li

201 Brooks Street, P.O. BOX 812 Charleston, West Virginia 25323

Phone: (304) 340-0300 Fax: (304) 340-0325

March 26,2015

Karl (Andy) Weekley PO Box 154 Friendly, WV 26146

RE: CaseNo. 14-1978-W-C City of New Martinsville

Karl (Andy) Weekley V.

Dear Mr. Weekley:

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 orders 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.

Executive Secretary Division IF/tg Enc. Memo

FINAL JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUM

TO: INGRID FERRELL Executive Secretary

DATE: March 26,2015

FROM: JOHN AUVILLE Staff Attorney

RE: CASE NO. 14-1978-W-C CITY OF NEW MARTINSVILLE

KARL WEEKLEY V.

On December 12, 2014, the City of New Martinsville (Complainant) filed a verified formal complaint against Karl (Andy) Weekley, the Owner of Apartments located at 45 Paduach Drive, New Martinsville, WV, concerning the initiation and termination of water service to each apartment unit.

According to the Complainant, Mr. Weekley owns an apartment building, housing fourteen (14) individual units, located at 45 Paduach Drive. The Complainant has no current method to turn water service on or off to each individual apartment unit when customers (tenants) are not paying for water service. Also noted by the Complainant was that some of the apartments share water service between units. The Complainant and Mr. Weekley’s maintenance personnel (George Hallowell) agreed to install fourteen (14) curb stops, one for each unit, in order to provide a method for the Complainant to initiate and terminate water service to each tenant respectively. While the Complainant purchased the curb stops and provided them to Mr. Hallowell to be installed, none have been installed to date. The Complainant is losing money by tenants not paying for water service, and requested the remedy of billing the apartment owner (Mr. Weekley) for the total water usage of all 14 apartment units, since the problem has not been corrected and there i s no other way for the Complainant to turn water service on or off to each unit. Attached to the Complaint were copies of work orders-noting problems with initiation of water service to individual units; two (2) termination of water service notices for the entire complex, sent to Mr. Weekley via certified mail, but unclaimed; and a list of each apartment unit with the rental status of each one, as put together by Mr. Hallowell and the Complainant’s maintenance staff.

On December 29,20 14, Mr. Weekley filed a response to the complaint stating that he and his building maintenance personnel provided a list of tenants and rental status for each apartment unit located at 45 Paducah Drive. According to Mr. Weekley, the Complainant (City) gained access to all water valves approximately five ( 5 ) years ago upon completion of a water line project. The only time Mr. Weekley’s maintenance

Case No. 14-1978-W-C March 26,2015 Page 2

personnel turned the water on or off were when they were asked to by the Complainant. Some of the water valves have settled with the ground, and the Complainant purchased new valves and requested Mr. Weekley to install the valves. After consulting with the Public Service Commission, Mr. Weekley was advised that if the Complainant has gained access to the water valves following the completion of the project, then they have adopted the lines as their own, which would mean the Complainant is responsible for the maintenance on the lines. Since that time, the Complainant has shut off water to the entire apartment complex twice, leaving all customers without water, even though some had paid their bills. Mr. Weekley believes the Complainant should operate and maintain the water line, and therefore, should be responsible for installing new valves in order to be able to shut off or turn on water to each individual apartment unit.

The Engineering Division submitted its final recommendations through the attached memorandum from Lisa Bailey, Technical Analyst. Ms. Bailey has completed her investigation, including conducting a field visit. The City has approximately 2700 customers and very few meters. None of the City’s residential customers have meters and only a few commercial customers have meters. The City has approximately 7 apartment complexes, towers, etc. All of them except the complex at issue in this case are issued one bill for a flat rate each month. However, when this complex was built approximately 5 years ago, the City requested Mr. Weekley put in individual shut off values for each unit. The City has been billing each individual customer as opposed to just rendering one bill for the entire complex. The City has access to the individual values and has been operating them since their installation. Some of the valves are not working and the City wants Mr. Weekley to install new valves. Mr. Weekely does not believe they are his responsibility.

Ms. Bailey notes the set up for this complex is different than the other complexes in the City. She believes the requirement to install individual shut off valves and the issuance of individual bills leads to the conclusion that the point of service for the City is located at the individual shut off valves. The City is responsible for all equipment up to the point of service. It appears the installation of these individual shut off values and all related appurtenances was an unauthorized alternate mainline extension. Ms. Bailey concludes the City is responsible for the mainline and all related facilities up the point of the shut off valves and should replace the valves that are no longer operational. She also recommends the City and Mr. Weekley enter into an alternate mainline extension agreement to codify the ownership and responsibility for the lines. She also recommends the City review the Commission’s Water Rules to avoid confusion in the future. Lastly, she recommends the City consider installing water meters on their system. The City currently has 3 1% water loss and the installation of water meters could drastically reduce that amount which would in turn save the City and its customers a significant amount of money.

