20161219Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

RECEI VED
Idaho Public Utilites Comm\1ff t?BE:c 1 9 PM 3: 3 4
Jean Jewel
Secretary to the Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83 720-007 4
Morning View Water Company
P.O. Box 598
Rigby, ID
Dear Commission,
December 19, 2016
/vl tvV-0-/~-o I
Because Morning View Water Company is in such a dire financial state we
have no other choice than to accept the Commission's ruling on the rate
increase. However we do wish to present further data on several issues:
1. The cutting of monies to pay for David Reading's work is unrealistic.
We have contacted a bookkeeping firm that provides outsourcing of
accounting and billing services to other water systems. Although their
estimates are not firm yet, the owner indicates that their services are higher
than in house services. We will provide more documentation to prove the
point that David's work is well worth our original response. We request
your reconsideration of this matter.
We would still have to read the meters, prepare the meter reports, deliver
shut off notice letters personally, coordinate with you at the PUC for
permission, maintain accurate addresses and phone numbers, keep the files,
enroll new customers, do the shutoffs, field complaints, and collect data to
send to the outsourcing firm.
David has literally saved this company and got it to the point of being
current with yearly reports. He interfaces with the Meter and Billing
systems and with customers and problem solves. The auditors admit that he
is doing way more than he is compensated for. Yet on a technicality you do
not address his wo:rl<: 'Yhich far exceeded what the former assistant received.
Please recon~ider his contnbution and the financial compensation due. We
have no sense of what documentation you require beyond what we have
provided.
2. The pipe breakage to oµr system PJl October 6, 2016 is being dealt with
in the present but monies are prorated over three years,.(ifthey are even
allowed in the next case).which is a horrible financial drain now. Will we
ever be in the black? This flood has made it apparent that we need to
purchase insurance for the three wells. We are hoping to provide several
estimates for your consideration as addendums to the rate structure.
3. In conference with our engineer, Ryan Loftus, he assesses that it is not
feasible to tum the new well on and off after the required electrical usage fee
each month. We cannot ascertain when we reach that point in time and we
have little control over the usage. We feel that the system is programmed
better but to cut $7303 a year is to program the company to stay in the red.
We ask that the allocation be raised to another $3500 per year.
4. The fee structure for customers is a concern. Given the high number of
gallons billed at only $0.15 per 1000 gallons, the customers are not
encouraged to conserve water. There need to be financial consequences for
not practicing water conservation and prudent usage. We are proposing the
following:
1/.i acre rates stay the same
Yi acre lots in the first tier be reduced to 30 and then
move to 2nd tier charge of $0.49 per 1000 gallons
1 acre lots in the first tier be reduced to 35 and then
move to 2nd tier charge of$0.49 per 1000 gallons
The electric bills are about three times higher ll1 summer and the rate you
have mandated does not allow us to recoup these costs. Currently a
costumer on a one acre lot can use 100,000 gallons of water after the initial
45 thousand for only$ 50.00 per month.
Please change the tier amounts.
We recognize the vast amount of effort you have expended on this rate
increase. We ask that you further hone the above issues.
Your consideration of these matters is most appreciated.
?
Yours Truly, ;·· ·· ?/A ~~ ,k-z7~-/)
~olan Gneiting, President, Morning ~W~er Co.