a drilled well (yield = 75 gpm), a 35 gpm pump, 7000 gallon in ground pneumatic tank, disinfection and 2%" and smaller distribution mains serving 64 customers. Partridge Lane section consists of a drilled well from which water is pumped and chlorinated prior to entering a 5000 gallon transfer tank. The treated water is then pumped at 20 gpm into a 120 gallon pressure tank and distributed through 2kf1 and smaller mains to serve 52 customers. R scctfon cansists of a drilled well, 15 gpm pump, 315 gallon pneumatlc tank, disinfection and 2'5'' and smaller mains serving 45 customers. 5. Based on the West Virginia Division of Health design standards for pub] ic water supplies and sound engineering I practices, the following condi tilons 1 imit the expansion of the Harpers Ferry Campsites water sysrem: a. Capacity of wells and pumps in a hydropneumatic system should be at least 6 times the average , daily consumption of the community, 11:28 WU ENU. HERLTH-CERT. 8 TRAINING + 93457368 N0.333 DE3
(A+B)I secti on 64 customers Average daily use - 13,000 gpd estimated well capacity = 75 gpm Pump capacity = 35 gpm Required pump capacity = 54 gpn! Partridge Lane 52 customers Average daily use = 10,000 gpd estimated Welt capacity = Unknown Pump capacity = 20 gpm Required pump capacity = 40 gpm R section 45 eustamers Average daily use = 9,000 gpd estimated \elf capacity = unknown Pump capacity = 15 gprn Required pump capacity = 35 gpm b, Hydrapneumatic tank - the grass volume of the hydropneumatlc tank in gallons should be at least ten times the capacity of the pump. Partridge Lane pump capacity = 20 gpm and tank capacity = 120 gallons.
C. Distribution system pipe sfze - distribution piping shall be sized to provide a minimum pressure of 20 psi under peak flow conditions and the maximum velocity should not exceed 5 ft,fscc. The entire dfstribution system under peak flow . exceeds the 7 imits. 'I Based upon a review of the system as compared to acceptable design practices, the system hill provide only marginal reliability. Additional customers will cause the already marginal re1 iabil i ty to deteriorate.
1. Prior to any further customer connections, the system be upgraded to address the above ffnding 'to protect the integrity of the exjsting system and qualfty of service for both present and future custbmws. 2. Pland far upgradfng must be submitted to the Office of Envi ronrnental Heal th Services for review and approval forty-five (45) days prior to construction. FOR THE DIRECTOR ~0.333 pa4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
! I, Joseph P. Schock, Director, Office of EnviranrnentaJ Health Serv ces do hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing ORDER was served upan
Mrs, Shirley Daugherty, Manager, Route 1, 80x 486, Harpers Ferry, Mest
Virginia 25425, by certified mail I return receipt requested,
I
,
State of West Virginia ! OFFICEOF ENVIRONMENTALHEALTH' SERVICES
8 j 5 QUARRIER STRE,ET, SUITE 4 18 . CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGMIA 25301-2416 TELEPFIONE 304-558-298 1 PERMIT (Water) PROJEC?': Blue Ridge Mountajn Water Systzm,.Pha.se1 PERMIT NO.: 14,995 .. ' LOCATION: Keyas Feny Acres, COUNTY: Jefferson DATE: 9-5-2001 Harpers Ferry Campsites, Westridge Hills
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that after reviewing plans, specifications, application forms, and other essential information th'at Jefferson Utilities, Inc. 120 Industrial Boulevard Kearneysville, West Virginia 25430
is hereby granted approval to: install ppioximately 13,887 LF of 2", 269 LF of 3", 5,485 LF of4", 1 8,741 LF of . 6", 20, I SO LF of 8" and 4,512 LF of 12" water line; two (2) pressure reducing.valve stations; Hickorv Hill: one . (9) 105,800 gallon water stora6e tank; Maple Lane: one (1) 294,000 gallon water storage tank; the Cardinal Trail ' watertreatment planf which wll consist oftlie existing 30,000 galIon tank, chemical feed equipment for Aquanag and chlorine, and an 850 gaIIoi1 hydro-pneumatic hnk with two (2) 300 G.P.M.pumps (to be used.only until the Maple Lane tank is in senice); the Hickorv Hill water treatment plant which will consist of chemical feed
1./ . equipment for sodaash and ch.lorine, a300 gallon hydro-pneumatic tank with a30 G.P.M. pump; and all necessary ' vdves, coiitrols mid appurtenances. Fzcilities are to 'sene appl'oximately 565 custoiners in Keyes Ferry Acres, Harpers.Ferry Campsites and \Vest;.id,oe Hills in the Blue Ridge h4ountain Water System.
NOTE: This permit is contingent upon: 1) All new water lines and the water storage tsnlc being disinfected, flushed and bacteriologically tested, prior to use; 2) Maintaining a minimum ten (10) feet horizontal separation betweep sever and water lines and a minimum 1S"vertical separation between crossing se+ver and water Ibes, with the vater. line above th.e sewer line; .S) The installation of a minimum sir (6) feet high'fence with B locking gate rrround.the proposed new water storagefanks; and 4) Daijy monitoring of the chlorine residual of the proposed new mister .storage tank's discharge will be required until such time as the customer demand PIIOWS a 20%~ daily volume turnoir,er in the tanks. These daily residual readings are to be submitted Hrith the monthly operational reports to the West Virginia Burein for Public Health.
The Environinenral ~iiginee~ingDivision of the Kezrneysville District Office, telephone (3 04) 725-9453 is to 'be notifies when construction begins.
Validiq of tiis perinit is contingeni up017 conformity with plans, specificaions, application forms, and other infoi-nation subinitred to the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health.
FOR THE DlRECTOR i/
,
e-fferson Utilities, Inc.
June 2,2008
.Mi, Frederick Hypes, P.E. Vice President of Engineering Dunn Engineers, Inc. 400 South Ruffner Road ' Charleston, W 253 14
Re: Jefferson Utilities Mountain Water Systems
Dear Mr. Hypes:
We are writing in response to your letter of May 5,2008. First, we must disagree with your indication that there was some agreement reached at the May 1,2008 meetings for solving the Mountain System's problems by drilling more wells in Westridge Hills. That approach was one suggested by h4r. John Maxey, Campaign Manager for Frances Morgan. The purpose of an engineering report includes aa analysis of alternatives, especially a preliminary engineering report. Your report identified, correctly in my view, the nzed to extend water service from the valley and rehabilitationheplacement of the existing distribution systems as the chosen altemqtive. Furthermore, Jefferson Utilities does not concur with the suggestion of drilling mrm wells in Westridge to solve the Mountain System's problems. We would suggest that to even consider the drilling of more wells in Westridge would require a detailed hydrologic study to assure that the aquifer on top of the mountain is in fact adequate to supply sufficient water for the demand of all the existing customers and growth after the moratoria are lifted. Let me point out that drilling more wells in Westridge was not the most highly ranked solution in your Preliminary Engineering Report published after six months of evaluation.
Mr. Maxey is not an expert. He has no background in engineering or water system operation. He is not a hydrologist and he is not even a customer or prospectite customer of ail]; of our water systems. Mi. Maxey is a politician who has directed his most dedicated effo1.t to opposing growth in Jefferson County, particularly in the Mountain Communities we serve aqd is therefore not interested in the orderly development of a reliable water systtm to meet the cunent and future water supply needs of Jefferson County residents. Mr. Maxey has coiisistentjy sought to do Jefferson Utilities ham with a relentless pattern of damaging actions and slanderous stztements at public meetings. It is very difficult to work productively with groups and individuals who seek only to do us harm and who are currently involved in litigation with Jefferson Utilities,
270 Industrial Boulevard Kearneysville, WV 25430 0 (304) 725-9140 0 Fax: (304) 728-7326 Page 2 Hypes 6-02-08 ’
We still maintain that the best solution for the Mountain Water System’s problems is to pursue the solution which Dunn Engineers ranked most highly after six months of study, That solution is to extend the existing JeffersmUtilities’ water line under the Shenandoah River, into Keyes Feny Acres and through all three communities as we have been planning for years. Your study obviously reached the same conclusion and now Mi. Maxey and the opponents to growth are attempting to get Dunn to change their report.
Several years ago, while the Jefferson County PSD was operating as the receiver over the Keyes Ferry Acres system, they determined that the long-term water supply solution for the Mountain Systems was not a reliance on wells on the mountain but rather the construction of a line fiom the Charles Town System. Of couse, at that time, Jefferson Utilities did not have the infrastructure in place to serve this area that is does currently.
It appears the only reason that Mi. Maxey and the opponents to growth propose wells in Westridge is their hope to direct resources to a course of action which will not adequately solve the Mountain System’s capacity problems. Jefferson Utilities’ s,olution will be able to provide adequate semice to the existing customers as well as the many potential new customers who may request service. As you once told me, to design a system with planned inadequacies would be “engineering malpractice”. To choose to pursue a project that is planned inadequately does not meet a reasonable test of feasibility.
At the meeting held in Charles Town on May 1, 2008, I suggested that I would provide you with suggestions as to how a backbone of a distribution system for the Mountain Communities should be designed so as to interconnect each of the separate existing distinct well systems to a backbone distribution system. This goal was already accomplished as a product of the design of the water lines Jefferson Utilities has permitted under West Virginia Health Depart‘ment Pennit Number 14,996. A copy of the Pennit is enclosed. The pipe permitted under those plans already connect all of the operating systems in the Mountain Systems. All the operatkg wells are also shown on those plans. It has been and remains my intention to design the balance of the 12” and 16” line to connect our existing line on Millville Road to the: lines proposed in Permit 14,996.
, You asked about our cost of operation of the Mountain Systems. The future costs to operate the Mountain Systems will vary substantially in accordance with the amount of old pipe remaining in service and the continued operation of the water production and.treatment facilities on the mountain. Our operating cost for the three Mountain Systems are presented in detail in our Rule 42 Exhibit in our current PSC Rate Case which’is Case Number 08-0544-W-42A. You may access an electronic copy of that report from the PSC website.
