20240313Comments_15.pdf

1

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Karen Truss
Submission Time: Mar 12 2024 6:04PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 396 Mountain View Rd
Blanchard , ID 83804

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

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "I am opposed to this water rate hike of a minimum of 261%. The owner of Stoneridge
U�li�es Chan Karupiah is a decei�ul, shady business owner who cries poverty but con�nues to buy
around the area. Many in this community, including me, are on fixed incomes and this rate is insane."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Thomas Larson
Submission Time: Mar 12 2024 7:11PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 729 Mt view Rd
Blanchard , ID 83804

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

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "I have been at my current residence for almost 30 years and I am strongly against this new
proposal to raise our monthly u�lity cost. To my understanding this request to raise prices is due to the
amount of new people that want to hook into Stoneridge. Easy solu�on is to not accept any new users in
this area to keep cost affordable for the long-term faithful customers. I understand a slight increase to
keep up with rising cost but not the outrageous amount this proposal is asking. My vote is a hard NO!!!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Junie Christensen
Submission Time: Mar 12 2024 7:39PM
Email: juniel@fron�er.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 704 Stoneridge Rd.
Blanchard, ID 83804

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

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

2

Comment: "I have lived in the Stoneridge resort since 2016 when my husband died and I bought a house
here.
My water bill has always been $24/month. Now we have received no�fica�on from Chan K. of huge
increases in the monthly water bill - ini�ally an increase of 261% and up, if I understand correctly.
Please advise how to handle this outrageous increase."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: DONNA BROWN
Submission Time: Mar 13 2024 7:54AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: PO BOX 91
BLANCHARD, ID 83804

Name of U�lity Company: STONERIDGE

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "The proposed charges for water by Stoneridge U�li�es are above reason and unjus�fied for
this company. We are a small community of lower income and many re�red living on a fixed income,
who cannot absorb such an inflated cost for water usage. Beyond regular usage, household and garden,
at these higher rates, we won't be able to use extra water for fire preven�on and suppression."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Joey Logue
Submission Time: Mar 13 2024 9:34AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 218 Vista Dr.
Blanchard, ID 83804

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

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "Idaho Public U�li�es Commission P.O. Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0074Vonn Case # SWS-W-
24-01

IPUC Commissioners,
I am wri�ng to you in respect to Case # SWS-W-24-01 at the request of Stoneridge U�li�es, LLC. The
proposed rate increases of 261% and 543% for a base rate increase is not only against fair prac�ce, but
also creates an undue hardship on the ci�zens who rely on the water provided by this u�lity company.
3

The average annual rate increase per year across the na�on for u�li�es is 4.1% according to Bluefield
Research. In fact, the largest water rate increases across the na�on was in El Paso, Tx and San Jose
California which boasted an 8% increase. Monthly water bills range from a low of $19.15 in San Antonio,
Texas, to a high of $114.25 in San Francisco, California.
Stoneridge U�li�es has stated that there hasn’t been a rate increase since 2007, even with an annual
increase since 2007 of 4.1% annually, the base rate should only be at $47.52 a�er 17 years of 4.1%
annually for a ¾ or 1-inch meter. While we all understand that need for a rate increase to ensure
Stoneridge U�li�es maintains and is profitable, a single jump rate increase of 261% or 543% is
unacceptable and unfair to the customers that rely on these services and also have no other choice. I
have provided tables below based on an annual rate increase of 4.1%.
Subsequently Stoneridge U�li�es has requested a monthly user fee increase from $.79/1,000 gallons up
to $2.94/1,000 gallons which is a 272% increase. Again, far above the na�onal average and while we
understand a need to increase revenue, this type of increase is increasingly impac�ul to our community.
The two-person home uses approximately 6,090 gallons of water according to
www.fatherresource.org/family-water-usage.com. With this increase to both base rate and water usage
the monthly bill will go from $28.74 to $107.23 for residents with a ¾ in meter, for those with a 1-inch
meter will go from $28.74 to $174.82 per month. Which is a 508% increase in monthly fee and usage.
We strongly urge IPUC to decline this significant rate increase, and adhere to the na�onal average of rate
increases that can be absorbed steadily by the communi�es and users of the water provided by
Stoneridge U�li�es.
We also request that IPUC review the request and conduct an audit of Stoneridge U�li�es, as using
customer-based rate increases to pay for debt capitaliza�on, and a reduc�on of revenue from the golf
irriga�on down to zero is not acceptable. The below points indicate areas that we believe should be
reviewed for considera�on that supports the request for a comprehensive audit of Stoneridge U�li�es.
Costs requested based on the rate increase proposal
• The u�lity wants to replace 3 pump motors. To our knowledge, there are currently two wells for
the u�lity. The applica�on document cites atachment W-1, but it is not included in the available
download paperwork. This is an expenditure for which the u�lity bears sole responsibility for, not its
users.

