201 Brooks Street, P.O. Box 812 Charleston. West Virginia 25323 Phone: (304) 340-0300 Fax: (304) 3400325 March 23,2015 Moreland s Trailer Park Moreland Associates, LLC PO Box 457 Cedaredge, CO 81413 RE: Case No. 14-1943-WS-C Rita Vogus V. Moreland s Trailer Park, aka R.V. Horizons LadiedGentlemen: Pursuant to Rule 4.3.c of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, we are enclosing a copy of the Staff memorandum in this matter. Any responses must be submitted to the Executive Secretary s Office in writing within 10 days of this date, unless directed otherwise. All other parties of record have provided an email address. 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 file, without further hearing or notice. If you have not done so, you are encouraged to file the Electronic Mail Agreement, previously mailed to you, which allows the Commission to serve all issued in this matter via electronic docket notification. When you provide an email address, you will automatically receive docket notifications as documents are filed in this proceeding. The email notifications allow recipients to view a document within an hour from the time the filing is processed. If you have not provided your email address, please send an email to caseinfo@psc.state.wv.us and state the case number in the email subject field. Please note - the Public Service Commission does not accept electronic filings. IF/tg Enc. Memo Sincerely, - Ingrid Fdrrell, Director Executive Secretary Division
FINAL JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: INGRID FERRELL Executive Secretary DATE: MARCH 23,2015 RE: CASE NO. 14-1943-WS-C RJTA VOGUS V. MORELAND'S TRAILER PARK AKA R.V. HORIZONS On December 1, 2014, Rita Vogus filed a formal, verified Complaint against Moreland's Trailer Park aka R.V. Horizons (Moreland's Trailer Park). This Complaint alleges that Moreland's Trailer Park has installed water meters at each trailer and is billing each lot based on the amount of water used according to meter readings. Ms. Vogus requests that she be billed by the utility that is providing water service. Moreland Associates filed an Answer on January 12, 201.5. This Answer states that Moreland Associates maintains water meters on each trailer in the trailer park. Moreland Associates states that it does not charge more than it is billed. Moreland Associates bases its rates on those charged by the Frankfort Public Service District. Moreland Associates filed a request pursuant to Rule 5.5. of the Rules for the Government of Water Utilities (W. Va. C.S.R. $150-7-5.5.) for a mainline extension with Frankfort PSD. A related case was filed by Betty Lee Utz against Moreland Associates, LLC on November 14, 2014. Case No. 14-19OO-WS-C, Betty Lee Utz v. Moreland Associates, - LLC. Kristopher Huff, Technical Analyst with the Commission's Utilities Division, sets forth his final findings and recommendations in the attached Memorandum. MI. Huff notes the request for a mainline extension filed by Moreland Associates. He notes that the relief requested by Ms. Vogus is to receive service and be billed by Frankfort PSD. h4r. Huff thus recommends this case be dismissed. Bob Cadle, Utilities Analyst with the Commission's Utilities Division, sets forth his final findings and recommendations in the attached Memorandum. Mr. Cadle attempted to speak with Ms. Vogus but was unable. Mr. Cadle left a message for Ms. Vogus explaining the application for a mainline extension filed by Moreland Associates.
Case No. 14-1943-WS-C March 23,2015 Page 2 Mr. Cadle has reviewed the billing history of the mobile home park residents and found that Moreland Associates is using Frankfort PSD s current tariff in calculating the residents of the mobile home park water and sewer bills. Mr. Cadle recommends this case be dismissed because Moreland Associates is billing correctly and because Moreland Associates has applied for a mainline extension. Legal Staff agrees with Mr. Huffs and Mr. Cadle s recommendations that this case be dismissed. Any Party having an objection to this recommendation should file such objections in writing within ten days. In the event no Party files a response, an order should be entered consistent with this recommendation. JDL/cs Attachment cws Cd<>-+W H:\JLittle\-CASES\14-1943-WS-C (V0GUS)Winal JSM.docx
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA FINAL STAFF MEMORANDUM DATE: March 20,20 15 FROM: RE: Bob Cadle, Utilities Analys Utilities Division Case No. 14-1943-WS-C Rita Vogus V. Moreland s Trailer Park, aka R.V. Horizons F5s ~ E G bib ~ L 01. ic PM MF 23 2015 On December 1, 2014, Rita Vogus (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Moreland s Trailer Park, aka R.V. Horizons (Company). The service address is RR4 Box 185DD Ridgeley WV 26753. The Complainants stated This trailerpark rents out trailers and lots only. They are not a utility company. But they have installed private water and sewer meters and are charging us as ifthey are a utility company. The Complainants remedy sought is FI am going to be charged at utility rates I want to hooked up to and billed directly thru the PSD. This will ensure accurate and fair rates & proper late fees ifneeded. On December 2, 2014, Staff filed a data request for information from the Company in addition to their response. On January 12,2015 the Company filed its answer to Staffs request. The Frankfort Public Service District (District) provides both water and sewer service to the mobile home park via a master water meter which the Company is the customer of record. Based upon the information filed by the Company, they use the District s tariff for the billing of the trailer park residents. On March 1 1,20 15, Financial Staff and Engineering Staff contacted the Company concerning the remedy sought by the Complainant. The discussion focused on a main-line extension, which Engineering Staffs area of expertise and is not handled through complaint styled cases.