It is presumptuous of you or others to believe that we wish to sell the Mountain Systems, There is no certainty that public ownership will result in improved service or reduced cost. We have invcsted well in ZXC~SSof a milliun dullars in iiiiproviiig the Mountain Systems and keeping then operating, We have spent countless hours dealing with the problems inherent with Page 3 Hws 6-02-08
these forty year old inadequate systems. The Keyes Ferry Acres Water System has been under a moratorium on new customers since 1982. The Jefferson County Public Service District operated the Keyes Ferry Acres Water System under a PSC driven receivership fiom 1988 to 2000. We have spent 9 years intensively working on improving the Mountain Water Systems. We will not shrink fiom that goal simply because what .we must do is unpopular. Given the right circumstances we would entertain offers to sell the mountain systems. But, the purchase of the systems would also need to be part of an overall solution to the situation. The sale of the system and the latest “plan” does not resolve anything, except to appease opponents to growth. We have pursued financing options before that were hampered in part by the median household income (mhi) of the mountain communities. For all the statements that the residents of the area are poor and can’t afford the proposed rates, the US Census data says otherwise, Rates in relation to mhi st how typical public projects are funded in WV. The PSC and funding agencies have, many times looked at 2% of rnhi as a rate threshold. Many communities in WV pay rates in excess of that threshold. With a mhi approaching $50,000, the 2% rate would result in a water bill allowance of approximately $83.00 per month. In any event the rates need to be based on cost of service and the cold facts are that the costs of service to the mountain communities are high.
We believe that there is no other entity better suited than Jefferson Utilities with the support of Snyder Environmental Services to operate and maintain the Mountain Systems. When Jefferson Utilities acquired the Mountain Water Systems, it did so based on a confidence in’achieving improved service. We have achieved very significant service improvements in the Mountain Systems. These include implementing chlorination, providing adequate chlorine contact time, providing aquamag feed, building the water plant at Cardinal Trail capable of pumping 500 gpm, providing a fxe hydrant at the water plant which has been utilized in extinguishing house fires on more than one occasion, installing 130 customer water meters, replacing substantial footage of undersized clogged pipes, providing additional storage, designing and permitting improving system pumping capacity and controls in Westridge, repairing hundreds of leaks, replacing valves, installing blow-offs, preparing plans for upgrades and accomplishing construction of the 16” water line extension to Millville Road. Jefferson Utilities’ has requested a capital capacity fee in the Mountain Systems which would provide a practical and affordable mechanism to support a permanent solution for the Mountain Systems. Additionally, it would seem foolish to bifurcate the water operations of Jefferson Utilities, creating an additional entity to attempt to operate an independent Mountain Water System simply to placate the opponents to housing growth in the existing three Mountain Communities. We will not consider a sale of the Mountain Water Systems without the certainty of an effective solution to the Mountain System’s problems. Jefferson Utilities already has a solution, all we need is an affordable source of financing. Further, I would point out that even when Jefferson Utilities took substantial effort to pursue Federal grant financing under the 2005 Farm Bill before Congress, the Mountain Rate Committee attacked the Board Members of the PSD at their August 2007 meeting for simply being willing to work as a public partner in a partnership with Jefferson Utilities to secure funding for the Mountain System upgrade. Such actions certainly are not supportive of a solution.
As you how, West Virginia American Water Compmy has carried oiit numerous public/private partnerships with PSD’s and County Commissions which include many miles of watzr line extensions to unserved and under-served areas. I continue to believe this model Page 4 Hypes 6-02-08
provides a practical way to accomplish the investment of grant funds in these systems. The more significantproblem is how to secure grant funding to improve the Mountain Systems. That challenge is one that the efforts of Dum Engineers and the Jefferson County Commission should be most constructively focused.
We have worked too hard to see an effective water utility created in Jefferson County to c allow management choices to be made by the opponents to growth whosoppose Jefferson Utilities because they believe we facilitate the growth they so loath. I realize that Dunn Engineers has not been familiar with the history of rural water service in Jefferson County. I am enclosing a copy of a document entitled Water Service.forJeficerson Countv. You may find it helpful to understand our position on these issues, Jefferson Utilities will continue to pursue the improvement of its Mountain Systems through all reasonable means.
I hope this letter and accompanying documents have provided you some insight into the history of the Mountain Systems and the need for a long-term water supply solution that makes sense. I would ask you please reconsider your fval recommendation to be consistent with the recommendation you made with your Preliminary Engineering Report as this is the only viable solution based on the information provided to date.
With best wishes,
Lee Snyder, fiesident
Enclosures cc: Jefferson County Public Service District Dan McDonald Mike Griffith Alice Chakmakian WATER SERVICE FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY JEFFERSON UTILITIES, INC. June 2006
The history of public water service in Jefferson County is one of a failure to plan or construct facilities to meet the demands of a growing county. For whatever reason, during the decades of the 60's and 70's when the Federal Government contributed substantial funding for public water projects, Jefferson County did not pursue any such funding to start a county public water system. Public water service was provided by the three municipal water systems. Similarly, the municipsl systems did not seek fhding to extend their systems. Extension of service from these systems have been poorly planned and even refused with no focus on fuhq-6 demand. Several private utilities were constructed to provide water service to individual subdivisions. Such systems started to be developed in the 60's to serve the Blue Ridge Mountain Subdivisions of Harpers Feny Campsites, Keyes Fqry Acres and Westridge Hills. In 1964 the system in Shenandoah Junction was started by Bernard Snyder to serve a mobile home park and a few homes in the town which had been platted in 1891, In the 70's several more subdivision systems were started. These included Fox Glen, Walnut Grove, Glen Haven, Cavaland Tuscawilla Hills and the Bardane Industrial Park.
Lee Snyder worked with all of these water systems starting with his employment as a sanitarian at the Jefferson County Health Department in 1973. After leaving the Health Department, Snyder started to work with his family in upgrading the Shenandoah Junction water system and planing a sewer system to serve an expanded mobile home park, The water system upgrade was also necessary to accommodate the demand for service from homes in the old community of Shenandoah Junction where inadequate wells and cisterns were the only water source for many homes. During this time, Snyder started a contracting business which focused on installing wastewater treatment plants, water and sewer lines and providing operational maintenance of these facilities in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia, This work further involved him with the water and sewer utilities in Jefferson County. He started Snyder Environmental Services in 1979 and Jefferson Utilities in 1985.
In 1992 and 1993 respectively the Walnut Grove water and sewer systems were placed into receivership by the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (PSC) due to the inadequate construction, operation and management by its owner. The Walnut Grove Homeowners Association become the receiver. They hired Snyder Environmental to operate and maintain the systems. It was quickly apparent that the systems were very expensive to maintain, The leaks and equipment failures in the water system and the infiltration in the sewer system were unbearable. The owner had been previously forced to discontinue using his wastewater treatment plant and as a result had been pumping sewage to the Jefferson County PSD for treatment. The bills for treatment ran as high as $16,00O/month for the 140 customer system. The water system was similarly bad. The frst month of operation by Snyder Environmental saw 5,000,000 gallons of water pumped for 162 water customers. The improvements to the system were started immediately, concentrating on repairing water leaks and improving the reliability of the water treatment facility, In 1995 rate increases were granted for both the sewer and water systems of Walnut Grove. ‘.
Page 2 Water Service
In 1996, the owner of the Walnut Grove system chose to sell the water system. With the support of the Homeowners Association, Jefferson Utilities agreed to purchase the Walnut Grove system. At that time, Snyder Environmental had already extended credit to the Walnut Grove system in the amount of $87,170 for operation and repairs that the system could not pay. The purchase of the Walnut Grove system by Jefferson Utilities was opposed by the Jefferson County PSD in PSC Case Number 96-0374-WS-PC.In approving Jefferson Utilities’ purchase of Walnut Grove Utilities PSC Chief law Judge Melissa K. Marland wrote several very supportive Paragraphs on Pages 19 and 20 of the Recommended Decision. A copy of those pages of that Recommended Decision are attached for reference. Jefferson Utilities remains encouraged by Judge Marland’s complementary remarks. Mer winning in the Recommended Decision, w Jefferson Utilities agreed to sell the sewer portion of the Walnut Grove utilities to the Jefferson County PSD. Jefferson Utilities acceded to the sewer sale due to the offer of the PSD to treat the customers of Walnut Grove as customers of the District resulting in a rate decrease for all sewer customers. In addition the sale opened the way for a very advantageous loans to Jefferson Utilities and the District to upgrade the water and sewer systems of Walnut Grove. The Housing Development Fund loan allowed Jefferson Utilities to continue improvement by installing a 500,000 gallon storage tank, a 12”line to the tank site, an additional well, new high service pumps and an electrical upgrade. These improvements allowed service to be extended to Briar Run, Breckenridge and Cambridge subdivisions which are expected to add 850 customers to the Walnut Grove system, These extensions were done as Alternate Extension Agreements.
After acquiring Walnut Grove, Jefferson Utilities began to plan to acquire other systems and plans for interconnection of these system. In 1998 Jefferson Utilities worked with a developer to construct the Meadow Brook water system. The system was started to serve 46 lots in the Meadow Brook water system, In subsequent years the Meadow Brook system has grown to serve 54 lots in Meadow Brook, 185 lots in Gap View Subdivision, 24 lots in Breckenridge North, 12,lots in Amber Meadows and is currently being extended to serve the Sheridan Subdivision.
In 1999, Jefferson Utilities initiated a plan to extend transmission mains which would provide for a sufficient distribution system capacity. for the demands of the long range tremendous growth.which is expected in Jefferson County over the next several decades. This effect resulted in a map of proposed transmission mains to connect existing systems and extend adequate service to growing areas and new subdivisions.
