OCR Text |
Show Angry Summit Park residents vow to fight water rate hike by DAVE ADLER Record staff writer Filled with frustration and anger at what they term "inadequate" water service to their area, Summit Park residents have banded together to fight the Summit Park water company's request for a 595 percent increase in its monthly charges to customers. The Summit Park Homeowners' Home-owners' Association, which has employed the legal services of Park City attorney Evelyn Saunders, Saun-ders, begins round one this morning when it will formally protest the proposed rate increase at a 10 a.m. Public Service Commission meeting in Salt Lake City. Homeowner's president Dale Baldwin said Wednesday that he expects at least 30 of the area's 300 homes to be represented at the hearing. "Some people are taking time off from work, at their own financial loss to attend the meetthgBaldwin said ViOthers have the day off and will also attend." "There is a great deal of frustration among the people of Summit Park," Baldwin said. "We're very upset by the amount of the increase as well as the poor service we've experienced in the past, especially last winter." During the months of January and February, many of the homes , in Summit Park were without water service, he said. Some families endured the hardship for three or four weeks, and others for as long as eight weeks. Amy Schulz and her husband, Peter, were without water for six weeks. "We -managed to get along," said Amy. "Sure it was tough, but you have to live. You just can't quit." During that period, she said her husband collected water at work every day in five-gallon jugs. "It was inconvenient to say the least, but the worst part of it, themost ridiculous part was that the water company continued to bill us even though they didn't provide us with any service," she said. "That and the fact that they were rude and uncooperative in dealing with us." Amy Schulz said that when she called the Summit Park Company, "they refused to talk to me. They swore at me and one day I was told, 'Go to hell, lady.' And all I was doing was trying to get our service back." The Schulz family wasn't alone not by a long shot. "One lady called the company 80 times, and never got a return call," said Saunders. "The company was terribly uncooperative, and when they spoke to customers they were very rude. Someone at the company told one of the residents that her complaints about the lack of water service were childish." The Schulz family finally tried to take matters into his own hands. "The company kept telling us that the water lines were frozen on our property. So we spent $350 to thaw out pipes s.that weren't frozen,". Amy said. "And they kept telling the PSC their crews were out working"on the lines every day, all day long. They were never there." As far as Schulz is concerned, the last straw fell when the family was billed for water service in February. "The water didn't come back on until Feb. 28," she said. "When I asked the company about the bill, their response was that we had used one gallon of water on Feb. 28." The anger that Amy Schulz feels is widespread in the community. The homeowners' association has launched a telephone campaign, meetings have been held and the residents have channeled money into a fund to hire Saunders. "Homeowner's associations usually don't do very much," said Saunders. "What these people have done is incredible. They have really banded together and they are saying they aren't going to accept this increase and this service without a fight." "Nobody is going to quarrel with a legitimate increase," said Baldwin. "They have to make a profit and they are entitled to a -fee that is based on their costs. But this proposal for a 595 percent increase is far beyond the ballpark. It's not fair-minded." "The request is ludicrous, absolutely ridiculous," said Schulz. "We don't begrudge them a profit, but we're not going to pay for their incompetency." "A little down the road, we'll hire our own rate engineer to determine costs and a fair rate," said Saunders. "Right now, we don't have the technical data we need. So at the hearing, we'll put four or five individuals on the stand to testify about their experiences." Heat will be coming from more than just this citizens' group. According to Saunders, the Division of Public Utilities has issued an order to the water company to show cause why it should not be fined for its treatment of Summit Park resi-.dents resi-.dents last winter." vv;' - '" -,' i " While four separate allegations have been levelled at the , company in the order, they come down to a simple contention: Summit Park Co. violated state statutes in failing to provide Summit Park residents with adequate, necessary and convenient conve-nient water service. The order will also issue against Gregory St. Soter, manager, and other officers offi-cers of the water company. The defendants will answer the order at a hearing before the PSC on July 18. The order provides that each offense, committed by individual or company, is to be counted as a separate offense and , that the offense is continuous, meaning the cumulative offenses could run for approximately eight . weeks. Given that each offense is to be penalized for not less than $500 but not more than $2,000, the total cost involved could well run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Soter refused to comment on the homeowners' charges. |