1111111111 1111111
Côntrol Nurnber: 46247
Item Number: 82
Addendum StartPage: 0
r-
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-17-0067.WS
PUC DOCKET NO. 46247
APPLICATION OF DOUBLE
DIAMOND PROPERTIES
CONSTRUCTION CO. DBA ROCK
CREEK FOR WATER RATE/TARIFF
CHANGE
hM 10: 1 6
BEFORE THE STataiii2E
PFLLIC UTILITY CCA.IMISSION
FILING CLERK
OF
§ ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
ROCK CREEK HOMEOWNERS RESPONSE TO DOUBLE DIAMOND
PROPERTIES CONSTRUCTION CO. D/B/A ROCK CREEK'S FIRST SET OF
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
COMES NOW, Rock Creek Homeowners ("RCH”) and files its Response to
Double Diamond Properties Construction Co. D/B/A Rock Creek's ("Double Diamond')
First Set of Requests for Information — RFI No. 1.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
`112-J-7
Trey Nesloney
State Bar No. 24058017
BOOTH, AHRENS &
WERKENTHIN, P.C.
th
206 E 9 Street, Suite 1501
Austin, TX 78701-3503
(512) 472-3263 Telephone
(512) 473-2609 Facsimile
ATTORNEY FOR ROCK CREEK
HOMEOWNERS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I herby certify that I have served or will serve a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document via hand delivery, facsimile, electronic mail, overnight mail, U.S.
mail and/or Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to all parties on this the 22nd day of
November, 2016.
RCH's Response to Double Diamond's First Set of Requests for Information
1
DOUBLE DIAMOND'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
RFI No. 1
RFI No. 1:
(a)
Please provide the information or materials described in Texas Rule of
Civil Procedure 194.2(a), (b), (c), (e), (0, and (i), as follows:
The correct names of the parties to the lawsuit;
Response: The Rock Creek Homeowners ("RCH") and Double Diamond
Properties Construction Co. D/B/A Rock Creek ("Double Diamond").
The individual residents that make up RCH were listed in RCH's
Motion to Intervene in this case.
(b)
Response:
(c)
The name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;
None at this time.
The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding
party's claims or defenses;
Response: According to Grayson County CAD data, Double Diamond owned 422
properties in the county for the 2016 tax year — a large portion of
these are unimproved home sites in the Rock Creek
subdivision. Generally speaking, a developer cannot subdivide into
home sites unless they have proven they have utilities to serve those
home sites. This indicates that the subdivision anticipates future
growth and has installed facilities to meet the needs of that future
growth. If the infrastructure installed was sized to meet the needs of
the future growth, a portion of the facilities is likely not "used and
usefur to the existing customers.
As can be seen on page 6 of the application, the utility added 46
connections during the test year — which ended December 31, 2015
(more than doubling in total customers). However, for the purposes
of developing future rates, Double Diamond has not indicated any
future growth. It appears that the utility could reasonably anticipate
future growth.
Double Diamond has a very high water loss of 30% for a younger
system. This indicates that Double Diamond may be using potable
water for resort facilities including the restaurant, golf course, club
house, etc. but excluding the water used by these facilities in the
consumption data. If this is the case, it inflates rates and asks
ratepayers to pay higher rates so that free water can be provided for
resort facilities.
RCH's Response to Double Diamond's First Set of Requests for Information
2
As this is a developer-owned utility, it is possible that the developer
paid for the facilities and not the utility. As such, return on
investment for developer-contributed facilities would not be allowed.
Double Diamond has not claimed or indicated developer contributions
in the application (Page 27).
RCH may have other legal theories or claims once it is able to view the
majority of Double Diamond's application that was filed as
confidential but is just now being made public and/or accessible to
RCH.
(e)
Response:
The name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of
relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person's connection
with the case;
Trey Nesloney
Fred B. Werkenthin, Jr.
Michael J. Booth
Booth, Ahrens & Werkenthin, P.C.
206 E. 9th Street, Suite 1501
Austin, TX 78701-3503
(512) 472-3263 Telephone
Attorneys for RCH
Nelisa Heddin
P.O. Box 341855
Lakeway, TX 78734
(512) 589-1028 Telephone
Rate consultant/expert for RCH in this case
Roger Unger
220 Palisades Dr.
Gordonville, TX 76245
(817) 538-2903 Telephone
Resident of the Rock Creek subdivision and main client contact for
RCH
Other residents of the Rock Creek subdivision that are in RCH:
John Addleman
Eddie J. Barber
James Bateman
Brad Bischof
Timothy Bridges
Robert (Bob) Burris
Stanley E. Dains
Dirk A. Dent
RCH's Response to Double Diamond's First Set of Requests for Information
3
Ronald H. Hoffman
John F. Horvath, Jr.
Linwood J. Killam
David Kline
Larry LaGrone
Mike Lewis
Terry McComas
Steven M. Curran
James P. Saunders
Jay Smith
Kris & Thomas T. Stevens
Thomas M. Sumpter
Richard C. Vickerman
Marcus & Yvonna Jo Walker
Robert C. Wood
David & Gloria Wooten
The addresses and phone numbers of these residents are stated in
their individual ratepayer protests that have already been posted on
the PUC website.
(f)
For any testifying expert:
(1)
Response:
Nelisa Heddin
P.O. Box 341855
Lakeway, TX 78734
(512) 589-1028 Telephone
(2)
Response:
the subject matter on which the expert will testify;
RCH's expert will testify as to the deficiencies in Double Diamond's
application, used and useful assets, known and measurable changes,
developer contribution of assets, and possibly other topics once RCH
is able to view Double Diamond's entire application.
(3)
Response:
the expert's name, address, and telephone number;
the general substance of the expert's mental impressions and
opinions and a brief summary of the basis for them, or if the expert
is not retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control
of the responding party, documents reflecting such information;
RCH's expert's opinions have not yet been fully formed due, in part,
to only having reviewed a small part of Double Diamond's application.
(4)
if the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to
the control of the responding party:
RCH's Response to Double Diamond's First Set of Requests for Information
4
(A)
Response:
None exist at this time
(B)
Response:
(i)
Response:
All documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data
compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or
prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert's
testimony;
the expert's current resume and bibliography;
Please see Attachment 1.
Any witness statements described in Rule 192.3(h).
None at this time
RCH's Response to Double Diamond's First Set of Requests for Information
5