20240307Comments_9.pdf

1

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Gerald and Robyn Massey
Submission Time: Mar 6 2024 5:33PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 210 Par Loop
Blanchard, ID 83804

Name of U�lity Company: CDS StoneRidge U�li�es

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "To the IPUC:

As the owners of 210 Par Loop, Blanchard, ID 83804 we are customers of Stoneridge U�li�es and are
wri�ng to comment on this proposed rate increase. The percentage increase proposed, ranging from
261% to 543%, is patently absurd. We are relying upon the IPUC process to shield customers like us from
an abusive ac�on by a regulated en�ty. While some reasonable degree of increase may be jus�fied, this
is not. To assess what may be jus�fied the IPUC will necessarily have to understand the degree of
financial and opera�onal overlay between SRU, the neighborhood sewer u�lity and the onsite golf
course - all of which are owned by a single individual. We encourage the IPUC to thoroughly inves�gate,
audit and assess the various related en��es and how they impact the regulated water u�lity.

Gerald & Robyn Massey"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: carole pace
Submission Time: Mar 6 2024 6:08PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 152A columbia blvd
blanchard, ID 83804

Name of U�lity Company: Stoneridge U�li�es

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "My comment will be "NO WAY". Why should the people in the Stoneridge community have
to pay for the mismanagement of funds. With all of the other costs of living expenses that have gone up
in the last few years (which include some he�y costs in Stoneridge) will put a burden on homeowners.
As some homeowners are single people, and most homeowners live on a limited incomes. Please deny
this case number request. Thank you."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Phillip Hayes
Submission Time: Mar 6 2024 6:50PM
Email: [e-mail]
2

Telephone: [phone]
Address: 304 par loop
Blanchard , ID 83804

Name of U�lity Company: Stone ridge water u�lity

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "I oppose increase in water fees"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Jack Brand
Submission Time: Mar 6 2024 6:52PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 110 Par Loop
Blanchard, ID 83804

Name of U�lity Company: Stoneridge U�li�es

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "Dear sirs
I own in Stoneridge MCV and see the absurd increase in water rates that Stoneridge U�li�es is asking for.
We are a re�rement community and that is not reasonable for an increase. I feel this is in retalia�on to
the suit that was setled last year. Please extend the �me frame and reconsider something more
reasonable. A 261 to 534 percent increase is not realis�c.
Sincerely
Jack and Rebecca Brand"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Craig Young
Submission Time: Mar 6 2024 7:54PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 860 S Spokane St
Post Falls, ID 83854

Name of U�lity Company: Stoneridge water associa�on

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "I am a owner in the Stoneridge neighborhood...
It is ridiculous that a private owner who will not comply to our associa�on terms and agreement, try a
increase the water cost to jus�fy his own personal debts.
I strongly urge the commitee to revisit his mo�va�on and fairness to his overwhelming water
charges

3

Best Regards

Craig Young. PAR LOOP #74"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Sandra and Charles Finan
Submission Time: Mar 6 2024 10:19PM
Email: scfi[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 157 Par Loop
Blanchard, ID 83804

Name of U�lity Company: Stoneridge U�li�es SRU

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "To the IPUC:

As the owners of 157 Par Loop, Blanchard ID 83804 we are customers of Stoneridge U�li�es and are
wri�ng to comment on this proposed rate increase. The percentage increase proposed, ranging from
261% to 543%, is patently absurd. We are relying upon the IPUC process to shield customers like us from
an abusive ac�on by a regulated en�ty. While some reasonable degree of increase may be jus�fied, this
is not. To assess what may be jus�fied the IPUC will necessarily have to understand the degree of
financial and opera�onal overlay between SRU, the neighborhood sewer u�lity and the onsite golf
course - all of which are owned by a single individual. We encourage the IPUC to thoroughly inves�gate,
audit and assess the various related en��es and how they impact the regulated water u�lity.

Thank you for your considera�on on this mater.
Sandy and Chuck Finan"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Alex Pringle
Submission Time: Mar 7 2024 8:27AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 8207 E Teton St
MESA, AZ 85207

Name of U�lity Company: Stoneridge U�li�es

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "To the IPUC:
As the owner of 32 Eagle Way, Blanchard, we are customers of Stoneridge U�li�es and are wri�ng to
comment on this proposed rate increase. The percentage increase proposed, ranging from 261% to
543%, is patently absurd. We are relying upon the IPUC process to shield customers like us from an
abusive ac�on by a regulated en�ty. While some reasonable degree of increase may be jus�fied, this is
4

not. To assess what may be jus�fied the IPUC will necessarily have to understand the degree of financial
and opera�onal overlay between SRU, the neighborhood sewer u�lity and the onsite golf course - all of
which are owned by a single individual. We encourage the IPUC to thoroughly inves�gate, audit and
assess the various related en��es and how they impact the regulated water u�lity.