• The owner of the u�lity claims to have financial harm from the reduc�on in water sales to the
golf course. However, the golf course drilled its own well to avoid water charges from the u�lity. Please
note that the owner of the golf course is the same owner of the u�lity, so in summary the owner was in
fact paying himself. Through this increase the owner is transferring what the course owed the u�lity onto
the customers, with this proposed increase the owner is doubling his gains which is approximately
50,00,000 gallons of water cost annually.
• The u�lity also wants the users to fund the connec�on costs of 20 vacant ploted lots owned by
the owner of those lots, which is also the owner of the u�lity. This cost should not be passed onto the
users.
• The u�lity wants to install approximately 360 water meters to remotely read the water usage.
This expense should be covered by the u�lity not the users.
• The u�lity wants to install (replace?) “backup electrical generators” at water pump sites. No
paperwork is included in the available downloaded documents. This expenditure is the sole
responsibility of the u�lity not the users.
In summa�on, we strongly urge IPUC to deny this rate increase request in its en�rety.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Jeri Cyr
Submission Time: Mar 13 2024 10:57AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 212 Ironwood Dr.
Blanchard , ID 83803

Name of U�lity Company: Stoneridge

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "I am a resident of Stoneridge who feels this price increase is excessive. I do not oppose price
increases, but this one is over the top. As residents of Stoneridge, we should not have to pay exorbitant
rates to pay for irriga�on of the golf course. It is a public, not a private course. If Chan wants an increase,
it should be incremental, not all at once. Hopefully, the IPUC will realize that this increase is exorbitant
and will be a hardship to some in Stoneridge and not approve this increase."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Stacie Howard
Submission Time: Mar 13 2024 1:28PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: PO Box 915
Blanchard, ID 83804

Name of U�lity Company: stoneridge u�li�es

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "I would like to reach out regarding the 261% increase for u�li�es for the Stoneridge Water
district. That high of a jump is astronomical and unethical by no stretch of anyones imagina�on. We need
to be protected from this type of price gouging in regards to basic rights. Our water comes from a
960gpm well that is then sourced to our neighborhood. As someone who is in the water well industry, it
is understood that processing and distribu�on as well as overhead costs for the so�ware that does our
billing comes with a small expense, but not at a 261% increase. That is price gouging. I would like to
protest this rate and to have the IPUC protect us as ci�zens from this type of extor�on."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Shannon Pitman
Submission Time: Mar 13 2024 2:31PM
5

Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 247 Vista Dr
Blanchard , ID 83804

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

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "Idaho Public U�li�es Commission,

We are residents in the Happy Valley Community here in Blanchard and are water customers of
Stoneridge U�li�es. This is regarding the 261% increase that is being proposed by Stoneridge U�li�es.
Our community is small and residents are for the most part re�red and living on fixed, low income
seniors. Stoneridge Resort golf course caters to the higher income tourism and residents. It uses the
largest percentage of water to keep the golf course up and running. As a senior resident, to expect us
to fund the expenses of the resort is just insane. This increase would bring Stoneridge Resort to a 0
expense, causing residents to fund the large water usage at the resort. Please consider this as we work
through this.
Sincerely,
Eric and Shannon Pitman"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Steve Moss
Submission Time: Mar 13 2024 3:32PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 379 Hanaford Road
BlanchardID83804, ID 83804

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

Case ID: SWS-W-24-01

Comment: "As homeowners and residents of Stoneridge community I would like to express my concerns
and op�ons regarding the proposed water rate increases. I have heard the owner of CDS Stoneridge
U�li�es, LLC state that he is only interested in pu�ng money in his pocket. I am not agonist a Bunises
making a profit. Also, he has expressed to this community that he does not care about anything,
including, the community, the grill, golf Corse, which he owns. He is only interested in the u�li�es. I
would request a full audit of CDS Stoneridge U�li�es. His Bunises prac�ces in the past and currently has
not been accurate and truthful. The fact that 1 of the 2 wells providing water for this community has not
been in opera�on for a while and he drilled a new well for his golf course seems that he wants to relieve
himself of his financial obliga�on to pay what he owes. I believe He is pu�ng his financial burden on this
community. When the u�li�es were purchased, it was said that there were enough funds for
6

improvements and was debt free. To the best of my knowledge there has been no capital improvements
done. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 4:07 PM
To: secretary
Subject: Case SWS-W-24-01

CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and atachments BEFORE
you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency service desk with
any concerns.