In 1998 Jefferson Utilities was asked to become involved with the three mountain water systems of Harpers Ferry Campsites, Keyes Ferry Acres and Westridge Hills. These systems were all very troubled and all operating under moratoria on new connections. The Keyes Ferry system had been operated by the Jefferson County PSD under a receivership for approximately 10 years. The PSD had developed a plan for a large water system called the Blue Ridge Project which was envisioned to serve approximately 800 customers on the mountain. Jefferson Utilities did not believe that the project was likely to be built. Jefferson Utilities negotiated agreements to purcliase all three mountain systems in 1998 and 1999. Thc purchases were approved by the Page 3 , Water Service
PSC after Jefferson Utilities agreed to buy water from the PSD’s Blue Ridge Project if it were constructed. The Blue Ridge Project never came to be. As a provision of the settlement of the mountain cases, Jefferson Utilities agreed to purchase the two small systems at Glen Haven and Cavaland owned by the Public Service District. The purchase price was set at $150,000 which , was the sum that the PSD owed Pentree for the Blue Ridge Project plans. Jefferson Utilities hopes to close on the purchase of these systems in 2006. The two systems serve a total of approximately 1.20 residential customers.
The Mountain Systems have proven to be Jefferson Utilities greatest challenge. Initially, there were many upgrades to make. The existing facilities were largely unchanged for the 3 0 years since Lee Snyder had worked with them as a sanitarian. The Keyes Ferry system’s five operating well systems had not been chlorinated for years. Under the PSD’s management boil water notices were sent out each month with the bills.
Jefferson Utilities started by installing chlorinators on each well and added aquamag feeders to sequester the iron and manganese in the water to mitigate the discoloration problem from the chlorine oxidizing these dissolved metals. Next, Jefferson added chlorine contact tanks to provide the required contact time for disinfection. Subsequent improvements included electrical equipment, pressure tanks, well pumps, booster pumps, controls, additional storage, adding valves, lowering lines and installing meter setters to provide shut off valves. In 2002 Jefferson Utilities pursued a rate increase for the mountain systems. The case became very contentious. Customers who had been accustomed to both inadequately low rates and undependable service fought a rate increase. The PSC staffrefused to recognize Jefferson Utilities’ audited cost records, In the end Jefferson Utilities agreed to accept a rate increase which was far less than its cost of service. At 2am on Sunday, July 7,2003, a fie destroyed one of the pump houses in Harpers Ferry Campsites. Lee Snyder, Mike Mercer and Donald Vanhorn of Snyder Environmental workd 7-4 hcm sY2ght XI order to reestablish water service for the 50 customers on that wz!! system by 2 am Monday morning. At that location the Cardinal Trail Water p!&?t has now been constructed. The plant is operational with chlorination, aquamag feed, 30,000 gallons of storage and 500 g.p.m. of pumping capacity.
The most difficult situation confronting Jefferson Utilities with regard to its mountain systems is that during the past 6 years Jefferson Utilities, with credit from Snyder Environmental, has spent more than a million dollars on the mountain systems in excess of the income from these systems. Jefferson Utilities has continued to seek financing of a three plus million dollar upgrade to allow a lifting of the moratoria on new connections to the mountain systems.
It is extremely frustratihg that Jefferson Utilities has continued to lose over $100,000 per year on the three Mountain Systems and when we apply for a rate increase, the PSC dismisses our case. We have proposed a substantial capital capacity fee as a way to obtain funds to allow the distribution system in our Mountain Systems to be replaced with adequitely sized, properly installed pipe, The staff of the PSC has opposed our fee, yet they have not offered my workable alternative to upgrade the Mountain Systcms. Page 4 Water Service
In 1998 Jefferson Utilities filed a case to acquire the BurrBardane water system. Jefferson Utilities sought to purchase the system for several years. Due to Jefferson's interest the Development Authority sought proposals for sale of the BurrBardane system. The Authority by application of an objective bidding evaluation determined Jefferson Utilities to be the successful bidder in competition with the City of Charles Town and the Jefferson County PSD. Jefferson ' Utilities entered into a contract with the Jefferson County Development Authority to acquire the system ahd obtained a Certificate and rates for the BmBardane system. For over 6 years, Jefferson Utilities labored to obtain the approval of the Rural Utility Service of the US. Department of Agriculture to approve the sale of the water system without grant repayment. On May 3 I, 2006, the sale finally closed. Jefferson Utilities now owns the BurrBardane water system and its 500,000 gallon elevator storage tank which provides a substantial resource for Jefferson's growing system.
In 2001 Jefferson Utilities moved to acquire the Shenandoah Junction water system. The system had been built by the Snyder family over the previous 35 years. The system, while not new, was well constructed and not in need of immediate repairs. Jefferson Utilities had planned to construct a 12" line to connect the Shenandoah Junction system to the BurrBardane system, install a new control system and provide 3 phase power to the systems high capacity well. The BSC qproved the acquisition of the system and the interconnection and upgrade project. The Shenandoah Junction and BmBardane systems are now interconnected with coordinated operation of both by Jefferson 'L;;l!ities. The 500,000 gallon tank in the Burr Park now provides domestic storage and fire protection for Shenandoah Junction's 23 0 customers including Jefferson High School and the new Ninth Grade School.
Two years ago Jefferson Utilities entered into an agreement with a developer to build a water system for Deerfield Village Subdivision outside of Shepherdstown to serve a 48 lot development. We had anticipated this system would be expanded to serve additional development. However, subsequent to constructing the system, the opponents to housing growth c on the Jefferson County Commission amended the County's LESA Zoning System so as to remove the credits for providing public water and sewer. The result of this is to prohibit any additional development around Deerfield Village.
Jefferson Utilities is working to extend its transmission mains to provide service to unserved areas, Two years ago Jefferson designed a 16" water line from near its Briar Run tank, extending northward along Route 9 to serve several development projects. These include Potornac Market Place, a large new shopping center, and Locust Knoll, a 200 lot residential subdivision. Future extensions along Route 9 shcirld allow connection of the Walnut Grove, B.urr/Bardane and Shenandoah Junction systems. Also, Jefferson Utilities designed a 16" water line to extend from near Breckenridge to Route 340 and extend eastward along Route 340 to Marlow Road to serve Windmill Crossing Subdivision and extend eastward in the future to connect to the Meadow Brook system at Halltown. Within the last year, Jefferson designed and installed a 16" line to serve Lakeland Place west of the Charles Town bypass, a subdivision Page 5 Water Service
which will likely include over 600 homes and considerable commercial space. Additionally, a 16”main extension was constructed near Harpers Feny to provide service to the new US. Customs Advanced Training Center. Jefferson has worked with the West Virginia Department of Highways to provide casing under the new Route 9 upgrade to accommodate our planned future water extensions planned to cross under the highway.
Jefferson Utilities has been very fortunate to obtain its water from very productive groundwater wells in Jefferson County’s extremely productive limestone aquifer. The fourteen wells in Jefferson’s seven valley water systems have a combined yield of over 4,200 g.p.m. (6 mgd). The 2,000 g.p.m. well at Briar Run provides a great resource. The well was constructed at 12” diameter to be able to install a sufficiently large pump to utilize a substantial portion of its capacity. Additionally, Jefferson is planning to install membrane filtrationbandback up power for its Walnut Grove system. Our preliminary estimate of the cost of these upgrades is $2,000,000. The Walnut Grove water plant will be built with source capacity of 4 mgd. The initial construction is being planned to treat 1 mgd and will be expandable to 4 mgd.
Jefferson Utilities’ water systems have not been financially rewarding. To date Jefferson Utilities, with the credit of Snyder Environmental, has spent $2,000,000 more in maintaining and operating the system than the company’s total income including borrowing. Continued growth is Jefferson Utilities only route to profitably. Jefferson Utilities presently serves 1,900 customers in Jefferson County. Jefferson Utilities will continue to aggressively extend its water systems to serve new customers,
Jefferson Utilities has been adding over 150 customers per year. In order to operate more effectively, Yefferson Utilities has switched to radio read meters and improved its billing by planning to utilize bar codes on water bills, offer automatic debit to automate payment and check scanning for more eEc!’ent payment processing.
The housing growth in Jefferson County is expected to continue. The area around Charles Town and Ranson has proposed Developments that contain over 17,000 additional equivalent dwelling units. Jefferson Utilities must continue to expand its facilities to provide capacity to serve thousands of additional customers. In addition, we must find a practical way to pay for the upgrade of our Mountain Systems in order to accomplish a lifting of the moratoria which continues to negatively effect the three Mountain Communities.
We believe that a capacity improvement fees (C.I.F.) are the most reasonable way to provide much of the funding for these projects. The strong housing market has created the situation where the developers are very willing to pay a C.I.F. in new developments. Developers are most concerned about the utility having capacity to serve them. A C.I.F;!offers the only viable way to fund the complete replacement of the distribution system and installation of additional treatment and storage facilities within the three Mountain Communities which wiIl allow for the lifting of the moratoria. The PSC Staff has taken a position of opposing C.I.F.’s for investor owned utilities. Tlis is quite unreasonable and will result in placcmcnt of an unfair financial burden on the current customers of Jefferson Utilities. Page 6 Water Service
The citizens and businesses of Jefferson County deserve to have more widely available and more,adequatepublic water service. Jefferson Utilities has always sought to do things properly with a long range planning perspective in order to supply improved and adequate water service for generations to come. It is too important to the future of Jefferson County to do anything but the best job possible.
JEFFERSON UTIJLITIES, INC. 120 Industrial Boulevard Kearneysville, West Virginia 25430 (304) 725-9140
Upgrade Plan to Lift Moratoria Mountain Water Systems May 1,2004
Jefferson Utilities acquired the three Mountain Water Systems serving the communities of Harpers Ferry Campsites, Keyes Ferry Acres and Westridge Hills in the year 2000. The systems were among the most inadequately designed and constructed systems in the State of West Virginia. Their inadequacies have caused a history of problems and complaints which resulted in the present moratoria on new customer connections in each of the water systems. The moratoria have been in place in Harpers Ferry Campsites for 12 years, Westridge Hills for 19 years, and Keyes Ferry Acres for 21 years. Jefferson Utilities has worked long and hard since 1999 to maintain and improve these systems.
