20241029Comments_4.pdf

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Nancy and Robert Alexander
Submission Time: Oct 27 2024 3:27PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 242 Centennial Dr
Estes Park, CO 80517
Name of Utility Company:Aspen Creek Water Co
Case ID: ASP-W-24-03
Comment: "We received our notification by mail of this proposed increase on October 21, 2024 though the
application was received by the Idaho Utilities Commission on August 26, 2024.
Upon review of this application there are concerning discrepancies and questionable practices that should be
considered.
-How are proposed water connection costs established?
The Aspen Creek Water company and its officers are entirely operated by one family.The afilitated company(as
noted in the 2023 Idaho Public Utilities Annual Report) responsible for land/water development(Dirthead
Services, Inc) is owned and operated by the same family.
We appreciated their hard work, but it appears that the water company functions a monopoly,without the
benefit of competition.
This leads to significantly higher proposed costs than a competitive market.
The fees proposed are excessively high and reflect monopoly pricing.
In addition, the background information in the proposal is not accurate.The application states that they have
"never increased rates sinnce 2002". Actually rates have been increased at least twice.
The application states that they serve 73 connections with potential for 135.The legal document filed with the
December 2023 Idaho Public Utilities Commission states that the Aspen Creek water company serves 47
customers.
We respectively request that the application for a rate and hook-up fee increase be denied.
There are too many inconsistencies, unanswered questions, and lack of transparency to move forward with this
proposal.
Thank you.
Nancy and Robert Alexander
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Travis Hobbs
Submission Time: Oct 28 2024 10:16AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 97 Kodiak Rd
Fish Haven, ID 83287
Name of Utility Company:Aspen Creek
Case ID: ASP-W-24-03
Comment: "I'm all for a rate increase, it needs to be done. But 300%seems very excessive.
Is there any way we can find more detailed information about expenditures, annual costs, etc?
The letter I received a few weeks ago had very little information and was the first I have heard of this,"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Julie Wright<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 4:01 PM
To: secretary
Subject: Intervention - Late notice received please see attachment
From:Julie Wright [e-mail]
Sent: 10/28/2024
To: Secretary
Subject: Case ASP-W-24-03
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
am writing in regard to the gross increase our water supplier has asked its residents to pay. I'm late
responding because my letter of intent to increase was post marked Oct 101"from SLC a 3pm. I have
attached a copy of the proof that my letter did not arrive in time to intervene by Oct 41". I have done some
investigating, and I can't figure out why Aspen Creek Water needs$117,000 plus dollars per year to provide
water to its 73 customers. Many of the residents in Aspen Creek and Aspen Meadows are part time
residents. I am at my home in Fish Haven perhaps 5 of 6 weeks out of the year. I have a patch of grass that
is 20'X30'in my tiny little backyard. I don't live in a McMansion... my home is 3 bedrooms and 3 baths. We
purchased our home in 1999, I've been in the area 25 years. Please understand that we are on a fixed
income as we approach retirement. Having my water cost go from$25 per month to$135 is too much of a
rate hike, and no one has explained why the hike is mandatory, only that our rates haven't gone up since
2002.
Do you believe that I should pay the same amount per month as a home with 7 bedrooms and 6 bathrooms
with AirBnB renters coming in and out every weekend? This broad, across-the-board fee is completely
2

unfair. For those types of funds,Aspen Creek Water should be forced to meter everyone's home so we pay
for what we use.
Who set the rate of$135 per month per household? And why did I receive my letter so late? Why were we
not informed of this change during our fall HOA meeting? The owner of Aspen Creek Water happens to live
in Aspen Creek Meadows and also owns an excavation company. Is there some work that needs done to
the tank or the system? If so, did the so called"non-profit"company call forbids to do the work? Who was
able to submit a bid? Who was in charge of selecting the bidder? Is there a conflict of interest concerning
the contractor and the owner? These are questions that must be asked.
Please consider the residents in the valley. Many received their letters late; I suspect that many haven't
received them at all. This entire inquiry is highly suspect.
Sincerely,
Julie Wright
700 Loveland Lane, Lot#19 Aspen Creek—Fish Haven Idaho
208-308-6866
Mailing address: 330 E 400 South Jerome Id 83338
Aspen Crce�t�+'ter t'o.
PO Rox 77
Carden Ciq',ltl' 841128
(43S)737-21R2 a mail.com
ucl,encreekwatereoC3it CUSTOMER MYrICE
(Xiober o,2024
Aspen Creek Water Co.(•Company")has filed an application with thevubV,
Utilities Commission(••IPUC"or"Commission')requesting approval or a rate increax a,be
effective May 1.2025. The Company is proposing 10 increase overall revenue by SRRp2R."this
represents an overall increase of 305.870/6.
seeks a rate increase to cover expenses,such as,power.water tcsitng
ComPanY operate the water system,and to continue w
maintenance,and other expenses to maintain and opera s never increased ratcx sir.eo IN- `
m and reliable Water• Aspcn Creek Water Co.ha
provide safe___-li l place in 2002.If approved,a residential customer would see the month)
current tariff was P
bill increase from$ad'u s ito ts$co��l�ch�g�of$109A0 per month.Additionally,t e
Cornpai1Y seeks to J $1000
Current Connection Char a 5500
�4 pRo U1
+Turn on Water Pit Setter and service line ahead m lace $2 rh5
all Water Meter cj3 005
Ga '°o a tv. 4r,Meter.Tarn on Water $1.505
c +>> :ne,Pit Setter Meter.*Excavation or horizontal burin
Ur 'Ca Main Line,
�o2e public review and a Commission decision. A
,roposal,subject top lssion and at Aspen
•-le for review at the offices of the Comm
.he ox web site 2, quc.ida'no.gov• Th
t by clicking on the"WATER"icon,then
� • 03.
�,)public Utilities CotnrcUssi
•,'section 039.03)for
�elc• � �''ln, � •C.lda�lO.gO
�C4 R�rY1 "o
e`o�r�OS.
4IJ
3

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:tom talbott<[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, October 29, 2024 11:13 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: Aspen Creek Meadows
Upon further reflection, I am submitting the following comments.
In order to evaluate the business at hand would like to see;
- Revenue for the last five years
- Expenses for the last five years(itemized)
-Gallons pumped per year for the last five years
-#of users each year.
- Net profit after taxes and all in costs.
-Capacity of the current system.
This way the business can be evaluated on an existing basis. Reasonable rate increase can then be determined.
At some point I am assuming that the existing well will reach its maximum and the new well will need to be
brought into service. The costs associated with the new system needs to be funded by the new users, not the
existing users. In order justify the expansion it needs to attain a reasonable ROL
Said differently the existing users should not have to fund the project to bring the business owner more profit.
In addition currently there is no metering of the existing users. This allows those with large grass areas to be
funded by the owners who have chosen to have zero landscape. Therefore there is no incentive for anyone to
conserve water.
The Bear River drainage goes into the Great Salt Lake which is in need of water to keep the toxic fugitive dust
under control which is toxic. From an environmental standpoint we should not be putting in a new well just so
some can water there grass.
Thanks,
Tom Talbott
307-371-2030
4