20250409Comments_3.pdf

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Priest Lake Water Richardson
Submission Time:Apr 92025 8:41AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:50 N Ryan Rd
Priest Lake, ID 83856
Name of Utility Company: Priest Lake Water LLC
Case ID: PLWW2402
Comment: "My home at Priest Lake receives water from Priest Lake Water LLC and I wish to make
comment on this case.
I agree with comments previously submitted on this case. In addition, I want to make sure the
commission considers how the company will fund future, large maintenance expenses like
replacing water holding tank or replacing expensive pumps. I believe the company has submitted a
list of necessary replacement parts and necessary upgrades. Hopefully the commission's
engineering staff can examine this list and decide if each item is necessary.
Thankyou
John Richardson"
-----------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Kristy Bremer
Submission Time:Apr 9 2025 4:55PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 62 Jacob
Priest Lake, ID 83856
Name of Utility Company: Priest Lake Water LLC
Case ID: PLW-W-24-02
Comment: "4/9/25
Idaho Public Utility Commission
Re Utility Company: Priest Lake Water LLC
Case ID#: PLW-W-24-01 AND PLW-W-24-02
1

To the commissioners,
First, I would like to express my complete shock after receipt of the PLW letter in January 2025
stating we have"exciting news"and included in the news was to inform us that the monthly water
rate would be increased to$98 a month! My thoughts were why is it becoming regulated instead of
remaining a private HOA system where the HOA property owners/members could work together
with PLW's owner to solve system and rate issues.
strongly object to this excessive increase in the monthly water rate and hope that the commission
examines and declines this request for a rate increase.
Concerns/issues/comments:
• Did every lot owner get the PLW letter or just the lot owners that are currently hooked up to the
system paying monthly fees now? This could affect future development of remaining undeveloped
lots.
• lam not a full-time year-round resident using water 12 months of the year. I might possibly use
water for 6 months. I also have an RV lot that is only accessible at the most 7 months of the year
however paying for water 12 months of the year. I did not object to the increase of the extra fees for
five (5) months on the RV lot as well as 6 months on the home with hopes that would go to help
maintain the system.
• My property is kept as natural habitat, so I do not water flowers, plants or lawn. It would
practically be impossible to even use 10,000 gallons a month let alone 30,000 gallons.
• 1 might need to consider un-hooking the RV lot's water which would decrease PLW collected
monthly fees.
• There is no breakdown of the fee charges to hook up to the system,just lump sums for
equipment and labor costs? Why would costs not be clarified?
• A$100 monthly fee does not even compare to rates charged by other water systems in and
around the Priest Lake area.
• Why would it not be considered an option to charge a monthly base fee with monthly meter
readings and billed according to the water usage? The property owner would pay more if you
exceeded the monthly base limit(of course should not be 30,000 gallons!!).
• 1 understand it is a privately owned system and does not belong to the HOA that needs the
water. Most business owners expect to make something from owning a business however operating
and maintaining the water system is in no way a full-time, 40 hour a week, 12-month job warranting
a large salary.
I understand the system is aging, costs continue to rise and the importance of maintaining a safe
supply of water to the members to use is extremely important, but upgrades can be done as needed
over a longer period of time.Jared does do a fabulous job and is good to work with however he knew
(or should have known)the condition of the system when agreeing to purchase it. Although I am
sure that Idaho regulations have affected some of the improvements that are needed/required to
comply with the state regulations.
I commend the other HOA property owners for some very detailed comments and letters submitted
to the IPUC on this issue. Thank you for your time and efforts with this matter.
Best regards,
Kristy Bremer,4523 N. Ella Rd, Spokane WA
2

Property address owned: 62 and 74 Jacob, Priest Lake
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
From: DeWitt Francis
Sent:Wednesday,April 9,2025 9:19 PM
To: secretary
Subject: Priest Lake Water LLC
Clinton Francis
184 Tracy Lane
Priest Lake, ID
83856
April 9, 2025
IPUC VIA EMAIL
RE: PLW-24-01
Dear Sir/Madam
Regarding the proposed rate increases requested by PRIEST LAKE WATER,LLC. I have read the
comments;; submitted at this time and find most of them align with my thoughts.A monopoly was
created when the CC&Rs were drafted for MARVIN ESTATES HOMEOWNERS.The developer had a
water system installed to provide water for each lot for development.This water system negated
the need for individual wells.The CC&Rs were written with that in mind and expressly prohibit
drilling individual wells.The sole source of water thereafter was the developers infrastructure.The
developer did have the work associated with owning the system.The developer sold the system to
PLWLLC and residents expected to get the same service they had at a reasonable price. That ended
when PLW took over the system.Service has been the same but the proposed price hikes are
concerning.When the letter started with"good news"little did we know until the end of the letter
that the good news wasn't for the property owners but for the water system owner.The
homeowners are legitimately concerned.We all agree that the water system needs money to
operate but it needs to be a reasonable rate given the monopolistic nature of the interaction. Similar
sized and locality water rates are lower than requested by PLW.
Part of the justification for a higher rate is to build a shop which would be nice but will no doubt be
big enough for the equipment for his existing excavation business. The homeowners don't want to
fulfill his wish list by funding his shop.There is some indication that another excavator and installer
will not be allowed to do hookups. Likewise homeowners are concerned about the volumetric rate.
Most homeowners use under 10,OOOgal per month at the rate we pay now.The increase in volume
3

allowed in the"good news"proposal is an opportunity for every owner to pay of water they can't
use. Simple fairness is missing in that portion of the proposed rate hike.
The proposed rate hike is even more onerous for the owners of RV lots having no water usage but
have to pay during the 5 months they aren't usable by the owners.
I would urge the commission to acknowledge that the proposed rate hike is unreasonable and
based upon that set the rate considerably lower than proposed.
Sincerely yours,
Clinton Francis
4