In Jefferson Utilities’ Mountain Systems Rate Case in 2002, Case Number 02-0080, the staff of the PSC would not concur with the establishment of adequate rates to cover Jefferson Utilities’ going level operating expenses. As a result, Jefferson Utilities has continued to accumulate operating losses in these systems which are seen in Jefferson Utilities’ continued inability to pay Snyder Environmental for its work in these systems. During the past year, Snyder Environmental has experienced cash flow problems which would not have occurred if Jefferson Utilities had been granted adequate rates to cover its operating and capital cost in order to pay Snyder Environmental. Jefferson Utilities has incurred expenses in operating and maintaining the Mountain Water Systems which have exceeded the income from these systems by $842,920. This level of loss is quite unacceptable. We can not continue to lose money at anywhere near this rate.
At 2:OO a.m. on Sunday, July 7,2003, a fire destroyed the “New Well” pump house in Harpers Ferry Campsites. We acted quickly to get water service re-established to the 65 customers served fiom this well and were able to get temporary equipment operating in 24 hours. Fortunately, we had prepared a set of plans for an upgrade of the Mountain Systems in January of 2001. The Health Department approved these plans in Permit Number 14,996 issued on September 5, 2001. The temporary water system equipment we had installed was constructed to allow the Cardinal Trail water plant building to be constructed around it. During the year of 2003 we provided, hauled, and placed fill as required to level the water plant site. Also we sandblasted and painted the exterior of the 30,000 gallon water tank which had previously been purchased and installed at the water plant site. We then constructed the forty foot by fifty foot water plant building for the Mountain Water Plant there by securing the temporary equipment fiom vandalism and freezing. During the past year we continued to work toward making the Mountain Water Plant operational. We applied the necessary effort to have Allegheny Power extend three phase power to the water plant and installed a three phase electrical entrance, lighting and receptacle wiring. We purchased and installed the booster pumps, valves and piping in the building, pump controls for the booster pumps and up to 8 wells. We constructed
31991 14 1 sufficient distribution main valves, raw water main and control conduit to connect to the existing distribution system in the streets outside of the water plant. The Mountain Water Plant is now operating with one well source at the water plant.
Also during the past year we worked with Jim Weimer of the PSC staff to upgrade the Westridge Water System. At Westridge we reconfigured the system to increase the pressure on Mountain Top Trail to remedy a low pressure complaint, added additional storage to increase volume to the Hickory Lane tank by 57% and disconnected a leaking concrete reservoir. We also installed dual booster pumps and replaced the pressure tank at Hickory Lane. A telephone line control system was purchased and installed to control the Jeep Trail Well and prevent the overflow of the Hickory Lane Tank. Monitoring meters and seven isolation valves were installed in the distribution system to help pinpoint leaks. Additionally, we installed meters on numerous services to detect leaks on services. Seventy percent of the customers have meters. A telephone alarm dialer was installed on the Hickory Lane Tank to alert us of falling water level. We replaced the Jeep Trail Well pump with a new pump which increased the well output in excess of 100%. Our work also reduced unaccounted for water by 17%.
Over the past four years we have undertaken several initiates to secure funding to upgrade the Mountain Water Systems. We applied for funding from the West Virginia Housing Development Fund in April 2001 to construct much of the upgrade we proposed in our 200 1 plans. This funding possibility was eliminated by the flooding in Southern West Virginia of that year. In July 2001 ,the Housing Development Fund notified us that it redirected its resources to flood relief.
For two years we have been proposing a publidprivate partnership with the Jefferson County Public Service District to construct a complete replacement of the Mountain Water Systems and connect them to our Valley Water System to provide a more adequate and better quality source of supply. Connection to our Valley System remains our long term goal. However, opposition to our proposal by one previous PSD Board Member, who was an opponent to growth in Jefferson County, frustrated our progress with the publidprivate partnership, That individual is no longer on the PSD Board. However, now the Jefferson County PSD is occupied with seeking a solution to the inadequate waste water treatment capacity crisis in Jefferson County. It is now my belief that it is not practical to wait for the proposed publidprivate partnership to solve the problems in the Mountain Water Systems in order to allow the moratoria to be lifted and to stop the drain of cash which continues each month.
Over the previous five years of maintaining the Mountain Water Systems we have become all too aware of the problems that still exist. The three major problems are inadequate well capacity, inadequate pipe size and frequent leaks. We firmly believe that constructing the backbone of the new distribution system with routing of seven wells to the Mountain Water Plant will provide sufficient source capacity and pumping capacity to improve service to the existing customers and to allow service to be provided to new customers in a prudent matter.
Our plan for the work necessary to allow the moratoria to be lifted is as follows:
1. Construct the proposed 12" water main from the Water Plant to the "R" Section and
31991 14 2 Partridge Lane Sections if Harpers Ferry Campsites.
2. Extend the proposed 8" main along Cedar Lane to Partridge Lane.
3. Extend the 12" main to the South section of Keyes Ferry Acres.
4. Extend the proposed 8" main up Cedar Hill Drive to Kelly Drive.
5. Extend the proposed 8" main to tie in A-B- Section of the Harpers Ferry Campsites.
6. Construct the raw water line and electrical control conduit with the distribution water lines to each of seven wells.
' 7. Modify each existing well site to eliminate the need to heat the well house. Well pipe will be tied directly to the raw water line with a check valve and meter.
8. Modify the electrical equipment to provide for control of each well from the Mountain Water Plant.
9. Test and upgrade the Orser well and tie it into the raw water transmission line,
10. Chlorination and aqua mag feed will be provided at the Mountain Water Plant.
11. Provide water meters at each tie-in location to the existing water systems to facilitate leak detection.
A take off of the plan quantities for the work listed above is detailed on the enclosed construction estimate. Budget prices for the work are provided for each item with a 10% contingency.
The cost of the proposed upgrade to the backbone system is $777,538.00. For this work to be undertaken it is absolutely essential that we have a source of 100% financing for the project. The most readily accessible source of funding is a bank loan. However, a bank is not going to be willing to finance this project without a source of revenue to provide the debt service requirement. For this reason, it is essential that the PSC staff support and the Public Service Commission approve rates adequate to allow these upgrades to be constructed and paid for.
The upgrades we propose will eliminate the problem of inadequate well capacity by directing the majority of the well source capacity to the Mountain Water Plant where it will be redistributed in accordance with demand. This way a 10 gallon per minute leak will not cause customers to lose water pressure which has been the problem in the past. While this initial work will only replace a small amount of existing pipe, it will provide the backbone from which additional lines can be replaced there by eliminating the problems of small lines and leaks,
In Jefferson Utilities filing in this case, we requested the approval of a capital improvement capacity charge of $3,000 per new connection. We feel a charge of this nature is
3199114 3 necessary to provide a source of funding for the replacement of the lines on the Mountain System, where there is no developer to pay for an adequate distribution system as would be constructed preseptly under our Standard Alternate Main Line Extension Agreement for new subdivisions on Jefferson’ s system. The developers of these subdivisions and their inadequate water system are no longer around and cannot be forced to pay for anything.
Clearly, the existing customer base can not afford nor should be expected to pay for all of these replacement and upgrade costs. Jefferson Utilities does not have rates on the Mountain Systems that even cover their cost. Borrowing under the existing rate structure is not possible. The irresponsible construction by the developers of the Mountain Subdivisions created the circumstances that have plagued these systems for decades. Today the effect of the moratoria has made the lots in these subdivisions virtually worthless. The owners of these lots have been unable to use or sell their lots for over 20 years. While the proposed charge may seem high, the charge is not high enough to provide for the cost to replace lines as necessary to allow for provision of service to new customers.
In order to objectively deterrnine the cost to replace and extend the existing water distribution system to serve additional customers, we have computed the cost to replace a portion of the water distribution system shown in our 2001 plans, excluding the improvements proposed to be done under our initial backbone upgrade project to allow a lifting of the moratorium, We have detailed the lines we estimated in cost to install and the number of customers we ultimately would expect to add. The lines so estimated are principally in Keyes Ferry Acres where the existing home density is low. Next we determined the estimated number of new customers which will be eventually added to these upgraded lines. In this manner we can determine the estimated cost per new customer to pay for the necessary construction. Our tabulation of these costs is attached.
Our computation of the capital capacity charge is as follows:
To supply new customers, we must construct new mains and new water meter settings for each new customer. The construction cost of this work is $765,350.00.
Dividing the new mains and meters total cost of $765.350.00 by the number of potential new customers of 80 the resulting cost per new customer is $9,566.88 each.
Accordingly, we request that the Capital Capacity Fee be established at $ 9,566.88 per new water service.
We must reiterate that although this is a substantial sum, it represents the actual cost necessary to pay for new mains and meters which are required to allow adequate service to be provided to new customers.
31991 14 4
.
From: Emily McFarland on behalf of Lee Snyder Sent: Tuesday, September 13,201 1 1052 AM To: cc: Michael Mercer; Subject: RE: analytical results for Westridge Hills Wells Attachments: wes tridg edeed. pdf
Mike Maloy:
At first read water results look good to me,
I have been thinking about how we could put Well A into service very quickly,
I believe that the best approach would be to: - Choose an appropriate pump and install it in the well - Power it from a new overhead electric entrance from a pole already located in the Daisy Lane (as per plant) right-of-way - Extend a large line along Daisy Lane from the well to tie into our existing line on JeepTrail(525’) - The line would probably be 16” pipe to provide sufficient chlorine contact time prior to the first customer - Control would be provided from the existing control system located in the Jeep Trail well - The hydro-chlorinator can also be housed in the existing Jeep Trail pump house - A long solution tube can be placed in a conduit from Jeep Trail to the well discharge to avoid the need to have a . building at the site (725’). This would follow the same route as the control wiring.
