January 2, Case No W-C Wilmon Boyd Culley I1 On Behalf of Wilmon and Thelma Culley V. City of Weirton

Transcription

1 201 Brooks Street, P.O. Box 812 Charleston, West Virginia Fax: (304) ~ Electronic Service Only M. Eric Frankovitch, Esq. Counsel, Wilmon Boyd Culley 11 Frankovitch, Anetakis, Simon, Decapio & Pearl, LLP 337 Penco Road Weirton, WV Daniel J. Guida, Esq. Counsel, City of Weirton (iuida Law Offices 3374 Main Street Weirton, WV January 2,20 19 RE: Case No W-C Wilmon Boyd Culley I1 On Behalf of Wilmon and Thelma Culley V. City of Weirton Gentlemen: Pursuant to Rule 4.3.c of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure the Staff memorandum issued today was served via on the above-listed parties. If you wish to respond to the Staff memorandum, you may do so in writing, within 10 days, unless directed otherwise, of this date. You will not receive a copy of the Staff Memorandum by regular mail. Your failure to respond in writing to the utility's answer, Staffs recommendations, or other documents may result in a decision in your case based on your original filing and the other documents in the case Irile, without further hearing or notice. Please note - the Public Service Commission does not accept electronic filings. Therefore, if you wish to respond to the Staff Memorandum you must do so in writing submitted to the Executive Secretary's Office at the above address. Sincerely, 1 Fis hc. Memo Ingrid Ferrell, Director Executive Secretary Division

2 FINAL JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: INGRID FERRELL Executive Secretary LUCAS R. HEAD Staff Attorney DATE: JANUARY 2,2019 RE: CASE NO W-C WILMON BOYD CULLEY I1 ON BEHALF OF WILMON AND THELMA CULLEY V. CITY OF WEIRTON Legal Staff recommends that the relief requested be denied, and that this matter be dismissed. Furthermore, Legal Staff strongly suggests that the Complainant urge his tenant to apply for a leak adjustment with the City of Weirton. On October 2, 2018, Wilmon Boyd Culley, I1 filed, on behalf of Wilmon and Thelma Culley (Complainant), a verified Formal Complaint against the City of Weirton (Weirton) with the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (Commission). The Complainant included a detailed narrative regarding the water service history to the property in question that he believes has always been served by Weirton. The narrative implied that the property does not currently have water service, but never explicitly stated why there was no water service. There was mention of a bridge replacement that occurred sometime between 2003 and 2008, and that the water line was replaced at the same time. But, the Complainant also requested to know why the property was not included when the new water lines and sewer lines were installed. The Complainant noted his concerns with the apparent lack of freeze protection on the new water line, and his attempts to effect the repairs himself. The Complainant previously contacted the Oakland Public Service District (Oakland) and learned that he would have to extend a service line to tap into Oakland s main line. A construction company purportedly gave the Complainant an estimate of somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000 for the service line. The Complainant mentioned speaking informally with several individuals around the state and at the Commission during his initial attempts to restore service to the property. The Complainant is currently using a water buffalo to supply water to a rental location on the property, and the tenant is paying for the water. As relief the Complainant requested that domestic water service be restored to the property in question. Staff received Weirton s Answer to this matter on October 17, Weirton requested that this matter be dismissed outright because the Complainant lacks standing since he is not the customer of record at the property in question. Weirton indicated that regardless of the outcome of this matter, service would not be restored to the property until the current Customer of Record (COR) settles her outstanding account balance or enters into a payment arrangement. The current COR is the Complainant s tenant, Angel

3 Case No W-C January 2,2019 Page 2 Stanley. Ms. Angel applied for service at the property in May In February 2018, a meter reading for the account showed a consumption of 352,830 gallons for one month. Weirton informed Ms. Stanley of the presence of a defect and/or the failure of the service lateral, and terminated water service to the property to prevent future water loss. As of the date of Weirton s Answer, Ms. Stanley s water service account with Weirton remained in arrears in the amount of $2, According to Weirton it has maintained a meter location for the property since at least the mid 1980 s. The meter for the property is located in a parking lot across King s Creek, and the property is serviced through a service lateral that is attached to a West Virginia Division of Highway s (WVDOH) bridge. Weirton stated that everything after the meter is a service lateral that is a customer-owned apparatus. Weirton indicated that there have been several breaks to the service lateral over the years, but Weirton and its employees and agents have never installed, maintained, repaired or replaced the service lateral. All of that work has been performed by the customer or the customer s agents. In August 2006, the WVDOH decided to replace the bridge to which the service lateral is attached. The COR at the time requested that Weirton make arrangements to reinstall the service lateral after the bridge was replaced. Weirton explained that it does not install customer service laterals, and that its responsibility stops at the meter location. Allegedly, a state senator then convinced the WVDOH to reinstall the service lateral. Weirton gave a representative of the WVDOH a list of approved materials for the construction of customer owned service laterals. To Weirton s knowledge the service lateral was reinstalled across the bridge by the WVDOH around October In April 2018, the Complainant filed an informal complaint about this issue that was assigned RFA 2018W The informal complaint was investigated by John Mottesheard, Engineering Technician with the Commission s Engineering Division (Engineering Staff). On November 7, 2018, Legal Staff filed an Initial Joint Staff Memorandum and noted that Mr. Mottesheard had been assigned to this matter. Legal Staff further recommended that this matter be referred to the Division of Administrative Law Judges. On December 14, 2018, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to this matter issued a Procedural Order requiring the Complainant to file a legal document that gives him authority to act on behalf of his parents in this matter. On December 26, 201 8, the Complainant filed a Limited Power of Attorney form that gives him the authority to act on behalf of his parents in this matter. Attached is a memorandum prepared by Mr. Mottesheard. In response to this matter he visited the location in question and met with the Complainant. He also spoke with representatives from Weirton and the Oakland Public Service District. Weirton