I'm wri�ng to protest the overly burdensome price increases to users of water from StoneRidge U�li�es.
My reasons are expressed in the following PDF file: StoneRidge PDF.pdf

Joan Budai
248 Vista Drive
Blanchard, ID 83804
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: nowak623 <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 9:17 PM
To: secretary
Subject: RE: Case number, SWS-W-24-01, Stoneridge water rate increase

To whom it may concern.

Re: Case number SWS-W-24-01

The the proposed water rate increase for Stoneridge Resort Community is atrocious.
The proposed increased exceeds any normal increase for a community water usage.The Owner
should not be able to request such an increase and furthermore the community should not be
liable or responsible for the resort owners past operating costs or losses.
Thanks for considering our decision to not increase such a exaggerated amount.
Regards,
William and Donna Nowak
372 Hanaford Rd
Blanchard, ID 83804
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 2:30 PM
To: secretary
Subject: SWS-W-24-01
Importance: High

Good afternoon!

I am a property owner in the Stoneridge community and a customer of CDS Stoneridge Utilities. I
am attaching a letter that another homeowner composed, and it speaks to my thoughts and
feelings about the proposed issues. I am submitting this letter as coming from my husband and I.

We are requesting that the IPUC perform an AUDIT of the CDS Stoneridge Utilities company before
they allow any form of increase or our water and sewer rates.

Evelyn Corrigan
Cell: [phone]

John and Evelyn Corrigan
191 Hanaford Rd
Blanchard, ID 83804

IPUC
PO Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720

Case No. SWS-W-24-01

March 14, 2024

Hello,

I am writing regarding a water rate increase proposed by CDS StoneRidge Utilities (PO Box 298, Blanchard, Idaho 83804). This is regarding Case number SWS-W-24-01.

This utility has proposed water rate increases of 261% to 543%. After reviewing the rationale for these increases, all of the reasons given are completely unwarranted.

I ask that you decline the entire rate request by CDS StoneRidge Utilities.
1)CDS StoneRidge claims to have “invested” more than $900,000 since ownership transfer. This claim was made in the official notice to users. There is no documentation about what types of investment the utility has made. We suspect it is to try to recoup $980,000 the utility owner transferred from Esprit Enterprises/JD’s Resort, as found in Case number SWS-W-23-03 where it was declared this was to be treated as owner’s equity. PLEASE verify this claim by the utility. We suspect that the claimed investment has not been in infrastructure or system improvements, such as the water system infrastructure….the wells. pumps, transfer pipe system, etc. are the same as when purchased by the utility operator. I suspect the owner has transferred his OWN money as capitalization, which should be regarded as owner’s equity and not an expense to be recouped from utility customers, as noted in SWS-W-23-03. Additionally, this current rate increase request includes infrastructure expenditures, which we note are questionable, and are detailed below.

2)I believe that when CDS StoneRidge purchased the utility, Chan Karupiah, the owner, claimed to have enough cash and assets to fund improvements and capitalization. He should live up to this agreement without impacting users of the utility. Please refer to Case number SWS-W-18-01 when Karupiah purchased the utility. That action declared that “JD Resort (applicant) must demonstrate his financial ability to operate on its own accord. The notarized personal guarantee of Chan Karupiah to use his personal finances to support the financial needs of the company is of uncertain value. If Mr. Karupiah were to file bankruptcy or otherwise being unable to meet all of his financial obligations, a signed personal guarantee to financially support a legally separate company is dubious value compared to more standard cash capital or debt instruments likely held by other creditors. Therefore, we require assurances that JD Resort has the financial ability to operate the system in the public service, not JD Resort by and through Chan Karupiah. JD Resort must be able to make and pay for ongoing repairs and have access to capital for major repairs, including pump or well failures…JD Resort must file balance sheets and income statements with the commission quarterly…JD Resort must file its balance sheet and income statement for the quarter ended 30 June, 2019, within 60 days of this Order. Subsequent quarterly financial statements must be filed within 45 days of the quarter end. JD Resort must file monthly bank statements showing at least a $50,000 balance until JD Resort establishes a bank line of credit of at least $250,000.”

