The neighborhood ConMan has been up to his usual demeaning and misleading antics for months now. (Read the AI summary of this post below.)
Truly, doesn’t he have anything better to do? If I had as much free time as he does, I would respond to every bit of misinformation and fabrication he spouts. I don’t, so I don’t.
But truly I think Windermere Oaks residents should ask themselves, “Does the ConMan’s eighth-grade slam-book treatments of serious topics benefit Windermere Oaks home values when prospective buyers check NextDoor or his other lying sites, when considering buying here?”
Consider his recent NextDoor post (see below), slamming the past Board (of Jeff Walker, Brian Garceau, and Scott Miller) for implementing an order of the Public Utility Commission. And of course, he slammed my defense of their decision.
The truth is that words matter.
In the instance cited by the ConMan, as well as a previous instance he doesn’t cite, the Public Utility Commission itself was responsible for the so-called double billing of WOWSC customers. And I’m glad that the current Board has sorted the mess out with the PUC.
At issue is the word “connections.”
In one instance, in November 2024, when the PUC was figuring out how much to charge WOWSC customers for the monthly services of the temporary manager (Anser), none other than the PUC Chairman Thomas Gleeson “clarif[ied] that compensation for Anser be set at $12 per month per water connection and $12 per month per sewer connection. Staff’s petition proposed compensation of $12 per connection. I presume Staff intended that this fee be assessed on both water and sewer connections, but we should clarify this in our order appointing the temporary manager.” See page 3 in this document:
PUC Chair Gleeson Clarifies "Per Connection" (311 downloads )Remember, that was November 14, 2024.
But compare that against the PUC’s previous definition of “connection”, in their March 21, 2024 order, “The Commission approves a monthly surcharge of $39.21 per connection to recover the $478,184.04 in rate-case expenses Windermere incurred in this proceeding through January 31, 2023. Beginning with the next billing cycle after the date of this Order, Windermere may collect the monthly surcharge for 45 months or until $478,184.04 is collected, whichever occurs first.” (emphasis added) See Page 32 in this document:
March 2024 Order re $39.21 per connection (308 downloads )In that instance, the math equation (of 287 connections x 45 months x $39.21 > $478,184) would indicate the PUC intended “per customer” not “per connection.”
There is a difference. Most customers have a water connection and a sewer connection, thus 2 connections. There were about 287 customers at the time of the March 2024 order and thus there are about 560 or so estimated total connections.
Thus when in November 2024 the WOWSC Board saw PUC Chair Gleeson’s clarification about rates per connection, they applied the same clarification to the base rates per the March 2024 Order.
They were complying with the order as written. That is what they were supposed to have done.
And contrary to the ConMan’s assertion that I “pushed” the “whole mess,” I was not involved in any manner, except to comment on the November 14, 2024, order and its impact on rates, on this blog, here.
It took the PUC a second stab at clarifying, on May 16, 2025, that the Order from March 2024 should have read “customer,” not connection. Of course, they did not own up to the Commission’s misinterpretations and conflicting terms of use, but at least they set the record straight.
May 16, 2025 Order re Clarifying "Connection" (288 downloads )My point here isn’t to get into the math, or the ongoing inconsistencies of the PUC Commissioners and their Staff, or those impacts on the neighborhood’s customers.
The real point is that that Con-Man, to continue his 8th-grade ‘corruption’ ‘malfeasance’ narrative of the last 10 years, reads this series of events through the lens of someone with the analytical equivalent of a high school diploma gained through a General Educational Development test.
This blog continues to document and counter his sophomoric, pretentious, juvenile efforts.
But at some point you gotta ask, “Is the ConMan helping or hurting your home’s resale value?”
Ask any realtor about Windermere Oaks’ reputation, courtesy of the ConMan and his ongoing confidence game. The Realtors will disclose what they have to tell prospective buyers. It ain’t good.
ConMan’s May 20, 2025 NextDoor Post
AI Summary of this Post
Windermere Oaks residents deserve better than misleading narratives about their water company. A local critic, dubbed in this post as the “ConMan,” has repeatedly misrepresented serious issues, harming the community’s reputation. His latest attack on the previous board ignores the fact that the Public Utility Commission (PUC) was responsible for wording inconsistencies related to billings, not past board members. The confusion stemmed from the PUC’s shifting definition of “connections” versus “customers,” leading to unintended double billing in three months earlier this year.
The board followed the PUC’s orders as written, only for the commission to later clarify its mistake. Despite this, ConMan continues to frame the situation as corruption or incompetence rather than a regulatory misstep.
His persistent, vocal misinformation raises concerns about Windermere Oaks’ home values, as prospective buyers encounter his exaggerated claims online. Residents should consider whether his actions are helping or hurting our community.