4 Case No W-C January 2,20 19 Page 3 stands by its position that it does not install or maintain customer service laterals. Weirton maintains that the service line in question is the Complainant s responsibility. Oakland PSD has a main line located on the same side of the creek as the Complainant s property. Oakland PSD is willing to provide service to the Complainant through a Long Service Line in accordance with the Water Rules. Mr. Mottesheard suggested that the Complainant contact Oakland PSD and inquire about service. Mi. Mottesheard sympathizes with the Complainant s situation, but recommended that this matter be dismissed because the service line in question clearly involves a Long Service Line and he cannot recommend the relief requested by the Complainant. Legal Staff has reviewed the material submitted and agrees that the Complainant s predicament is unfortunate. A combination of unusual circumstances makes the water service situation at issue unique. The location is served by a water meter that is located on the opposite side of a creek. The meter is connected to the location in question by a water line that is affixed to a bridge that crosses the creek. Pursuant to the Commission s Rules for the Government of Water Utilities (Water Rules), the Complainant s service line is considered a Long Service Line. Long Service Lines are used in unusual and exceptional cases where the property line of a customer is an excessive distance from the existing main of a utility, there is no reasonable prospect of further growth in the area, and the cost to extend the utility s main is prohibitive. With a Long Service Line a utility is responsible for everything up to the water meter, and the customer is responsible for everything after the meter. Customers who desire service through a Long Service Line are required to show the utility that they have obtained the proper easements and right-of-ways to install the line. This means that the entire service line running from the meter, across the bridge, and to the location in question, as well as all easements and right-of-ways necessary for the service line, are the Complainant s responsibility. Allegedly, when the bridge was replaced by the WVDOH in 2006, the previous owner of the Complainant s Long Service Line avoided the hardship and expense of replacing the line by getting a state senator to convince the WVDOH to replace the line when the bridge was replaced. That is an uncommon occurrence that adds to the complicated nature of this matter, but is nonetheless beyond the Commission s jurisdiction. Had the state senator not been able to convince the WVDOH to reinstall the service line when the bridge was replaced, then the previous owner would have been required to obtain the necessary permits and permissions to reinstall the line, and would have been responsible financially for the labor and materials necessary for the installation. That is in essence the situation the Complainant is in currently now that the Long Service Line has been ruptured and needs to be repaired or replaced. It is likely that when water service to the location in question was first established, the City of Weirton was the only option for a public water service provider. Currently, there is another option available to the Complainant besides Weirton. The Oakland PSD is willing to provide service to the location in question. Both Weirton and Oakland are willing to provide water service to the location in question, but a Long

5 Case No W-C January 2,20 19 Page 4 Service Line is still the only option from either provider due to the distance of their mainlines from the Complainant s property. If the Complainant wishes to have service provided by Weirton, then he will have to take the steps necessary to repair or replace the existing Long Service Line on the bridge. If he wishes to have service provided by Oakland PSD, then he will have to take the steps necessary to establish a new Long Service Line to connect to Oakland s existing mainline on the other side of the creek. Legal Staff understands the Complainant s frustrations with the costs and hardships associated with either alternative. Unfortunately those costs and hardships are symptomatic of the rural nature and rugged topography of West Virginia. As it stands there are two (2) public water utilities willing to provide water service to the Complainant. Staff cannot recommend the relief requested by the Complainant because the water line in question is a Long Service Line that is the customer s responsibility to maintain. Legal Staff recommends that the relief requested be denied, and that this matter be dismissed. As an aside Legal Staff notes that Weirton s stated position that service will not be restored at the location in question until the current customer of record settles her outstanding account balance, may be in violation of the Commission s Rules for the Government of Electric Utilities (Electric Rules). Electric Rule 4.8.4, commonly referred to as the Household Rule prevents utilities from denying new service to an applicant when there has been a change in household at the location in question. Similarly, W.Va. Code $ a states in part That an owner of real property may not be held liable for the delinquent rates and charges for services or facilities of a tenant, nor shall any lien attach to real property for the reason of delinquent rates or charges for services or facilities of a tenant of such real property... If the complainant in this matter were to effectuate the repairs necessary to the Long Service Line and subsequently apply for service with Weirton, then Weirton could not deny the Complainant service based on the outstanding balance of the former tenant. Furthermore, given the nature and size of the leak which led to service being disconnected to the location in question and the large water bill for the Complainant s tenant, Legal Staff strongly suggests that the Complainant urge his tenant to apply for a leak adjustment with Weirton. A leak adjustment could significantly reduce the amount currently outstanding on the tenant s account. LRH/cs Attachment CWS p 5 H:\LHea CasesD01 8 Cases\l W-C, Culley v. City of WeirtonWinal Memo.doc