Case 14-1943-WS-C March 20,20 15 Page 2 Financial Staff sampled all residents billing histories (including the Complainant s) and found that the Company was using the District s tariff in calculating the water and sewer bills to the residents. On March 11,2015, Financial Staff and Engineering Staff contacted the Company concerning the remedy sought by the Complainant. The discussion focused on a main-line extension, which Engineering Staffs area of expertise and is not handled through complaint styled cases. In summary, Financial Staff cannot recommend granting the remedy sought IfI am going to be charged at utility rates I want to hooked up to a utility eo so meters work...,> Financial Staff notes that a solution to the Complainant s remedy sought may be possible after the conversation on March 11,2015 with the Company. However, Financial Staff defers to Engineering on this matter. Engineering Staff stated: Stafftherefore contacted Frankfort Public Service District (District), the water and sewer provider for the Defendant. Staff discovered that the District had made plans and estimates for extending service to the trailer court in a certificate project, but those plans had been excluded due to a lack of funding. Staff then spoke with Dave Vanscoy, an Engineer who was advising the District. Mr. Vanscoy informed Staff that he had advised the District to not take over the Defendant s water and sewer lines, because he felt that they were in poor condition and needed to be replaced ifthe District were to serve the trailer court. Staff therefore advised the Defendant to seek a mainline extension, under Water Rule 5.5 in order to receive an estimate for the cost of providing service to the Complainants. The Defendant has stated that they are willing to pay for an extension, as long as the cost is reasonable. On March 13, 2015 the Commission received a copy of Moreland s request to the District for a mainline estimate. Staff is aware that the District is preparing a written cost estimate for a mainline extension into the park and has 45 days in which to provide the estimate to the Defendant.
Case 14-1943-WS-C March 20,201 5 Page 3 Financial Staff noted that on March 13,2015, the CompanyiDefendant requested a mainline extension from the District in an effort to satisfy the remedy sought by the Complainant. Financial Staff was unable to contact the Complainant, however was able to leave her a message concerning the Company s efforts to secure a mainline extension into the trailer park. There are no other financial issues noted in this case or remedies sought, Financial Staff recommends that this case be dismissed.
DATE: March 20,2015 WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FINAL MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: John Little, Legal Division Kristopher Huff, Technical Analyst (.H. Engineering Division V. Moreland Associates On November 15,2014 Rita Vogus (Complainant) filed a Formal Complaint against Moreland Associates (Defendant) in the form of a petition protesting the authority of a trailer court to charge them for water and sewer service. This case is closely related to case No. 14-1666-PSD-C filed by Betty Lee Utz, since it shares the same defendant and the same issues as the earlier case. Both the Complainant and Mrs. Utz make note of their skepticism of the water meters installed by the Defendant to record their water usage. Additionally, Mrs. Utz and the Complainant are neighbors along with the petitioners in the Complainant s case. On January 12,2015 Staff received the Defendant s to Case No. 14-1666-PSD-C which stated that they were acting within West Virginia Law to recoup costs by charging the people renting their lots for water and sewer. The Defendant stated that they were not billing to make a profit, and were charging the same rates that the local Public Service District would charge, if the residents of the trailer court were billed directly. The Defendant did not answer the Complaint in this case, perhaps because of the similarities between the two cases; they felt they satisfied their obligations. On January 14,2015 Technical Staffvisited the trailer court and met with Mrs. Utz to further investigate the case. Staff was unable to meet with Complainant in this case due to her work schedule and instead provided Mrs. Utz with information to give to the Complainant. Staff observed that the residents of the trailer court were provided water through a line owned by the Defendant, and sewer service by lines also owned by the Defendant. The Defendant was charged for the water usage as one commercial customer, by a master meter. Staff also observed evidence that the lines within the trailer court were in need of maintenance, due to the presence of a sewer backup in one of the Complainant s neighbor s yard.
Vogus v. Moreland Associates Case No. 14-1943-WS-C March 20,2015 Page j 2 After visiting the trailer court, Staff opined that the best course of action for all parties was for Frankfort Public Service District (District) to serve the residents of the trailer court directly. The Complainant s issue would be resolved, by being billed by a certificated public utility for water and sewer service, rather than a company that primarily rents out lots for trailers. The Defendant would benefit by no longer having to worry about maintaining the water and sewer lines within the trailer court, or deal with billing for extra services. Finally, the District would benefit by gaining several residential customers rather than one commercial customer and the ability to terminate individual service. Staff therefore contacted Frankfort Public Service District (District), the water and sewer provider for the Defendant. Staff discovered that the District had made plans and estimates for extending service to the trailer court in a certificate project, but those plans had been excluded due to a lack of funding. Staff then spoke with Dave Vanscoy, an Engineer who was advising the District. Mr. Vanscoy informed Staff that he had advised the District to not take over the Defendant s water and sewer lines, because he felt that they were in poor condition and needed to be replaced if the District were to serve the trailer court. Staff therefore advised the Defendant to seek a mainline extension, under Water and Sewer Rule Rule 5.5 in order to receive an estimate for the cost of providing service to the Complainants. The Defendant has stated that they are willing to pay for an extension, as long as the cost is reasonable. On March 13,2015 the Commission received a copy of Moreland s request to the District for a mainline estimate. Staff is aware that the District is preparing a written cost estimate for a mainline extension into the park and has 45 days in which to provide the estimate to the Defendant. Therefore, since the District is pursuing the Staff recommended solution to this case, which also is satisfactory to the Complainants, Staff recommends that this case be dismissed. If there is an issue that the Complainant has in the future regarding this situation, the case can be reopened. K.H.