Case No. 14-1978-W-C March 26, 201 5 Page 3

Legal Staff has reviewed the above mentioned memorandum and agrees with the contents therein. Legal Staff would remind the City that all alternate mainline extension agreements, including the Staff recommended agreement between the City and Mr. Weekley in this case, are subject to Commission review and approval.

J u g Attachment

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA FINAL INTERNAL MEMORANDUM

DATE:

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

March 26,201 5

John Auville, Staff Attorney Legal Division

Lisa Bailey, Technical Analyst Engineering Division

Case No. 14-1978-W-C City of New Martinsville

Karl (Andy) Weekley Final Memo

On December 12,2014, the City of New Martinsville (Complainant)

ZRO

V.

filed a verified formal complaint against Karl (Andy) Weekley, the Owner of Apartments located at 45 Paducah Drive, New Martinsville, WV, concerning the initiation and termination of water service to each apartment unit.

According to the Complainant, Mr. Weekley owns an apartment building, housing fourteen (14) individual units, located at 45 Paducah Drive. The Complainant has no current method to turn water service on or off to each individual apartment unit when customers (tenants) are not paying for water service. Also noted by the Complainant was that some of the apartments share water service between units. The Complainant and Mr. Weekley's maintenance personnel (George Hallowell) agreed to install fourteen (14) curb stops, one for each unit, in order to provide a method for the Complainant to initiate and terminate water service to each tenant respectively. While the Complainant purchased the curb stops and provided them to Mr. Hallowell to be installed, none have been installed to date. The Complainant is losing money by tenants not paying for water service, and requested the remedy of billing the apartment owner (Mr. Weekley) for the total water usage of all 14 apartment units, since the problem has not been corrected and there is no other way for the Complainant to turn water service on or off to each unit. Attached to the Complaint were copies of work orders-noting problems with initiation of water service to individual units; two ( 2 ) termination of water service notices for the entire complex, sent to Mr. Weekley via certified mail, but unclaimed; and a list of each apartment unit with the rental status of each one, as put together by Mr. Hallowell and the Complainant's maintenance staff.

John Auville, Staff Attorney March 26,2015 Page 2

Case No. 14-1978-W-C Final Memo

On December 29,2014, Mr. Weekley filed a response to the complaint stating that he and his building maintenance personnel provided a list of tenants and rental status for each apartment unit located at 45 Paducah Drive. According the Mr. Weekley, the Complainant (City) gained access to all water valves approximately five (5) years ago upon completion of a water line project. The only time Mr. Weekley’s maintenance personnel has turned the water on or off was when requested to by the Complainant. Some of the water valves have settled with the ground, and the Complainant purchased new valves and requested Mr. Weekley to install the valves. After consulting with the Public Service Commission, Mr. Weekley was advised that if the Complainant has gained access to the water valves following the completion of the project, then they have adopted the lines as their own, which would mean the Complainant is responsible for the maintenance on the lines. Since that time, the Complainant has shut off water to the entire apartment complex twice, leaving all customers without water, even though some had paid their bills. Mr. Weekley believes the Complainant should operate and maintain the water line, and therefore, should be responsible for installing new valves in order to be able to shut off or turn on water to each individual apartment unit.

Staff requested additional infonnation of both the Complainant and Mr. Weekley, and both provided the information in a timely manner. The information provided included: Maps of the water main lines, showing point of connection, for the property located at 45 Paducah Drive; confirmation that the City has no water meters (except for a few businesses), and no ordinance addressing multiple occupancy units and the need for separate water meters or shut off valves; confirmation that the City does not have a master meter but has a master shut off water valve for the apartment complex, and that corp stops are provided on some of the units; that each one of Mr. Weekley’s apartment units are billed separately to an individual tenant who becomes the customer of record; that the Complainant believes they are responsible for maintenance only to the main water shut off valve, and not to the individual apartment units; and a current list of apartment rental status with total amounts collected from each unit. Mr. Weekley provided the requested property deed.