I can provide a cost estimate for this work. However, if title to the well were to be turned over, JUI would be willing to install this infrastructure at JUl’s cost in order to obtain the benefit of a duplicate source of supply and pumping for its Westridge customers.
I am seeking a legal opinion as to the legal authority that I believe JUI already has, through its deed, to install a line to and use Well A located on the HOA property. A copy of our deed is attached.
I will discuss this approach with the reasonable County Commissioners. 0
From: - Sent: Friday, September 09,2011 2:24 PM To: Lee Snyder Subject: analytical results for Westridge Hills Wells
Lee, Here are the lab results for the two wells. Well A is the larger 6-inch diameter well. Well D is the artesian well that we are trying to restore flow to.
I will be in touch with you soon.
Thanks, Mike
1 Michael L. Maloy, CPG Sr. Geologist, Principal Analytical Services, Inc. 402 N. West Street Culpeper, Virginia 22701 office (540) 829-5640 ext. 1002 cell (540) 272-0573
2 efferson Utilities, 1nc.
September 21,2011
To: Westridge Hills Homeowners
Dear Homeowner:
I am writing to make you aware of the plans of Jefferson Utilities (JUI) to upgrade the Westridge Hills water system by the addition of a second well source to the system.
Since JUI acquired the Westridge System in 2000, we have always had to depend on one well and one booster pump located on Jeep Trail to provide water for the entire system. This fact has resulted in system shutdown when a pump fails.
There is a Homeowners meeting Saturday, September 25, which 1 cannot attend. Part of my purpose in writing is to make each water customer aware of JUl's plans in contrast to what may be suggested by Scott Tatina and John Maxey.
As you may know, the Jefferson County Commission has invested approximately $130,000 in drilling two wells in an attempt to provide additional water for the Westridge Hills, Harpers Ferry Campsites and Keyes Ferry Acres water system. This effort was successful and two wells were completed.
JUI has developed a plan to utilize the well that is located adjacent to a platted street known as Daisy Lane. The well is 500 feet north of our Jeep Trail well. Our plan involves installing a pump in this well, installing a large diameter pipe along Daisy Lane for chlorine contact, installing an electric entrance, electrical control wiring, installing disinfection equipment and trying the well line into the existing distribution system on Jeep Trail. This will provide the benefit of a duplicate source of supply and pumping which will eliminate the reason for most system shutdowns which have occurred over the past eleven years.
We have always tried to improve the water system in the Mountain Communities. The drilling of these wells has provided an opportunity to make substantial improvements to Westridge in an affordable manner. We feel this project can be accomplished over the next nine months if there are no disputes or delays due to a PSC Case which JUI believes is unnecessary.
JUl's deed to the Westridge water system includes water rights and rights to ingress and egress for drilling and removing water from each of the homeowner's parcels where the new wells are located. These rights were reserved by the original developer for just the reason that JUI now proposes to use these wells. That is, to provide water to the system serving Westridge Hills
JUI believes our plan is the most economical and the most expedient way to effectively utilize the resource which has been provided by the County Commission to benefit all the systems' customers.
270 Industrial Boulevard Kearneysville, WV 25430 (304)728-2077 Fax%&I7'?%%7326 Page 2 Westridge Homeowners
I understand that Scott Tatina and John Maxey are seeking to convey the Homeowners Association parcels to the Jefferson County Public Service District (JCPSD) and seek to have the JCPSD design treatment storage and a pumping system to supply water to JUI who, as they suggest, would buy water to supply the Westridge cusiomers. This proposal is unnecessary and complex. JUI believes it can bring the water supply to the customers most effectively and economically. JUI has no interest in the proposal being advocated by Mr. Tatina and Maxey.
JUI will be seeking to work with the County Commission and the Homeowners Association to assure the wells are used most effectively and expeditiously provide the benefit of more dependent water service to all customers.
Thank you,
. Lee Snyder, Presirdent
cc: Jefferson County Commission
Chase Tower, Eighth Floor Writer's Concacc Infomation STEPTOE 6r
JOHNSONPLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW www.sreptoe-johnson.com
August 22,201 1 \
KC4 H;4NI) DELNERY Ms. Sandra Squire, Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street Charleston, West Virginia 25323 . CASE NO. 11-0658-W-PC JEFFERSON UTILITIES, INC. Kearneysville, Jefferson County Petition to lift moratoria on new customer connections.
Dear Ms. Squire: On behalf of Jefferson Utilities, Inc., enclosed please find an original and twelve (12) copies of its Response in Opposition to the Consumer Advocate Division's Petition to Intervene and Motion to be Relieved fiom the Obligation to Respond to Discovery Requests in the above proceeding. I ask that you please file the enclosed pleading and distribute the additional copies to the appropriate parties at the Commission. Additionally, please date stamp the file copy provided and return it with ow messenger. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter, and please contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Todd M. Swanson
TMS:tm Encl. cc (w/enc): . B. Lee Snyder Service List
450600.00061
TERRALEP WestVirginia Ohio Kentucky 0 Pennsylvania hWi*.d.lh&pI-wh
, ...... ,.. . . ,, . -._ ...... , PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
CASE NO. 11-0658-W-PC
JEFFERSON UTILITIES, MC. Kearneysville, Jefferson County Petition to lift moratoria on new customer connections.
JEFFERSON UTILITIES, INC.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONSUhllER ADVOCATE DMSION’S PETITION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED PROM THE OBLIGATION TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REOUESTS
COMES NOW Jefferson Utilities, Inc. (“Jefferson Utilities”), and, pursuant to Rules 9.1 and 9.2 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, respectfully responds in opposition to the Consumer Advocate Division’s (“CAD”) petition to intervene and moves the
Commission to relieve Jefferson Utilities from the obligation to respond to the CAD’s August
16,20 1 1 discovery requests. In support, Jefferson Utilities states as follows:
1. The CAD’S pleading asserts that the instant case is a major proceeding with potential adverse impact on ratepayers. It is neither major nor potentially adverse. Jefferson
Utilities’ Mountain Water Systems serve less than 400 customers’, and all of Jefferson Utilities’ customers comprise approximately 2,100 customers. Adding new customers will relieve the rate burden on existing customers,
2. It is public policy to lift moratoriums on new utility customer service as soon as possible. W. VA. CODER. 0 150-7-4.13.g. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly stated that lifting the moratorium on adding new customers in Jefferson Utilities’ Mountain Systems should
1 Harpers Ferry Campsites has 178 customers, Keyes Feny Acres has 140 customers, and Westridge has 74 customers.
5826577.2 1 be Jefferson Utilities’ highest priority. The CAD’s participation in this case will delay the relief sought.
3. It is improper for a state agency, the CAD, to use taxpayer money to oppose expressed public policy.
4. The CAD has no statutory or regulatory authority to intervene in a case which does not broadly affect residential customers throughout the state.
5. The CAD has not identified any residential customers of Jefferson Utilities who assert that the lifting of the moratoria on new customers Will adversely affect them.
6. To the extent there are Jefferson Utilities’ customers who are not opposed to the lifting of the moratoria, the CAD’sadvocacy on behalf of customers who are opposed conflicts with its duty to advocate for those who are not.
7. The Commission’s Staff has been intimately and directly involved for years with the issues surrounding the moratoria on new customer connections in Jefferson Utilities’
Mountain Water Systems. There is no need for the CAD to become involved in this case.
8. On August 16, 2011, the CAD served its first set of discovery requests on
Jefferson Utilities.
9. Jefferson Utilities requests that the Commission relieve it from.the duty to respond to the discovery requests because of the improper nature of the CAD’s petition to intervene. Relief from the duty to respond should also be granted because Commission StafT has already proposed final recommendations, i,e., the CAD’s discovery is unnecessary because Staff has thoroughly investigated this rnattera2 In sum, there is no legitimate reason for the CAD to be
2 Evidence of Staffs thorough investigation can be found in its August 11, 2011 Final Joint Staff Memorandum.
58265772 2
. .. allowed to engage in discovery when its intervention is not proper and the discovery is unnecessary.
WHEREFORE, Jefferson Utilities, Inc. respectfully opposes the Consumer Advocate
Division’s petition to intervene and requests that it be relieved from the obligation to respond to the Consumer Advocate Division’s August 16,20 11 discovery requests.
Respectfully submitted,
JEFFERSON UTILITIES, INC.
By Counsel Y E. Dandridge McDonald (WVSB No. 2439) Todd M. SWWOA(WVSB No. 10509) STEPTOE& JOHNSON PLLC Chase Tower, Eighth Floor Post Office Box 1588 Charleston, West Virginia 25326-1588 (304) 353-8000
3
.. ., ...... - , ...... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Todd M. Swanson, one of counsel for Jefferson Utilities, Inc., do hereby certify that a copy of Jefferson Utilities, Inc.’s Response in Opposition to the Consumer Advocate Division3s
Petition to Intervene and Motion to be Relieved from the Obligation to Respond to Discovery
Requests has been served upon all parties of record to this proceeding this 22nd day of August,
20 1 1 addressed as follows:
VIA HAND DELIYERY Ronald E. Robertson, Esquire Staff Attorney Public Service Commission of West Virginia Post Office Box 812 Charleston, west Virginia 25323-0812
David A. Sade, Esquire Consumer Advocate Division 700 Union Building 723 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, West Virginia 25301
Todd M. Swanson (WVSB No. 10509)
5826577.2 4 Chase Tower, Eighth Floor Writer’s Contact Infomation I EO. Box 1588 Telephone- (304) 353-8148 Facsimile - (304) 353-8180 Charleston, WV 25326-1588 [email protected] WSB 10509 (304)353-8000 (304)353-8180 F~x No. ATTORNEYS AT LAW www.scepepr&johnson.com
September 2,201 1
K!A HAND DELIYERY Ms. Sandra Squire, Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street Charleston, West Virginia 25323 CASE NO. 11-0658-W-PC mFFERSON UTILITIES, INC. Kearneysville, Jefferson County Petition to lift moratoria on new customer connections.