6 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA INITIAL AND FINAL INTERNAL MEMORANDUM DATE: October 25, TO: FROM Lucas Head, Staff Attorney Legal Division hn Mottesheard, Engineering Technician ngineering Division SUBJECT: Case No W-C Wilmon Boyd Culley I1 on Behalf of Wilmon and Thelma Culley V. City Of Weii-ton Initial and Final Memo On October 2, 2018, Wilmon Boyd Culley I1 On behalf of Wilinon and Thelma Culley (Complainants) residents of Hancock County, filed a formal complaint against the City of Weirton requesting the restoration of domestic water service to the address of 2935 Kings Creek Road. The City of Weirton filed its answer to the formal complaint stating that the question as to whether or not the complainant has standing to file a formal complaint due to he is not the customer of record. Also the fact that the customer of record, Angel Stanley, is currently in arrears in the amount of $2, Service will not be restored until this balance is paid regardless of the outcome of this formal complaint. Weirton also included the history of this particular customer service line and the fact that over the years the utility has never installed, maintained, repaired and/or replaced the service lateral. Staff has been to the site and met with Mr. Cully and also had discussions with Mr. Stoneking with the City of Weirton as to their position about the issue. In addition, Staff also met with Oakland PSD who is willing to provide service per the Rules of the Public Service Commission.

7 Case No W-C Page No. 2 This particular situation involves a portion of the customer service line having been attached to a two-lane bridge approximately 78-feet in length which carries traffic over Kings Creek and is considered a public highway under the jurisdiction of the WV Division of Highways. In approximately 2006 or 2007 the bridge was replaced. It appears that DOH workers reattached the customer service line using specifications provided by Weirton. In February of this year it was determined a leak had developed somewhere on the bridge and at that time Mr. Cully learned of issues involved in having it repaired and he then approached the City of Weirton who then informed him that by definition the line did not belong to the utility. Based on the site visit and information obtained, it is Staffs position that this service line clearly falls under the definition of a Long Service Line as stated in the Rules for the Government of Water Utilities: 5.4. Long service lines. 5.4.a. To assure the orderly development of its system, and to provide adequate service to its customers, the utility should ordinarily provide water service only at the property line of the customer requesting service, and in those instances where the utility s service does not extend to the customer s property line, an extension should be made by the utility in accordance with Rule 5.5. of these rules. In unusual and exceptional cases wlzere the property line of the customer requesting service is an excessive distance from tlie existing main of the utility, and the cost to be borne by the prospective customer under Rule 5.5. is prohibitive, and there is no reasonable prospect of further growth and development in tlze area, or for any one of tlze above reasons, the utility may serve the customer by installing a meter in the utility s right-of-way at its main nearest tlze customer s property, and connecting tlze meter to the customer s privately owned service line. The customer shall extend his customer service line to an existing distribution main of the utility and shall be solely responsible for service beyond the meter. 5.4.b. If a road crossing is necessary to serve the customer, the utility shall install that portion of the line crossing under the road and shall locate the meter on the customer s side of the road; provided that the utility s distribution main lies within or adjacent to the existing road right-of-way. Tlze custonzer sliall be required to provide evidence to the utility that proper easements or rights-of-way have been obtained. Standards of service received by tlze customer shall be determined at tlze metering point. The customer slzall not permit others to connect to the customer s water lines or receive water service from the custonzer sprivately owned service line. In the event the utility s main is later extended to the customer s property line under Rule 5.5., the customer shall discontinue the use of his privately owned service line and shall pay all costs and charges authorized by the rules of the Commission and the rules and tariffs of the utility for water service from such extension, the same as if the customer had not previously laid and received service through a private service line. The provisions of this rule shall apply to all persons now or hereafter receiving water service through a privately owned service line extending from the utility s main to the property to be served.

8 Case No W-C Page No. 3 While Staff is sympathetic to the property owner, Staff recornniends this formal complaint be dismissed. There are no issues apparent which would prevent this case from being referred to the Division of Administrative Law Judges for disposition. JMvt