20250307Comments_1.pdf

March 1, 2025
RECEIVED
REGARDING: PLW-W-24-02
Am 11= 03
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Thank you for providing the online workshop on Feb. 27, 2025 regarding the applicati'on`ori Jiie
from Priest Lake Water LLC. We found it very helpful in clarifying several points that we were not
sure about and especially appreciated your non anxious presence in handling the questions. There
are obviously some nervous and upset home owners in Marvin Estates due to the proposed
monthly water price increase and your calm manner during the workshop was appreciated. We
also sensed you were "hearing" our concerns, working with us to provide a solution that will be fair
to Priest Lake Water LLC and to all of us who own property here. We feel much better knowing
that the Commission will be the entity that determines a fair price structure for all, based upon your
hard investigative research. Thank you!
We appreciate Jared Horlacher's hard work and skill in providing our neighborhood with safe,
clean water which is so important to all of us. We also understand his need to be fairly
compensated for his work and expertise and expect that our water rates will need to go up, similar
to all other expenses that are rising these days. At our stage in life as retirees, my wife and I do not
want the responsibility to oversee clean water and we appreciate being able to trust Jared to do so!
Here are our concerns with the proposal submitted by Priest Lake Water LLC:
1. We are concerned about the interpretation of the "Multi-Use Properties" clause and would
like to have this issue clarified and possibly removed from the rate structure because "Multi-
Use Properties" are prohibited in our CC&Rs. Duplexes and multi-family units are not
allowed according to our CC&Rs so we are confused why it is included in the proposed Rate
Structure. We do have a bunkhouse above our shop in a separate building that includes
beds and a bathroom but no cooking facilities and therefore it is not an ADU by definition. It
is used perhaps two weeks a year by our family, but to charge monthly for a building that is
for seasonal family overflow does not seem fair at all. If we use more water than allowed in
the monthly allotment, we will gladly pay for that, but not a monthly fee—especially
something as outlandish as $50. Not Fair!
2. It seems wrong and unfair to charge for 12 months of water on the RV lots that can only use
water 7 months of the year according to the Marvin Estates CC&Rs.
3. The rate increase to $98 a month seems to create a surplus of funds that would pay for
necessary improvements and provide an extravagant income for what we see as a part-time
position. I'm sure you will do the math. Again, we want Jared to be paid fairly, but the
proposed amount feels excessive. On Appendix 7B `Annual Maintenance Costs' (page 52)
of the PLW LLC's application it states Labor Costs as $50,000 minimum annually. It would
appear that the water company work season (except for emergencies) is typically six
months long. This seems like a very generous salary for a six-month, part-time job in north
Idaho.
4. Mr. Horlacher owns an excavation company which allows him to do much of the digging
necessary to run the water business. Our concern is that it creates a possible conflict of
interest between the two businesses. If he sets the price for a new water hook up for the

z
Priest Lake Water LLC and he also collects for the excavation for that hook up it would be
possible to build in excessive rates into the tariff. Would property owners have the right to
hire whoever they want to dig the hole?
5. We are also confused about actual current costs versus future costs for maintaining and
improving the water system. During the online workshop, I thought I heard it stated by the
IPUC staff that monthly water rates are determined by current revenue requirements and did
not include future costs. In Appendix 7B and 7C on pages 52 and 53 of the PLW LLC
application, there are costs stated with an estimated date of completion in the future. This
would lead me to wonder if future costs are being used to determine the monthly rate.
Please clarify this for us.
AN IDEA: Would the Commission allow the Home Owners Association to sit down with Priest Lake
Water LLC to see if we might find creative solutions to the financial shortage without charging
additional monthly fees? A one-time assessment per lot could generate needed funds, for
example. The Commission is skilled in establishing fair rates for all. Do you think it's prudent to
attempt such a conversation?
Thank you, so much, for your team of hard working experts helping us determine a fair and
reasonable water rate for all parties involved. We do appreciate all that you are doing and look
forward to meeting you in Coolin next Tuesday.
Sincerely, t ,�
Jim and Diana Fiedler
274 Tracy Lane, Priest Lake, ID
[e-mail]