3)The operating expenses absolutely do not justify a rate increase. We believe this proposal is about greed. The owner of CDS StoneRidge also owns a golf course….StoneRidge. The golf course used to get its water from the utility, about 50,000,000 gallons annually…we have heard the golf course did NOT pay its water bill at times, if at all. The golf course drilled its own water well recently and has separated from the utility for water supply. The utility is trying to recapture that lost income from current users. This is unconscionable.

4)The employee related expenses are minimal. One person to read meters for six months of the year, who also takes chlorine readings every few days…a part time employee at best. Another part time person to administer billings and receive payments. Chan Karupiah reportedly spends one day per week at StoneRidge…where he oversees the utility, the sewer system, the golf course, and the bar/grill. We suspect he has allocated too much
overhead for expenses into the rate increase paperwork. A complete forensic audit by
IPUC would be appropriate in this instance to verify all financial documents and
claims.
5)We understand that, at times, if not currently, CDS StoneRidge, the utility, has been chronically late with filings and reports due to the IPUC since it was purchased by the current owner.

Now, let’s review Attachment W in the current CDS StoneRidge Utilities rate increase application.

1)The owner claims to have financial harm from the reduction in water sales to the golf course. The golf course drilled its own well to avoid water charges from the utility. The same individual, Chan Karupiah owns the golf course and the utility. In essence, he was paying himself…the utility he owns was billing the golf course he owns for water. Now…as a result of the new golf course well, the golf course has a significantly lower cost for water, a huge savings to Karupiah. BUT…now he wants utility users to pay for what HE used to pay. That is simply unconscionable. This proposal actually doubles his gain…reduced water fees for the golf course AND replace that lost income at the expense of the utility users…nearly 50,000,000 gallons of water cost annually! This should not be allowed.

2)The utility wants to replace 3 pump motors. To my knowledge, there are currently two working wells for the utility. The application document cites attachment W-1, but it is not included in the available download paperwork. This expenditure is a responsibility of the utility, not the users. The owner should fund this and absorb the expense, per the agreements made when Karupiah purchased the utility (noted above).

3)The utility wants to install (replace?) “backup electrical generators” at water pump sites. The application document cites attachment W-2, but it is not included in the available download paperwork. This expenditure is the responsibility of the utility, not the users. The owner should fund this and absorb the expense, per the agreements made when Karupiah purchased the utility (noted above).

4)The utility wants to purchase a pickup and a 4 wheeler. The application document cites attachment W-3, but it is not included in the available download paperwork. The use of these vehicles would likely be shared by other entities owned by Karupiah, and the expense should be accurately allocated. The owner should fund these purchases and absorb the expense, per the agreements made when Kaupiah purchased the utility (noted above. HOWEVER, in the “Related Entity Narrative, Asset ownership and Existing Leases” document in the current request, it states that Esprit leases to the water company the following: vehicles and other light truck equipment. How can you have it both ways?

5)The utility wants the users to fund the connection costs for 20 vacant plotted lots. What Karupiah fails to mention in the application is that he owns the 20 lots. The cost for this is detailed in attachment W-4, which is not included in the available document download. This clearly is an expense of the utility and the lot owner(s)…not the utility users.

6)The utility wants to install approximately 360 meters to remotely read water usage. The application cites attachment W-5, but is is not included in the available document download. What is not noted or projected is the effective savings to the utility by not manually reading the meters. This should be an expense of the utility and certainly not the users.

Now let’s take a look at some other concerns.

In Exhibit 1, schedule B, Accumulated Depreciation, there is a line item for “structures and improvements.” Also included are things like supply mains, power pumping equipment, purification systems, meters, hydrants, etc. But the largest line item is “Structures and Improvements” at $774,820…by far the largest amount on this schedule. What could this utility possibly have at more than 3/4 of a million dollars in this line item? In the documentation, it is reported that the utility leases facilities from other entities owned by Karupiah. In the “Related Narrative, Asset Ownership and Existing Leases” it states “There is no land included nor, water rights, or miscellaneous equipment included in the balance sheet for CDS StoneRidge Utilities” and “Esprit owns all buildings, and miscellaneous equipment not on the StoneRidge Water Company balance sheet as well as the remainder land parcels, and ROW rights.” Esprit leases to the water company the following: office and shop space, vehicles and other light truck equipment, office equipment, and water rights and use of ROW. What is included in this “structures and improvements” line item that totals $774,820? Also in this listing is a line item for “Services” at $30,101. What services are depreciated?

