20130422Comments (2 Total).pdf

Jean Jewell
From: Anga Velasquez
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 6:34 AM
To: Jean Jewell
Subject: FW: water rate increse case spl w 13-01
From: Lee Partyka [mailto: [e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:38 AM
To: Anga Velasquez
Subject: water rate increse case spi w 13-01
To whom it may concern:
I am a resident of spirit lake east and have been so since the last water co was in place. Yes , the water system
has been reliable and I am grateful of that, but the asking of 106% increase is absurd. I believe that the rates
already have been increased by the way they calculate the rate after the first base gal usage fee. I think at this
time a increase of this magnitude is unjustified and when does anybodys salary incur a jump of this sort. I
operate on a very tight budget and I can see a small increase of 3% as reasonable but I urge you not to approve
the large request as asked for in this case,
Thank You
Lee partyka
34754 n St joe dr
spirit lake, id 83869
208 699 3033
Jean Jewell
From: lawsoncl©gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 9:04 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Chris Lawson follows:
Case Number: SPL-W-13-01
Name: Chris Lawson
Address: 31647 N Priest River Drive
City: Spirit Lake
State: ID
Zip: 83869
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: lawsoncl (@gmail.com
Name of Utility Company: Spirit Lake East Water Company
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Since their change in ownership, the Spirit Lake East Water Company has a history of
requesting exorbitant rate increases every few years. Thankfully most of the time, the PUC
has been diligent enough to review those requests and only approve reasonable and justifiable
increases.
In 2004, the SLE Water Company filed a PUC request to nearly quadruple increase its hookup
from $650 to $2500. It should also be noted that they had already started billing customers
the higher fee without waiting for a PUC decision.
In April 2006, the SLE Water Company requested doubling the rate from $12 to $24 per month.
A PUC review at that time found this request to be unjustifiable given their current income
and expenses. The company did have significant one-time expenses to bring the system up to
code and repair several maintenance issues. A reasonable increase from $12 to $12.50 was
granted to allow amortization of the repair costs.
In 2009, SLE again requested and was approved to raise their non-recurring costs. This
included raising the hookup fee to $2500 despite the previous PUC decision that this cost was
excessive. A review of the PUC decision shows the request was approved with very little
review, unlike the 2004 decision which properly determined a $2500 hookup fee was
unsubstantiated and would be one of the highest in the state.
The notification letter sent out to the customers bears little resemblance to the reasons
cited in the actual request to the PUC. It makes several unsubstantiated claims for why such
a large rate increase is necessary. It cites repair work done prior to 2007 such as
repairing the mainline leaks, fixing the reservoir, and a backup power generator. These
costs were supposed to be paid by the cost adjustment approved in 2007. No major work has
actually been done to the system since then, or any evidence provided to support a need to
double their revenue.
The actual request filed with the PUC only specifies a desire to upgrade to monthly billing
as the reason for the rate increase. This was requested under the notion that it will spot
problems and leakage issues sooner. This makes no sense as they are only reading the meters a
few times a year and using estimated billing the rest of the year. It's impossible to read
the meters on a monthly basis as the meters are under snow for half of the year.
1
The PUC request letter includes attached budget data from 2010 and 2011 that is not broken
down to show the actual recurring versus non-recurring costs. The request should be based on
recurring costs and forecasted non-recurring costs - not vague, non-specific plant cost
numbers from 3 years ago. The only thing that can be gleaned from the numbers provided is
that this company is poorly run and doesn't not performed adequate accounting of their costs.
I am respectfully requesting that the PUC audit the finances of the Spirit Lake Water Company
to determine if they actually need to increase revenue and if a rate increase is supported
then approve an appropriate increase. Having the SLE Water Company blindly request to double
their rates every few years is inexcusable. Doubling the base water rate will make SLE Water
Company one of the most expensive water utilities in the county.
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipucl/ipuc.html
IP address is 50.37.157.196
2