20030418File Memo.pdf

FILE MEMORANDUM
TO:CASE NO. SWS-02-
FROM:JOHN R. HAMMOND
DATE:APRIL 18 2003
RE:CLOSE CASE NO. SWS-02-2 - APPLICATION TO CHARGE FIRE
PROTECTION FEE FOR STONERIDGE WATER COMPANY.
On December 5 , 2002, Stoneridge Water Company filed an Application requesting that
the Commission allow it to charge a fire protection fee of $20 a year per lot for the fire protection
services provided by the Company. The Company stated that during the construction year of2002 it
spent $89 898 to upgrade and extend the fire protection system within the community of Stoneridge.
Additionally, the Company claims to have worked directly with the Spirit Lake Fire District to
ensure that it is meeting the appropriate fire flow requirements. The Company did not request an
effective date for its proposed fire protection fee.
Staff has had numerous discussions with the Company regarding the proposed fire
protection fee. In particular, Staff communicated to the Company that the prudent portion of the
investment might more appropriately be rate based and recovered through a rate base adjustment as
opposed to a surcharge/fire protection fee. However, Staffbe1ieves that at this time it is premature to
make such a decision without a more complete record. Thus, the prudency of any amount of
Company s investment in fire protection and whether it would be rate based should be reserved for
review at a later date. In addition, Staff communicated to the Company that without knowledge of
the impacts of interconnecting Stoneridge s water system with Happy Valley Ranchos Inc.
homeowner s association water system, as requested by Stoneridge, it would be premature to
determine whether the proposed fee is appropriate.
I Stoneridge Water Company serves Stoneridge, a golf and recreational community in Blanchard, Idaho. See
Application. See also www.stoneridgeidaho.com.
2 Stoneridge filed an Application requesting that the Commission allow it to interconnect its water system with the Happy
Valley Ranchos water system.
FILE MEMORANDUM
On Apri14, 2003, Stoneridge Water Company filed a letter with the Commission stating
that it wished to withdraw its Application in this case and requested that it be closed without
prejudice because it would like the opportunity to address this issue at a later date.
Pursuant to Commission Rule of Procedure 68 this case is closed based on Stoneridge
request. See IDAP A 31.01.01.068.
FILE MEMORANDUM