20250227Comments_4.pdf

The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Dave Tenneson
Submission Time: Feb 26 2025 5:43PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 77 Courtlen Court
Priest Lake, ID 83856
Name of Utility Company: Priest Lake Water, LLC
Case ID: PLW-W-24-02
Comment: "I have reviewed the application by the operator as well as the comments from my fellow
owners and the comments of the staff in regards to their review of the original application. I agree that
the proposal is insupportable and the rates requested should not be approved by staff. I question the
willingness of the State to approve even the first part of this application. In essence,this company is a
quasi-public utility. Public utilities do not exist to make a profit,they create infrastructure at the most
reasonable cost available and the system is then operated and maintained on customer generated fees
based on estimated costs of operation. I am sure it would be nice to have a brand new system; like it
would be nice to have a brand new car. I would be in favor of more reasonable approach to the
upgrading and fee increases proposed; preferably on an as needed basis. In this case, it seems like the
operator is using his approval as a utility to get the State to be the one to insist on this exorbitant fee
increase."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Jordan Friedman
Submission Time: Feb 27 2025 5:15AM
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address: 140 Courtlen Court
Priest Lake, ID 83856
Name of Utility Company: Priest Lake Water LLC
Case ID: PLW-W-24-02
Comment: "The proposed rate increase for the water utility is crazy. It would more than triple the cost of
water. Also our lot is a seasonal summer use only RV lot. Priest Water LLC should have done more due
diligence before buying the water company. It is not the owners of all the lots to absorb the cost of
buying a business that needed so many upgrades. There are many residents on fixed income and could
not afford such a big increase. Thank you for your time and please do what's right for the lot owners.
Thanks "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Chris Martinson
Submission Time: Feb 27 2025 11:55AM
Email: [e-mail]
1

Telephone: [phone]
Address: PO Box 28894
Spokane, WA 99228
Name of Utility Company: Priest Lake Water LLC
Case ID: PLW-W-24-02
Comment: 'T I currently own and have owned two undeveloped lots in Marvin Estates since June,
2011. 1 am not a current Priest Lake LLC water customer.Their letter dated January 1, 2025 is the first
ever communication I have been made aware of concerning the common water system at Marvin
Estates. I learned of the proposed Hookup Fees and monthly rate increase from emails sent by current
water customers who like me, belong to the Marvin Estates HOA. As noted in their Application,there are
currently 72 connections with paying customers and 41 non-connected water user lots for a total of 113.
1 did not receive from Priest Lake Water LLC their letter dated January 1, 2025 via USPS, email, or physical
delivery to my lots. If the owners of the other 39 lots also did not receive this letter, fully 36 percent of
lot owners (41/113), were not given any Notice. As noted by other IPUC Comments received regarding
this case, our CCRs under Article XII, page 8 states "That water shall be furnished to the lot owners
through a common water system. No private water systems including wells, shall be allowed." Given that
lot owners have no other option but to purchase their water from Priest Lake Water LLC, now or in the
future, and given the proposed rate increase of$98/month is 165 percent over the current$37/month
rate, I'm questioning whether proper Notice was given to all lot owners so that all who want to submit
Comments to the IPUC are given an equal opportunity to do so?
2. Also regarding the same letter of rate increase as noted above, it states on page 1, paragraph #4, . . .
"the Idaho Public Utility Commission has recommended the rate be increased (from $37 per month) to
$98.00 per meter per month." My question: Is it the role of the IPUC to recommend monthly water
rates?
3. My original intention in purchasing my two lots was for long-term investment. I'm concerned that a
proposed Residential Hookup Fee of$7,444.00 and a $98/month water bill for each lot will weaken the
market value to potential buyers, as well as to buyers for other developed and undeveloped lots in
Marvin Estates. I ask the question: Is the Hookup Fee of$7,444.00 and a $98.00/month water fee
commensurate with other similar water systems in Idaho?
4. RE: Appendix 7B Annual Maintenance Costs: An Estimated Cost of$200,000 is listed for Item Backflow
prevention x 40.This amounts to$5,000 (per lot?). If this figure is being used to support the $98/month
rate, it needs a further breakdown of costs. Labor costs also has an Estimated Cost of$50,000. If this
figure is also being used to support the $98/month rate, it needs a further breakdown/explanation,for
example, a time log of the Operator's actual time spent on the water system, etc.
5. RE: Appendix 11 Current Rate Structure: Under Proposed Rate Structure, it states "Residential
Monthly Rates (subject to increase on an annual basis)".This statement needs more clarification. For
example, is it tied to annual inflation, or is it tied to other factors? If it is tied to other factors, these need
to be specified. My monthly water rate for a house in Spokane and a rental house in Oregon are not
raised on annual basis, but for other reasons related to inflation and system costs. Even when rates are
increased,they are done at a two to three-year interval, and not on an annual basis.
2

6. RE: Appendix 11 Current Rate Structure, Schedule No. 3: HOOKUP FEE (New Service), lists Cost of
Materials for both Residential and Commercial at$5,944.00 and Labor$1,500.00.These figures are
questionable. Priest Lake Water LLC lists the "Cost of Materials as being a (water) meter, meter pit,
distribution line,valve(s), additional parts and materials, etc" A cursory search on the Web has the
following cost breakdown for materials:
Residential Water Meter from Grainger Industrial Supply: $280 Residential Water Meter Pit from Home
Depot: $63 My estimate for distribution line and valves: Less than $500 per lot
Total: $844
$5944-$844 = $5100 Unaccounted Balance for Material Costs
In addition,the $5944 figure for materials is guilty of spurious accuracy. I.E.,why isn't the figure
$5,945.00 or$5,943.00?Spurious Accuracy is defined according to Google Al: . . presenting data with a
level of detail or precision that is not actually justified by the quality of the information, essentially giving
the false impression of being more accurate than is realistically possible, often leading to misleading
interpretations; it's like claiming a measurement is extremely precise when the method used to obtain it
is inherently unreliable"The $5,944.00 amount needs to show some detailed itemization that supports
this figure.
7. RE: Priest Lake Water LLC letter to Residents of Marvin Estates dated January 1, 2025, Paragraph No.4:
"The reasons for this rate increase include the following:There are six items listed.These items have no
specific estimated costs attached to them. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Richard Hamm
Submission Time: Feb 27 2025 1:03PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 130 Tracy Ln
Priest Lake, ID 83856
Name of Utility Company: Priest Lake Water Co.
Case ID: PLW-W-24-02
Comment: "I feel that it is unfair to increase the water bill 170%. 1 don't feel that the 72 customers
should have to pay for shoddy or nonexistent maintenance.Als this will be out of line with other water
districts in the general area and will reduce the value of our property in relation to those nearby. I know
that inflation increases operating costs and would not be against an increase that matches the annual
cost of living.
Thank you,
Richard Hamm"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3