Regarding Attachment L, Exhibit #2 Schedule B Expenses: Labor and Salaries total a whopping $223,267. I would encourage the IPUC to review, forensically audit and validate this level of expense for a relatively small, simple water utility. Meters aren’t read half the year. Chlorine levels are only sampled 2-3 times per week. Billing and payments are processed at a part time level at best. This number is highly suspicious.

Regarding Attachment N Exhibit 3 Cost of Capital: Long term debt is listed at $104,005. Water utility users should not be repaying a loan for the owners capital/equity.

The application for a rate increase should not be considered or approved until an accurate, honest, complete and evidence based application is submitted.

Please deny this rate increase request in its entirety.

Thank you.
IPUC
PO Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720

Case No. SWS-W-24-01

March 14, 2024

Hello,

I am writing regarding a water rate increase proposed by CDS StoneRidge Utilities (PO Box 298, Blanchard, Idaho 83804). This is regarding Case number SWS-W-24-01.

This utility has proposed water rate increases of 261% to 543%. After reviewing the rationale for these increases, all of the reasons given are completely unwarranted.

I ask that you decline the entire rate request by CDS StoneRidge Utilities.
1)CDS StoneRidge claims to have “invested” more than $900,000 since ownership transfer. This claim was made in the official notice to users. There is no documentation about what types of investment the utility has made. We suspect it is to try to recoup $980,000 the utility owner transferred from Esprit Enterprises/JD’s Resort, as found in Case number SWS-W-23-03 where it was declared this was to be treated as owner’s equity. PLEASE verify this claim by the utility. We suspect that the claimed investment has not been in infrastructure or system improvements, such as the water system infrastructure….the wells. pumps, transfer pipe system, etc. are the same as when purchased by the utility operator. I suspect the owner has transferred his OWN money as capitalization, which should be regarded as owner’s equity and not an expense to be recouped from utility customers, as noted in SWS-W-23-03. Additionally, this current rate increase request includes infrastructure expenditures, which we note are questionable, and are detailed below.

2)I believe that when CDS StoneRidge purchased the utility, Chan Karupiah, the owner, claimed to have enough cash and assets to fund improvements and capitalization. He should live up to this agreement without impacting users of the utility. Please refer to Case number SWS-W-18-01 when Karupiah purchased the utility. That action declared that “JD Resort (applicant) must demonstrate his financial ability to operate on its own accord. The notarized personal guarantee of Chan Karupiah to use his personal finances to support the financial needs of the company is of uncertain value. If Mr. Karupiah were to file bankruptcy or otherwise being unable to meet all of his financial obligations, a signed personal guarantee to financially support a legally separate company is dubious value compared to more standard cash capital or debt instruments likely held by other creditors. Therefore, we require assurances that JD Resort has the financial ability to operate the system in the public service, not JD Resort by and through Chan Karupiah. JD Resort must be able to make and pay for ongoing repairs and have access to capital for major repairs, including pump or well failures…JD Resort must file balance sheets and income statements with the commission quarterly…JD Resort must file its balance sheet and income statement for the quarter ended 30 June, 2019, within 60 days of this Order. Subsequent quarterly financial statements must be filed within 45 days of the quarter end. JD Resort must file monthly bank statements showing at least a $50,000 balance until JD Resort establishes a bank line of credit of at least $250,000.”

RECEIVED
Wednesday, March 13, 2024 1:56PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
3)The operating expenses absolutely do not justify a rate increase. We believe this proposal is about greed. The owner of CDS StoneRidge also owns a golf course….StoneRidge. The golf course used to get its water from the utility, about 50,000,000 gallons annually…we have heard the golf course did NOT pay its water bill at times, if at all. The golf course drilled its own water well recently and has separated from the utility for water supply. The utility is trying to recapture that lost income from current users. This is unconscionable.

4)The employee related expenses are minimal. One person to read meters for six months of the year, who also takes chlorine readings every few days…a part time employee at best. Another part time person to administer billings and receive payments. Chan Karupiah reportedly spends one day per week at StoneRidge…where he oversees the utility, the sewer system, the golf course, and the bar/grill. We suspect he has allocated too much
overhead for expenses into the rate increase paperwork. A complete forensic audit by
IPUC would be appropriate in this instance to verify all financial documents and
claims.
5)We understand that, at times, if not currently, CDS StoneRidge, the utility, has been chronically late with filings and reports due to the IPUC since it was purchased by the current owner.