Thanks you,
Alex Pringle
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Ronald Bacon
Submission Time: Mar 7 2024 2:04PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: Box 507
Blanchard, ID 83804

Name of U�lity Company: CDS Stoneridge LLC

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "A 261% increase in rates? Seriously? "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Annete Sandberg
Submission Time: Mar 7 2024 2:37PM
Email: asandberg@transsafeconsul�ng.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 54 Hanaford
Blanchard, ID 83804

Name of U�lity Company: CDS Stoneridge U�li�es LLC

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "To Whom It May Concern:
I have the following ques�ons and concerns with the request for increase of water fees filed in this case.
These ques�ons are outlined below:
1) The Idaho Secretary of State document atached as “A” to the leter is confusing. It shows
“Stoneridge U�li�es”(Idaho Secretary of State file #0003351752- shows this is the assumed business
name) yet the leter that was sent to all property owners served by the U�lity was signed CDS Stoneridge
U�li�es, LLC (this appears in the Idaho Secretary of State as file #3501980). While both en��es are
managed by “Esprit Enterprises” they appear to be different en��es. Addi�onally, it seems Esprit
Enterprises owns many different en��es in the Stoneridge Community making it difficult to unwind the
many connec�ons between the en��es. This makes it difficult to understand how costs have been
5

allocated since Esprit Enterprises purchased Stoneridge Golf Community and the U�lity in 2018 as stated
in Atachment B.
2) In the statement of related en��es, the filing does not show that the Sewer Company being
leased to JD Resort from Esprit Enterprises is in fact a related en�ty to Esprit Enterprises. However, the
Idaho Secretary of State shows this as JD’s Resort (Idaho Secretary of State Filing 0000098126) and is
managed by J. D. Resort, Inc. (Idaho Secretary of State filing 0000315307) and this filing shows Mr. Chan
Karupiah is the President. He is also the owner of Esprit Enterprises, Inc. (Idaho Secretary of State Filing
535971) though the filing shows the Manager of Esprit Enterprises in JD Resort Inc.)It seems the
Commission has also ques�oned these very intertwined en��es based on an explana�on leter filed by
Stoneridge U�lity in PUC case SWS-W-20-2. In that leter the company stated they were going to have
JD’s Resort operate and provide the financial resources to operate the U�lity. They indicated it was due
to the financial strength of JD’s Resorts. However, the current case should not put into ques�on the
ability of JD’s Resort to properly operate this U�lity.
3) The notes on Atachment D- shows that the golf course moved to its own water source in 2023-
however, this should not mean the golf course should not absorb some of the expenses of the water
system as it contributed to the degrada�on and use of the facility and services up un�l is switched to its
own well in 2023.
4) In reviewing opera�ng income/expenses and income statement – Atachments K, L and M shows
the u�lity losing money as expenses exceed income. However, it is my understanding that this U�lity
had a case before the PUC in late 2023 whereby it applies for authority to borrow $980,000 of debt
through Esprit Enterprises, LLC and/or JD Resort. In that case it was stated that the debt was incurred to
keep the company solvent since it was purchased in 2018 (See Case No SWS-W-23-03). In that case the
Commission rightly ques�oned the intercompany transac�ons. It now seems that the proposed rate
increases are atemp�ng to make up for denial of the Commission in the 2023 case.
5) Addi�onally, it is my understanding that Stoneridge U�li�es will no longer be providing “new
water connec�on services” and instead would require customers to use outside contractors as a much
higher rate. (PUC Case #SWS-W-23-02). The U�lity indicated it “no longer had an employee” to make
these connec�ons. Was this reduc�on in staff reflected in the Opera�ng Income provided for 2023?
6) Is it typical for a U�lity to include residen�al and commercial in the same tariff? This clearly
would be an advantage to the commercial proper�es owned by Esprit Enterprises in this community.
7) The rate tariffs reflected in this filing do not take into account the current case of New Hook ups
before the commission- nor do they men�on those increases.
8) Atachment W Documenta�on of Known Changes- includes replacement of 3 well pumps.
However, these wells were used by the golf course up un�l 2023 and the golf course should assume a
bulk of this expense since it was a large user of the water in the system.
9) It seems the U�lity is moving many items on its balance sheet around without clear explana�on
of where some of these costs came from and who should bear the burden of losses. If the revenue and
expenses are truly accurate a smaller rate increase would be jus�fied. However, I would request the
Commission dig into these various companies financials and understand the costs being shi�ed between
companies and whether there has truly been $900,000 of “investment” as stated in the customer leter
mailed out by Stoneridge U�li�es.
As a property owner in this community, I have significant concerns about a rate increase of this
magnitude. I respec�ully request that this case be given a very thorough review and that there is a clear
understanding of all the “related company dealings” with this U�lity prior to any increase being
approved."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------