Dear Ms. Squire: On behalf of Jefferson Utilities, Inc., enclosed please find an original ant3 twelve (12) copies of its Reply to the Consumer Advocate Division’s Response to Final Joint Staff Memorandum in the above proceeding. I ask that you please file the enclosed pleading and distribute the additional copies to the appropriate parties at the Commission. Additionally, please date’ stamp the file copy provided and retum it with our messenger.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter, and please contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely, T+WJ--
Todd M. Swanson
TMS :tm Encl. cc (w/enc): B. Lee Snyder Service List
450600.00061
CHS840014.2
WestVirginia Ohio Kentucky Pennsylvania PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
CASE NO. 11-0658-W-PC
JEFFEXSON UTILITIES, INC. Kearneysville,Jefferson County Petition to lift moratoria on new customer connections.
JEFFERSON UTILITIES, INC.’S REPLY TO THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE DIVISION’S RESPONSE TO FINAL JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUM COMES NOW Jefferson Utilities, Inc. (“Jefferson Utilities”) and, pursuant to Rule 9.3 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, respectfully replies to the Consumer Advocate Division’s Response to Final Joint Staff Memorandum (“CAD Response”). In
support, Jefferson Utilities states as follows:
1. Staff filed its Final Joint Staff Memorandum in this proceeding on August 11,
201 1 (“Final Memo”). Rule 9.4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure provides ’
that responses to Staff memorandum must be filed within ten (10) days. All responses to the
Find Memo were due August 22, 201 1. The Consumer Advocate Division (“CAD”) filed its
response on August 23, 201 1. The only reason offered by the CAD for the lateness of its filing
was that one of its counsel was “unavailable.” Such is not a legitimate excuse for missing a
filing deadline when considering that counsel was presumably available August 20-22’ and that the CAD has other counsel. Accordingly, Jefferson Utilities respectfully requests that the
untimely CAD Response be stricken and ignored.
- 1 The CAD Response represented that counsel was unavailable August 15-1 9,not August 20-22.
CH5840014.2 1 2. Aside from the lateness of the CAD Response, the pleading evidences a complete lack of understanding of the history of the moratoria on the water systems now part of Jefferson
Utilities’ system and the efforts of the Commission and Jefferson Utilities to remedy the quality of service issues which caused the moratoria. For example:
In a May 1, 2002 Recommended Decision in Case No. 02-0880-W-42T, an administrative law judge stated in Conclusion of Law No. 4 that “[Jefferson Utilities] should be required to develop a written plan to get the moratoria lifted.” The finding was repeated in the fourth ordering paragraph. JeffersonUtilities duly filed the reports and plans.
In Case No. 03-0767-W-PC, the West Virginia Bureau of Public Health
(“BPH”) petitioned the Commission to launch a general investigation of Jefferson Utilities’ efforts to improve service on the Mountain Systems. By order entered August 28, 2003, the
Commission noted many improvements made by Jefferson Utilities in the Mountain Systems.
Ultimately, the Commission denied the petition in an order entered November 15, 2004: “the
Commission agrees with JUI that the better use of its resources is’to work to improve and expand water service, than to defend a general investigation proceeding. . . . The Commission wishes to make clear, though, that efforts must continue on these Mountain Systems, While JUI has done much more than its predecessors, and the Cornmission recognizes JUI’s efforts to date, considerably more remains to be done. The Commission encourages Staff, JUI, and Public Health to continue to work in partnership in Case No. 03-2019-W-PC-T,”
Case No. 03-2019-W-PC-T was Jefferson Utilities’ first effort to obth
Commission approval to lift the moratoria on the Mountain Systems. The case was dismissed on
September 9, 2007 due to an inability to agree on the terms of a gradual lifting of the moratoria and a means to fund necessary improvements.
CHS84W 14.2 2 3. Thus, there have been long standing efforts to work toward a lifting of the
moratoria in a way that preserves the quality of service to existing customers. The CAD is
oblivious of this history and these facts.
4. The CAD Response contains little substance on why Staff’s final recommendations should be rejected. For example, the CAD argues that lifting the moratorium is not in the best interests of Jefferson Utilities’ customers. However, the CAD provides
absolutely no explanation as to why lifting the moratorium is not in the best interests of
customers-the CAD simply makes the assertion without providing an analysis to support it.
Moreover, it is illogical for the CAD to argue that lifting the moratorium is not in the best
interests of Jefferson Utilities’ customers when doing so has the potential to reduce rates.
5. The CAD says, “[tlhe Staff recommendation relies on prospective actions on the part of JUI and the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health.” This is incorrect. Jefferson
Utilities’ request, supported by the Staff‘s Final Memo, only requests a lifling on the moratoria where service is to be supplied from the new lines built with the surcharge. All new facilities have been built in conformity with a BPH Permit. Surely the policy of the Commission to abhor
the perpetuation of a moratoria and the successful work of Jefferson Utilities to seek to lift the moratoria must not be delayed by the unfounded position of the CAD. It is completely indefensible for the CAD to seek to deny connections to new adequate water lines for lots that some owners have owned for over 40 years. The existing moratoria have denied these lots
service for as much as 30 years. While paying real-estate taxes and lot owner fees, these lot
owners have been denied use of their land for those 30 years.
6. The Commission approved the collection and expenditure by Jefferson Utilities of the line replacement surcharge, in the largest part, to replace specific lines in Jefferson Utilities’
I CH584DD14.2 3 Mountain Systems. This is exactly what has been done over the past year. Jefferson Utilities has fulfilled its duty to wisely expend the surcharge revenue so that adequate service can be supplied in the Mountain System. Now the CAD is advocating denying Jefferson Utilities the ability to serve any new customers through these new lines. That is, in a word, unbelievable.
7. The CAD states that, “[tlhe Staff Memo also fails to address the important issue of the impact of any of JUI’s proposed actions and/or the lifting of the moratorium on JUI’s cost .. of service.” It would seem beyond cavil that Jefferson Utilities’ cost of service per customer goes down as additional customers are connected to an existing system. This is so elementary it is not necessary for the Staff to repeat it. In fact, Jefferson Utilities’ Mountain System customer count has decreased over the past 14 years.
8. The CAD says Jefferson Utilities’ request to conditionally lift the moratorium is premature. The successful drilling of new wells in Westridge by the Jefferson County
Commission is not a factor to be considered for delaying conditionally lifting the moratoria.
While these new sources represent possible new sources of supply, they are not being depended upon to allow the conditional lifiing of the moratoria.
9. The CAD contends that the prudent response to Jefferson Utilities’ petition would be to wait until the proposed line extensions are actually complekd and the issues associated with new wells are resolved before lifting the moratorium. This suggestion is unbelievable.
Each segment of line is completed between valves, and then the segment is tested and disinfected. It is absolutely reprehensible that the CAD would seek to deny service to lots along those newly completed segments of line. Following the CAD’S position would result in a continued denial of senke until every foot of pipe in the Mountain System is replaced.
Jefferson Utilities has installed five new fire hydrants on completed new lines. Based on the
CH5840014.2 4 CAD’s unreasonable position, perhaps the CAD would suggest that the hydrants cannot be used until the whole Mountain System is replaced.
10. The CAD also suggests that the Staff has failed to analyze the utilization of the surcharge. Jefferson Utilities has complied with the Commission’s reporting requirements and has nothing to hide. The CAD’s argument is a red herring, and has nothing to do with the question of whether the new lines can supply adequate service to new customers.
11. The CAD further criticizes Jefferson Utilities’ services it has obtained from
Snyder Environmental Services, Inc. (“SES”) and Lee Snyder’s operation of Jefferson Utilities as a stand-alone. At this writing, Jefferson Utilities has now operated as a stand-alone for over three months, with uninterrupted quality utility service being supplied to its customers.
12. The CAD further criticizes Jefferson Utilities for not estimating how many new customers Jefferson Utilities may gain, There is no reasonable way to make such a projection with any expected accuracy, This depends on the home building economy which is now painfully depressed. Furthermore, such an estimate would be of no benefit.
13. Jefferson Utilities is replacing the iines with the surcharge and is seeking a well deserved conditional lifting of the moratoria. After the moratoria is lifted, Jefferson Utilities will supply adequate and continually improving utility service to any new customer who requests that service. The CAD apparently further fails to understand that Jefferson Utilities is operating as a stand-alone utility. Jefferson Utilities’ employees, with Jefferson Utilities owned equipment, are continuing to lay pipe with revenue fiom the surcharge. 14. The CAD’sargument that lifting the moratorium is premature is further misplaced when considering the experience of Jefferson Utilities’ President Lee Snyder in coordinating the efforts required to have a. previous moratorium lifted. Prior to Jefferson Utilities’ acquisition of
CH5840014.2 5 the Walnut Grove system in 1997, the system had operated under a moratorium since 1983.
Once Mr. Snyder became involved in operating the Walnut Grove system its problems were quickly addressed and the moratorium was subsequently lifted. Walnut Grove-Securip Hills
Citizens Ass’n, Inc,, Case No. 97-0445-W-PW (Rec. Dec. July 3, 1997, Final Order July 19,
1997). Thus, lifting the moratorium is not premature as Jefferson Utilities is managed by a
President who understands what is required to have a moratorium lifted.
15. The CAD also suggests that a competitive bidding requirement should be imposed on Jefferson Utilities for all plant additions that cannot be constructed with Jefferson Utilities personnel. Again, this is not a proper issue for this case. However, such a requirement is unnecessary because, BS the CAD knows, Jefferson Utilities no longer relies on SES for services. Thus, the CAD’Sconcern has already been addressed.
WKEREFORE, Jefferson Utilities, Inc. respectfully requests that the Commission strike and disregard the Consumer Advocate Division’s Response to Final Joint Staff Memorandum because it was filed out of time and because Jefferson Utilities has adequately rebutted each argument raised by the-Consumer Advocate Division.