On March 16,2015, Engineering Staffmet with both the Complainant and Mr. Weekley to visit the site of the apartment complex and to review the layout of the water lines and shut off valves. The City of New

John Auville, Staff Attorney March 26,2015 Page 3

Case No. 14-1978-W-C Final Memo

Martinsville has approximately 2700 customers, of which none of the residential customers are metered, but rather billed at a flat rate, in accordance with the approved Tariff on file with the Commission, issued on October 28, 2014. There are a few business customers that have metered water service and are billed in accordance with the approved Tariff. In the City, there are approximately seven (7) apartment complexes, towers, and/or villas-multiple occupancy units, that are billed each month (one bill) at the flat rate, according to the number of units occupied (which the complex owner provides to the City for billing each month), and paid by the complex owner. Mr. Weekley owns at least one other apartment complex that he pays the bill under these guidelines. When Mr. Weekley constructed the new apartments located at 45 Paducah Drive (approximately 5 years ago), the City told him that they did not want water meters installed, but that there needed to be a way to shut off water to each individual apartment unit. Mr. Weekley and the City’s billing clerk agreed to bill each individual customer (tenant) separately for water service, and the City was given access to the individual water valves for each unit, and has been responsible for the operation of these valves since that time. Some of the valves do not seem to be operating properly, and the City is requesting Mr. Weekley to replace the corp stop valves with curb stop valves, provided by the City. Mr. Weekley does not believe it is his responsibility to maintain the valves (replace them) since he turned them over to the City upon completion of the project.

The City’s history seems to show that when apartment complexes, towers, and/or villas, have requested water service in the past, the owner of these units became the customer of record, and received one (1) water bill for all occupied units, billed at a flat rate, according to the City’s Tariff. The City owns and operates one water valve that shuts water off or turns water on to the entire complex. The complex owner operates and maintains all other water lines and valves from the City’s main shut off valve to the complex. In the case of an unpaid bill, resulting in water termination, all occupants of the complex suffer.

The current case is different from these of the past. While the City provided a main line water extension to the property of the complex, and installed a main water shut off valve, the City required Mr. Weekley to install individual water shut off valves to each apartment unit, the City bills each customer (tenant) separately, and the City operates the shut off valves for cases of water termination and/or to turn water on to a specific unit. The City has been operating these valves since the project was completed, approximately 5 years ago. The fact that the City does not require water meters to be installed, but has required shut off valves to be

John Auville, Staff Attorney March 26,20 15 Page 4

Case No. 14-1978-W-C Final Memo

installed, combined with the fact that the City is currently billing each customer (tenant) separately for water service and operating the shut off valves, would lead Staff to conclude the point of service for the City is located at the shut off valves for each unit. The Commission’s Rules for the Government of Water Utilities, specifically, § 150 CSR 1.7.k., defines “Point of Service” - “Means the utility’s pipe and appurtenances which connect any utility service pipe with the inlet connection of a customer’s service pipe at the customer’s property line, or elsewhere on the customer’s property if provided for in a user’s agreement. The utility shall own and maintain all facilities located between the point of service and the main. Secondly, since the complex is actually three ( 3 ) separate apartment units, and the owner of the complex extended the main water line to accommodate all 3 units, including the installation of individual shut off valves and a blow off valve at the end of the line, Staff would categorize this installation as an alternate main line extension, per the Commission’s Water Rules, 9 150-7-5, which means the City is responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the water line, and all shut off valves. Neither the City nor Mr. Weekley could recall any documentation, by either party, or the existence of any previous signed agreements; therefore, Staff concludes the parties did not properly follow the Commission’s Water Rules.

Considering all the above, Staff summarizes the following key findings of the case:

A. If the City did not want to operate and maintain the individual water shut off valves for each unit, they should have followed their previous guidelines for water service to complexes, towers, and/or villas, and required Mr. Weekley to sign up for service as the customer of record for the entire unit, billing him for water service by unit occupancy, per the approved Tariff rates. The City’s point of service under this scenario would have been at the main water shut off valve.

B. Since the City chose to require Mr. Weekley to install individual water shut off valves to each unit, bills each customer (tenant) separately, and has been operating the shut off valves for the past 5 years, the City has adopted this water line as its own and is therefore responsible for the maintenance of the line and valves. If the City wishes to replace the corp stop valves with curb stop valves, the City is responsible for the replacement. If the City has an occasion to

John Auville, Staff Attorney March 26,201 5 Page 5

Case No. 14-1978-W-C Final Memo

turn water off to a unit and the valve improperly shuts off water to more than one unit, Mr. Weekley is responsible for maintenance of the water line from the shut off valves to the individual units.

Staff makes the following recommendations for the case:

1. The City is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the alternate main line water extension (both lines and valves), from the City’s main to the blow off valve at the last apartment unit. (See attached drawing).

2. Mr. Weekley is responsible for all maintenance from the point of service to the individual apartment units.

3. The City enter into an alternate main line extension agreement, with Mr. Weekley, to document the conditions of the service and ownership of the line.

4. To avoid any future conflict for extensions of water service, the City should follow the Commission’s Water Rules, specifically, Rule 5 150-7-5, Utility Facilities; Service Pipes; Extension of System.

5 . The City consider installing water meters in their system, to properly measure and account for water usage to all customers. With a water loss of almost 3 1 %, metered usage can result in significant cost savings for the City’s customers.

LAB

i-E M