Now, let’s review Attachment W in the current CDS StoneRidge Utilities rate increase application.

1)The owner claims to have financial harm from the reduction in water sales to the golf course. The golf course drilled its own well to avoid water charges from the utility. The same individual, Chan Karupiah owns the golf course and the utility. In essence, he was paying himself…the utility he owns was billing the golf course he owns for water. Now…as a result of the new golf course well, the golf course has a significantly lower cost for water, a huge savings to Karupiah. BUT…now he wants utility users to pay for what HE used to pay. That is simply unconscionable. This proposal actually doubles his gain…reduced water fees for the golf course AND replace that lost income at the expense of the utility users…nearly 50,000,000 gallons of water cost annually! This should not be allowed.

2)The utility wants to replace 3 pump motors. To my knowledge, there are currently two working wells for the utility. The application document cites attachment W-1, but it is not included in the available download paperwork. This expenditure is a responsibility of the utility, not the users. The owner should fund this and absorb the expense, per the agreements made when Karupiah purchased the utility (noted above).

3)The utility wants to install (replace?) “backup electrical generators” at water pump sites. The application document cites attachment W-2, but it is not included in the available download paperwork. This expenditure is the responsibility of the utility, not the users. The owner should fund this and absorb the expense, per the agreements made when Karupiah purchased the utility (noted above).

4)The utility wants to purchase a pickup and a 4 wheeler. The application document cites attachment W-3, but it is not included in the available download paperwork. The use of these vehicles would likely be shared by other entities owned by Karupiah, and the expense should be accurately allocated. The owner should fund these purchases and absorb the expense, per the agreements made when Kaupiah purchased the utility (noted above. HOWEVER, in the “Related Entity Narrative, Asset ownership and Existing Leases” document in the current request, it states that Esprit leases to the water company the following: vehicles and other light truck equipment. How can you have it both ways?

5)The utility wants the users to fund the connection costs for 20 vacant plotted lots. WhatKarupiah fails to mention in the application is that he owns the 20 lots. The cost for this isdetailed in attachment W-4, which is not included in the available document download.This clearly is an expense of the utility and the lot owner(s)…not the utility users.
6)The utility wants to install approximately 360 meters to remotely read water usage. Theapplication cites attachment W-5, but is is not included in the available documentdownload. What is not noted or projected is the effective savings to the utility by notmanually reading the meters. This should be an expense of the utility and certainly not theusers.
Now let’s take a look at some other concerns.

In Exhibit 1, schedule B, Accumulated Depreciation, there is a line item for “structures and improvements.” Also included are things like supply mains, power pumping equipment, purification systems, meters, hydrants, etc. But the largest line item is “Structures and Improvements” at $774,820…by far the largest amount on this schedule. What could this utility possibly have at more than 3/4 of a million dollars in this line item? In the documentation, it is reported that the utility leases facilities from other entities owned by Karupiah. In the “Related Narrative, Asset Ownership and Existing Leases” it states “There is no land included nor, water rights, or miscellaneous equipment included in the balance sheet for CDS StoneRidge Utilities” and “Esprit owns all buildings, and miscellaneous equipment not on the StoneRidge Water Company balance sheet as well as the remainder land parcels, and ROW rights.” Esprit leases to the water company the following: office and shop space, vehicles and other light truck equipment, office equipment, and water rights and use of ROW. What is included in this “structures and improvements” line item that totals $774,820? Also in this listing is a line item for “Services” at $30,101. What services are depreciated?

Regarding Attachment L, Exhibit #2 Schedule B Expenses: Labor and Salaries total a whopping $223,267. I would encourage the IPUC to review, forensically audit and validate this level of expense for a relatively small, simple water utility. Meters aren’t read half the year. Chlorine levels are only sampled 2-3 times per week. Billing and payments are processed at a part time level at best. This number is highly suspicious.

Regarding Attachment N Exhibit 3 Cost of Capital: Long term debt is listed at $104,005. Water utility users should not be repaying a loan for the owners capital/equity.

The application for a rate increase should not be considered or approved until an accurate, honest, complete and evidence based application is submitted.

Please deny this rate increase request in its entirety.
Thank you.From: Stephan Rezac <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 1:56 PM
To: secretary <[e-mail]>
Subject: SWS-W-24-01
Hello,
Attached is a public comment letter for IPUC case number SWS-W-24-01. It is in PDF format.
Thank you.
Stephan and Nancy Rezac
28 San Souci Drive
Blanchard, Idaho
208-255-8243