Respectfully submitted,
JEFFERSON UTILITIES, INC.
By Counsel 7 E. Dandridge McDonald (WVSB NO. 2439) Todd M. Swanson (WVSBNo, 10509) STEPTOE& JOHNSONPLLC Chase Tower, Eighth Floor Post Office Box 1588 Charleston, West Virginia 25326-1 588 (304) 353-8000
CH584U014.2 6 I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Todd M. Swanson, one of counsel for Jefferson Utilities, Inc., do hereby certify that a
copy of Jefferson Utilities, Inc.’s Reply to the Consumer Advocate Division’s Response to Final
Joint Staff Memorandum has been served upon all parties of record to this proceeding this 2nd
day of September, 201 1 addressed as follows:
VLA mND DELIVERY Ronald E, Robertson, Esquire Staff Attorney Public Service Commission of West Virginia Post OfficeBox 812 Charleston, West Virginia 25323-0812
David A. Sade, Esquire Consumer Advocate Division 700 Union Building 723 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, West Virginia 2530 1
Todd M.Swanson (WVSB No. 10509)
CH5840014.2 7
SURCHARGE ANALYSIS Updated: 10/17/2011 GL Account No. 10134 BB&T Account 5478 Date Action Inv, Number Vendor Amount Feb. 2010 Deposits for Service $ 12,134.43 Interest Income - Expenditures - Mar. 2010 Deposits for Service & Penalty 33,034.86 Interest Income - Expenditures - Apt-. 2010 Deposits for Service & Penalty 23,628.53 Interest Income - Expenditures May 2010 Deposits for Service & Penalty 26,985.35 Interest Income Expenditures Jun. 2010 Deposits for Service & Penalty 27,676.88 Interest Income Expenditures - Jul. 2010 Deposits for Service & Penalty 27,154.72 Interest Income Expenditures Aug. 2010 Deposits for Service & Penalty 25,867.95 Interest Income - Expenditures - Sep. 2010 Deposits for Service & Penalty 29,162.09 Interest Income Expenditures - Oct. 2010 Deposits for Service & Penalty 28,106.20 Interest Income 37.61 Expenditures - Nov. 2010 Deposits for Service & Penalty 31,163.93 Interest Income 60.85 Expenditures 1616707 Midatlantic Waterworks (68,838.70) Dec. 2010 Deposits for Service & Penalty 27,199.78 Interest Income 54.84 Expenditures 30663 lnwood Quarry (1,080.61) 861091802 Capita ITristate (864.70) 861091803 Capital Tristate (1,037.14) 861091804 Capital Tristate (518.57) 2297946 HD Supply Waterworks (7,296.12) 2306514 HD Supply Waterworks (2 1,020.88) 688 B&K Grove Enterprises (220.00) 2343422 HD Supply Waterworks (13,826.70) J001547 Snyder Environmental Services (13,796.18) Jan. 2011 Deposits for Service & Penalty 27,669.72 Interest Income 46.75 Expenditures 689 B&K Grove Enterprises (330.00) 690 B&K Grove Enterprises (350.00) . .. i
2387324 HD Supply Waterworks (888.00) 2360736 HD Supply Waterworks (70.89) 2396586 HD Supply Waterworks (2,400.06) 2409743 HD Supply Waterworks (6,031.86) 692 B&K Grove Enterprises (540.00) 2420333 HD Supply Waterworks (471.16) 1616727 Midatlantic Waterworks (110.00) 693 B&K Grove Enterprises (1,055.00) Corbins Corbin's Tree Service (900.00) 2429350 HD Supply Waterworks (147.45) 308504 VE Mauch Plumbing (31.74) Feb. 2011 Deposits for Service & Penalty 26,649.62 Interest Income 53.40 Expenditures 128 Appalachian Surveys PLLC (2,800.00) 695 B&K Grove Enterprises (280.00) irm Plan Farm Plan (23.55) 2458075 HD Supply Waterworks (141.62) 2461657 HD Supply Waterworks (1,335.39) 309174 VE Mauch Plumbing (13.40) 90553 Cecils Building Supply (1,414.50) 702 B&K Grove Enterprises (140.00) 2492098 HD Supply Waterworks (195.04) 704 B&K Grove Enterprises (360.00) Mar 2011 Deposits for Service & Penalty 31,333.11 Interest Income 64.53 Expenditures 706 B&K Grove Enterprises (3 30.00) 2556391 HD Supply Waterworks (442.50) 2567309 HD Supply Waterworks (278.54) J001673 Snyder Environmental Services (19,701.75) 707 B&K Grove Enterprises (660.00) ClTl Citi Cards (126.00) 31123 lnwood Quarry (1,245.18) 2573280 HD Supply Waterworks (136.68) 2574538 HD Supply Waterworks (390.33) 2579996 HD Supply Waterworks (597.60) 2597776 HD Supply Waterworks (110.80) 1624522 Midatlantic Waterworks (2,534.97) Whitrner's Whitrner's Welding Service (289.08) 708 B&K Grove Enterprises (770.00) 710 B&K Grove Enterprises (490.00) 2593343 HD Supply Waterworks (203.70) 2609861 HD Supply Waterworks (697.84) 2609874 HD Supply Waterworks (171.82) 31182 lnwood Quarry (1,497.45) 2615170 HD Supply Waterworks (858.27) 2641387 HD Supply WateFworks (407.71) 2641767 HD Supply Waterworks (377.18) 2645539 HD Supply Waterworks (489.12) 711 B&K Grove Enterprises (780.00) so09515812 Capital Tristate (272.72) 2647784 HD Supply Waterworks (59.70) 2657859 HD Supply Waterworks (641.82) 2661019 HD Supply Waterworks (855.59) 2663733 HD Supply Waterworks (3,311.60) 2663747 HD Supply Waterworks (3,361.20) 312193 VE Mauch Plumbing (51.02) J001768 Snyder Environmental Services (100,175.24) Apr. 2011 Deposits for Service & Penalty 26,756.71 Interest Income 22.47 Expenditures 712 B&K Grove Enterprises (550.00) 713 B&K Grove Enterprises (800.00) 9515812 Capital Tristate (529.27) Farm Plan Farm Plan (361.34) 31253 lnwood Quarry (2,278.79) 2678593 HD Supply Waterworks (945.25) 2680230 HD Supply Waterworks (51.48) 2681739 HD Supply Waterworks (766.73) 2688559 HD Supply Waterworks (278.52) 2701775 HD Supply Waterworks (7,561.27) 1628568 Midatlantic Waterworks (11.62) a37563 Potomac Portable Restrooms (84.80) 312623 VE Mauch Plumbing (201.04) wvmar99137 Fastenal Company (14.84) 2704044 HD Supply Waterworks (429.36) 2704584 HD Supply waterworks (18.80) 2704595 HD Supply Waterworks (764.00) 2704992 HD Supply Waterworks (589.79) 2708886 HD Supply Waterworks (60.72) 2716996 HD Supply Waterworks (179.44) 2719482 HD Supply Waterworks (150.22) 2720490 HD Supply Waterworks (345.49) 2726330 HD Supply Waterworks (1,549.98) 2732890 HD Supply Waterworks (409.24) 312856 VE Mauch Plumbing (136.90) 715 B&K Grove Enterprises (750.00) 718 B&K Grove Enterprises (660.00) so09684466 Capital Tristate (110.41) HD Supply Waterworks-voided Home Depot Home Depot (139.48) 2750144 HD Supply Waterworks (5,490.00) 2758654 HD Supply Waterworks (20.64) 31331 lnwood Quarry (8,653.97) J001798 Snyder Environmental Services (25,000.00)
365564 USA Blue Book (544.85) ' May 2011 Deposits for Service & Penalty 27,938.88 Interest Income 15.04 Expenditures 719 B&K Grove Enterprises (660.00) 3rm Plan Farm Plan (121.86) 31411 lnwood Quarry (2,648.27) 2791399 HD Supply Waterworks (361.18) 2795675 HD Supply Waterworks (207.07) 2807509 HD Supply Waterworks (927.17) 1630711 Midatlantic Waterworks (142.20) a37785 Potornac Portable Restrooms (84.80) 164723 Asphalt Unlimited MTC Inc (4,167.70) 720 B&K Grove Enterprises (660.00) 9517777950 Grainger (23.57) 2836550 HD Supply Waterworks (766.66) 2854158 HD Supply Waterworks (3,277.34) 2855058 HD Supply Waterworks (34.06) 314563 VE Mauch Plumbing (27.95) 722 B&K Grove Enterprises (440.00) 723 B&K Grove Enterprises (610.00) 31496 lnwood Quarry (196.25) 2866942 HD Supply Waterworks (376.45) 2867385 HD Supply Waterworks (116.62) 2887883 HD Supply Waterworks (137.43) 1632763 Midatlantic Waterworks (133.26) Home Depot Home Depot (78.32) 725 B&K Grove Enterprises (280.00) 726 B&K Grove Enterprises (660.00) 2872678 HD Supply Waterworks (240.00) 2932239 HD Supply Waterworks (84.88) 2937924 HD Supply Waterworks (927.17) 2937990 HD Supply Waterworks (744.63) 29497423 HD Supply Waterworks (53.60) a37996 Potomac Portable Restrooms (84.80) Jun. 2011 Deposits for Se rice & Pe alty 28,524.15 Interest income 0.72 Expendit ures Farm Plan Farm Plan (177.14) 2959393 HD Supply Waterworks (225.12) 2968337 HD Supply Waterworks (97.34) 2973297 HD Supply Waterworks (27.70) 316005 VE Mauch Plumbing (9.00) 728 B&K Grove Enterprises (670.00) Home Depot Home Depot (58.40) 316476 VE Mauch Plumbing (23.52) 727 B&K Grove Enterprises (790.00) 730 B&K Grove Enterprises (110.00) 2986387 HD Supply Waterworks (1,277.05) 3007412 HD Supply Waterworks (272.30) 3007778 HD Supply Waterworks (735.00) 3011109 HD Supply Waterworks (339.2 0) 3023680 HD Supply Waterworks (23.09) J001798 Snyder Environmental Services (33,948.25) 560 B&K Grove Enterprises (560.00) 317190 VE Mauch Plumbing (83.04) ,
