20240308Comments_11.pdf

1

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Jeff Leinwand
Submission Time: Mar 7 2024 4:54PM
Email: jeffl@sabinocreek.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 61 Sand Trap Ln
Blanchard, ID 83804

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

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "As the owners of 61 Sand Trap Ln, Blanchard, ID 83804, we are customers of Stoneridge
U�li�es. The increases being proposed would place the whole Motor Coach Village at risk of not being
viable. The proposed increase would be $4,000 a month, including the 7 months when there are at most
2 occupied proper�es out of 77. This is an increase of almost $52 per owner per month. Since the HOA
covers the water bill (no meters are situated at the lot) dues will have to be increased by over $150 per
owner. Currently, sewer rates from the same u�lity owner absorbs almost 25% of our budget. These
rates have been going up yearly. Our HOA fees will put Stoneridge as one of the most expensive RV
resorts in America with few ameni�es. These unreasonable water rate increases will put the future of
the highest rated RV resort in Idaho at risk. The u�lity company already reneged on a deal we had with
the previous u�lity owner that suspended billing during the off season. Since the ownership change, we
have seen nothing but money grabbing by the u�lity and no service improvements. On the sewer side,
we have had had odors coming from the sewer plant. I realize that the current issue at hand is with the
water rates, but the whole opera�on should be looked at since there is a single owner of the water and
sewer u�li�es.

Sincerely,
Jeff and Linda Leinwand"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Jay Waddell
Submission Time: Mar 8 2024 8:35AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 17 Sandtrap Ln
Blanchard, ID 83804

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

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "To the IPUC:
2

As the owner Jay Waddell, I am a customer 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.
Jay Waddell"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Suzanne Kamp
Submission Time: Mar 8 2024 8:38AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 80 Eagle Way
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 owner Suzanne Kamp at 80 Eagle Way in Blanchard Idaho, I am a customer 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.
Suzanne Kamp"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Charles Stewart
Submission Time: Mar 8 2024 9:43AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 100 Par Loop
Blanchard, ID 83804

Name of U�lity Company: Stoneridage U�litles

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01
3

Comment: "To the IPUC:

As the owner of 100 Par Loop, Blanchard, ID 83804 I am a customer of Stoneridge U�li�es and am
wri�ng to comment on this proposed rate increase. The percentage increase proposed, ranging from
261% to 543%, is patently absurd. I am relying upon the IPUC process to shield customers like me 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. It is my opinion that that individual failed to do his
due diligence prior to his acquisi�on and is now proposing that the property owners bail him out with
this outlandish increase. I encourage the IPUC to thoroughly inves�gate, audit and assess the various
related en��es and how they impact the regulated water u�lity.

Charles Stewart"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Bill Levis
Submission Time: Mar 8 2024 9:43AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 161 E. Skyline Dr.
Blanchard, ID 83804

Name of U�lity Company: CDS Stoneridge

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "Response to request for rate increase by CDS Stoneridge u�li�es.
1) Obviously this is a very large increase, why did it take Stoneridge 6 years to figure out they are
opera�ng at a deficit? $900,000.00 per 6 years is $150,000.00/ year. Management didn't realize/ no�ce
this?
2) The above ques�on suggests severe mismanagement, which would contribute to budget deficits.
3) Why is the golf course revenue projected to be 0.00 Dollars. Even if the golf course is irrigated with
reclaimed water, there is s�ll a cost involved, and it shouldn't be passed on to rate payers. Stoneridge
receives revenue from the golf course. The revenue should be used to pay for opera�ng costs irriga�on
included..
4) What are the investments/ improvements stated in the rate increase requests, and how are these
improvements helping rate payers?
5) The rates that Stoneridge is proposing are significantly higher than other comparable water u�li�es in
the immediate area.
6) We live in the Happy Valley Ranchos area and pay an addi�onal $14.03 per month. This isn't
men�oned in the rate increase request.
Bill Levis, 161 E. Skyline Dr., Blanchard, Id.83804"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

4

Name: Linda Hartnet
Submission Time: Mar 8 2024 9:47AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 176A Columbia Blvd
Blanchard, ID 83804

Name of U�lity Company: IPU

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "I oppose Chan Karupiak request for Stoneridge water u�lity rate increase of 261%-
543...unacceptable!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Cheryl Baumann
Submission Time: Mar 8 2024 10:24AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 113 Forest Ridge Road
Blanchard, ID 83804

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

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "Stoneridge U�lity, L.L.C. has applied for an excessive water rate increase in my neighborhood
and the surrounding area. Please be aware of the following when making your decision:

(1) Twin Lakes HOA currently has a $27.87 monthly meter fee. Stoneridge HOA currently pays $24.00
(3/4” & 1” meters). The U�lity wants to increase the rate 261% (for a 3/4” meter) and 543% (for a
1” meter).

(2) The request reflects a sense of urgency (increase to start April 1, 2024), which indicates poor
management.

(3) The amount of the request suggests bad business prac�ces and a lack of vision to manage.

(4) Stoneridge primarily consists of seniors on fixed incomes. The increase is both unfair and
repressive.

(5) The request reflects poor planning and management.

(6) There is no evidence that the U�lity jus�fies an increase.
5

(7) There must be clear and convincing proof for any increase.

(8) The u�lity has an history of not deposi�ng checks/payments sent to them and not sending out bills
for water. This is an example of poor business prac�ce.

(9) The IPUC staff received inadequate informa�on from the U�lity in pending Case Number SWS-W-
23-02 [“Staff also requested . . . an itemized breakdown . . of costs . . . but the Company did not provide
the necessary detailed informa�on.” Memo, page 5, filed February 15, 2024]. No increases should be
provided without evidence.

(10) The U�lity tries to jus�fy an increase by claiming that there has been no prior increases. A lack of
a prior increases is because of the U�li�es’ poor record keeping and poor planning.

(11) An increase sounds like were paying for the inability of the Owners to manage their own business.

(12) There must be an audit of the U�lity’s (and related organiza�ons’) books and records."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Calvin Coates
Submission Time: Mar 8 2024 12:07PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 104 Ironwood Dr
Blanchard, ID 83804

Name of U�lity Company: Stoneridge Water Utuilty

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "Karupiah - Has been raising rates without any accountability. We also have sewer rates that
keep ge�ng raised. If you need to raise our rates, make the raise minimal. We don’t see the reasoning
for such a huge hike in water rates. Chan keeps selling units and lots without any consequences. The
sewer system s�nks and he makes no atempt to correct one of the problems we face already. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------