July. 2011 Deposits for Service & Penalty 26,785.13 Interest lncom e (14.13) Expenditures 738 B&K Grove Enterprises (210.00) 2590884 HD Supply Waterworks (28.03) 3010749 HD Supply Waterworks (34.57) 3073059 HD Supply Waterworks (26.30) 3109426 HD Supply Waterworks (90.84) a35412 Potomac Portable Restrooms (84.80) 739 B&K Grove Enterprises (220.00) John Deere Joh Deere Financial (84.78) a951777795 Grainger (392.90) a38642 Potomac Portable Restrooms (84.80) Aug. 2011 Deposits for Service & Penalty 27,594.00 Interest Income Expenditures a38844 Potomac Portable Restrooms (84.80) JOO1901 Snyder Environmental Services (39,921.52) 3400021 HD Supply Waterworks (1,320.00) Home Depot Home Depot (36.88) 761 B&K Grove Enterprises (120.00) 762 B&K Grove Enterprises (240.00) 765 B&K Grove Enterprises (340.00) ~010850182Capital Tristate (60.61) 3475557 HD Supply Waterworks (1,320.00) 3485343 HD Supply Waterworks (30.00) 3552909 HD Supply Waterworks (245.60) 321748 VE Mauch Plumbing (8.97) 321923 VE Mauch Plumbing (100.03) Bank Fees (13.07) Sept. 2011 Deposits for Service & Penalty 27,444.00 Interest Income Expenditures JOO1995 Snyder EnvironmentalServices (29,925.75) J002047 Snyder Environmental Services (7,172.25) 3538322 HD Supply Waterworks (466.71) 3542495 HD Supply Waterworks (1,700.00) 3562920 HD Supply Waterworks (170.62)
3570845 HD Supply Waterworks ' (1,457.45) 3576145 HD Supply Waterworks (625.42) 32249 lnwood Quarry (822.12) J182 3rd Time Trucking (861.25) Oct. 2011 Deposits for Service & Penalty Interest Income Expenditures 8/24/11SS John Deere Financial (184.75) 32396 lnwood Quarry (432.75) 3620275 HD Supply Waterworks (23 8.77) 3652631 HD Supply Waterworks (2,917.62) JUI-SC-001 Jefferson Utilities Inc (36,869.10) 776 B&K Grove Enterprises (410.00) 10/3/2011 3rd Time Trucking (845.00) 66483 John Deere Financial (1,577.58) 32479 lnwood Quarry (462.09) 8/24-9/23 Citi Cards (70.63)
Balance In Account: $ 861.46
JEFFERSON UTILITIES, MC. Work Plan for Second Phase of Line Replacement and Meter Installation 8-17-1 1 From Revenues of the JUI Line Replacement Surcharge
,Mountain Svstemi Lime Reolacements
During the first phase of line replacement we extended the existing 8" water line and added new 12", 8", 6" and 2" water lines .from the Cardinal Trail Water Plant in Harpers Ferry Campsites where we presently have a 30,000 gallon plant storage and a capacity to pump 500 gallons per minute. The goal was to extend this capacity to serve the sub-systemsthat depend on low capacity smgle wells. These are Keyes Ferry Acres (KFA) South, KFA South Backup, Harpers Ferry Campsites (HPC) R Section and HFC Partridge Lane Section, This has provided a tremendous mcrease in capacity to each of the existing sub-systems. This work was performed in accordance with OUT approved Health Department plan. We also instaIled 4" raw water lines to direct raw source water fiom three existhg wells back to the water plant at Cardinal Trail. Our continuing work this year under Phase I is expected to tie m the R-Section well and the Partridge Lane Section We will also be installing elechical control conduit from the water plant to each distinct well to allow those wells to be controlled from the water plant.
In the work ye propose as Phase II, we will be continuing to extend an adequately sized (8") water main through Keyes Feny Acres and through a substantial portion of Westridge Hills to reach the existing Jeep Trail water treatment ikcility.
As under Phase I, this line extension will continue to deliver the pumping capacity of the company's cardinal Trail water plant to each of the separate well systems in the Mountain Communities. The raw water lines we lay direct raw water back to the Cardinal Trail lkility m order to assure ample source capacity to serve the existing customers and new customers we hope to serve if the moratoria are conditionally lifted The extension of lines which we propose in Phase II of line replacement with the surcharge revenues will connect &yes Ferry Acres' Control well, Keyes Ferry North well, Keyes Feny North Backup well and Westridge Hills Jeep Trail well.
The extension to Jeep Trail has the benefit of allowing the recourse of better quality water with low iron and manganese to be supplied to the whole system serving the three communities. Additionally, the Jefbson County Commission has paid for the driuing of two wells near the Jeep Trail Well These wells have a combined field in excess of 100 gallons per minute or over 140,000 gallons per day. This is more water than is presently consumed in all of the Mountain Community Systems, The Phase Il work Win make it possible to direct this new un-used water source capacity to all customers in the Mountain Communities. L&d below are the emt segments of hewhich we intend to replace With the funding from the line replacement surcharge.
Work to be in accordance with plans for Mountain Communities Water Project by Pentree, Inc. dated September 2,2009; WV Department of Health Permit # 18631.
COntrRCt 2 PIan Sheet # Location Description Units
25 CedarHillDrive 8" C909 water line 360 ft 4" C909 raw line 360 ft 3" electrical conduit 720 R
2 CedarHillDrive 8" C909 water line 370 fi 4" C909 raw line 370 ft 3" electrical conduit 740 ft 8" gtevalves 3 ea 2" gate valves 2 ea Fire hydrant assembly 1 ea
21 CedarHillDrive 8" C909 water line 480 ft 4" C909 raw line 480 ft 3" electrical conduit 960 ft 8It gate valves 3 ea grltee lea
21 ' EasementCedarHill 8ItC9O9 water line 460 ft to walnut Hill 4" C909 raw line 460 ft 3" electrical conduit 920 ft
21 Walnut HiIl Drive 8" C909 water line 600 ft 4" C909 raw line 600 ft 3" electrical conduit 1,200 ft 8'l tee 1 ea 81r x 6" tee 1 ea 8'l x 6" reducer lea Fire hydrant assembly 1 ea 8ll gate valves 4ea 6" gate valves 2 ea 8Ir 90" bend 1 ea Contract 2 Pian Sheet # Location Description Units
16 Walnut Hill Drive & 8" C909 water line 160 ft Burkett 4" C909 raw line 160 ft 3" electrical conduit 320 ft 8" tee 1 ea 8" x 6" reducer 1 ea 6" tee 1 ea 6" C909 water line 120 ft 8" gate valves 2 ea 6" gate valves 4 ea Fire hydrant assembly 1 ea
16 Renie Drive 6" C909 water line 300 ft 4" C909 raw line 300 ft 3" electrical conduit 600 ft
21 Burkett Road 8" C909 water line 900 ft 4" C909 raw line 900 ft - 3" electrical conduit 1,800 ft 8" x 6" tees 2 ea 8" gate valves 4ea 6" gate vales 2 ea 2" gate valve 1 ea
22 Burkett and Lake View 8" C909 water line 1,330 ft 4" C909 raw water line 1,330 ft, 3" electrical conduit 2,660ft , 8'l x 6" tee 1 ea 8" tee lea 8" gate valves 5ea 6" gate valve 1 ea Fire hydrant assemblies 2 ea
22 Easement and Muskrat Run 8'' C909 water line 400 ft 8" tee lea 8" x 6" reducer 1 ea 8'' gate valves 2 ea 6" gate &e 1 ea Contract 2 Plan Sheet # Location Description Units
17 Lakeview Drive and 8" C909 water line 420 ft Short Road 4" C909 raw water line 370 ft 3" electrical conduit 740 ft 8" tee 1 ea 8" gate valves 2ea Fire hydrant assembly 1 ea
27 Muskrat Run Drive 8" e909 water line 950 fc Fire hydrant assembly 1 ea
32 Muskrat Run & Spring 8" e909 water line 1,850 ft Park Trail 81190" bend 1 ea 8" 22 w bends 4 ea 8" tee 1 ea 8'' gate valves 6 ea 8" x 6" reducer 1 ea 6" gate valves 2 ea 8Il45" bends 3 ea
37 Spring Park and Blue Jay 8" e909 water line 1,040 ft 8'' 900 cross 1 ea 8" x 6" reducers 2 ea 8'' 90° bend 1 ea 8'' 45" bend 1 ea 8" gate valves 7 ea 6" gate valves 2 ea 2" gate valve 1 ea Fire hydrant assembly 1 ea
37 Easement and Red Maple 8" C909 water line 1,060 ft 6" e909 raw line 120 ft 8" x 6" tee 1 ea 8" gate Wes 2 ea 6" gate valve la 6" pressure reducmg assembly 1 ea valve in vault Contract 2 Plan Sheet # Location Description Units
44 Red Maple and Jeep Trail 8” C909 water line 350 ft 8” x 6” tees 2 ea 8” gate valves 4ea 6” gate valves 2 ea
Meter Installations
The company proposes to continue installing metering equipment for individual customers as it has been for several years. The choice of what meters will be installed is based on the opportunities fir efficient installation that arise as a result of repairing service line valves, repairing leaks on service lines, installing meters as a result of a need to shut off service and installing meters to discourage wasting water. The company will also respond to requests fbr meters from existing customers as is possible based upon the revenue &om the surcharge to be applied to new meter instaIlations. However, the Writer cannot ever recall a water customer asking for a meter when they did not have one. Nevertheless, we intend to install a mbbmof 30 meters per year on existing un-metered services. The company is not and will not be using the surcharge to pay for the purchase of the water meters.