20230123Comments(6)_6.pdf

From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Thursday, January 19, 2023 12:00:07 PM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Rick Prindle
Submission Time: Jan 19 2023 11:55AMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 29159 n silver meadows loop
Athol, ID 83801
Name of Utility Company: Bitteroute
Case ID: GSW-W-22-01
Comment: "When I moved here in 2013 I was never made aware of any water issues in this area. I only found out about all the water problems after I had purchased my home. I paid top
dollar & then some for my property. I would have moved to another tract if I knew then what I know now. We have a huge aquifer ( rathdrum/ prairie) & lots of water in north idaho. Not
sure why it is so hard to provide a simple service to people on this particular system. I am on the north end of the loop & our water pressure is about 40 lbs. Every year when I have my
sprinklers blown out the technician tells me it’s the worst water pressure in the whole area. Some of the problems we have had over the years is they just shut off the water with no notice.
When I drive down to the corner to see if anyone is fixing our pump nobody is there. Hours later they are pulling out all the pipe & pump & doing repairs. From what I have gathered our
system is outdated. They have added several customers/ homes & never updated the system. My suggestion is they add a bigger pump/ larger pipes to get more volume & or pressure. Also
maybe they could split the system & add another pump to get better service to us on the north end. We also need a automatic transfer switch to run the generator when the power is out.
Most people would not mind paying a reasonable amount for water if we had good water pressure & or service. I only water about 3/4 to 1 acre of lawn. At this rate hike they are
asking for I will not be able to afford to keep my lawn green. I am sure you have heard also that most of us are all retired & on fixed incomes. I also am not able to work anymore to earn
more income. I strongly hope that as the commissioners you will look out for us as consumers. One last thing is I have several friends that have moved to the area & have never encountered
any of the problems that we have. Thank you so much for listening to our concerns. Sincerely Rick & Kim Prindle."
------
From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Friday, January 20, 2023 12:00:07 PM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: John Balbi
Submission Time: Jan 20 2023 11:14AMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 31772 N. Kelso Dr.
Spirit Lake, ID 83869
Name of Utility Company: Gem State Water Co.
Case ID: GSW-W-22-01
Comment: "Gem State Water reads meters 4-5 year. Does not seem to be too much of inconvenience. Past water Co's have been doing that for over 25 years. As far as billing a
simple software program can bring up the customer information and correct billing with the customer number included on the return billing stub or written on the check. "
------
From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:00:56 PM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: darrell richardson
Submission Time: Jan 18 2023 4:48PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 32093 N. Tahoe Dr.
spirit lake, ID 83869
Name of Utility Company: Gem State Water Company
Case ID: GSW-W-22-01
Comment: "Sir/Madam, This is mostly a repeat of my testimony at the Athol hearing. The raterequest by Gem State Water Co (GSWC) does not look like a good faith attempt to balance
desires for profit vs cost to customers. FYI, I'm in the spirit lake east distribution network butwhat I'm saying broadly would be the same for other local GSWC networks. Our last rate
increase appears per the GSWC docs to have been in 2013. Since then inflation has been 27%(per google). My requested base rate increase is 40% and my excess rate increase is > 100%.
Looking at last years usage as a guide, my cumulative expenses under the new rates would beup 55%. There is nothing in the documentation showing I would get better value for the
payments exceeding inflation. The proportions of water billing is changing to be much moremore punitive to excess beyond the base amount. That water is what I use to provide a green
belt around my house for fire protection and to mitigate grocery bills by having a garden (on adrip system). Going through the accounting numbers provided by GSWC really made me feel
the request was an attempt to gouge. Where is the projected income based on historical usageusing the new rates? How could one possibly ask for such an increase without that as
justification? There is only 1 years data presented so we have no idea if that year was aaberration or not, but it was used as the base to justify the increase. In it there was a major
purchase of a truck representing about 25% of the income under-run. It was paid in full, not asa down payment and monthly payment. As such, being incorporated in the rate raise will mean
it gets covered IN FULL every year from here on to infinity. Not just the one time it waspurchased. That comes across as functionally cooking the books by making the apparent
annual recovery needs higher than they really are. There is an attempt to shift different watersystems into different payment rate increases using the term "equity' to make it appear that we
are having all people pay their fair amount to support GSWC. I have no idea how to judge ifSpirit Lake is paying too much relative to Bitterroot, and don't really know why one group
should subsidize another just due to the whim of the new owner. At any rate GSWC didn'tjustify why their apportionment across water systems or between big and little users made
sense. It just wasn't even written up. Putting through a huge rate increase while shifting the%base vs %excess, Bumping up each water system by different amounts. Shifting how much
small vs big users will be billed, not having a projection (although surely they did one to comeup with these numbers), all makes this monopoly situation very opaque. This is all exactly
backwards from how a company should be asking it's base for more money. It lacks good faithand courtesy. One comment particularly set the tone for me. A customer benefit was claimed
of making the tariff rate clearer to us. What?? It was base rate and excess, in the future it will be base rate and excess. Nothing has changed except the numbers. It feels like spreading feel
good words with no actual value behind them. Please reject this rate case. A 27% increase, matching inflation, would be acceptable if apportioned equally within a network, 27% to base
rate, 27% to excess, 27% to small user, 27% to large user, until such time as they present a case justified by proper documentation and consultation."
------
RECEIVED
Friday, January 20, 2023 12:58:54 PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Friday, January 20, 2023 4:00:05 PM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Judy Aviles
Submission Time: Jan 20 2023 3:21PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 35552 N. St. Joe Dr.
Spirit Lake, ID 83869
Name of Utility Company: Gem State Water
Case ID: GSW-W-22-01
Comment: "It is unethical to gauge the innocent public with excessive rate changes. In almost 19 years, we have not exceeded the amount of water allotted us. Originally it was 9 thousand
gallons, then came a new owner, and a rate increase plus 1000 gallons less. We live in Spirit Lake East, we are on SSI as our income, and do not need more water or a much higher
payment rate. Big conglomerates do not need more money, they just need to learn to live within their means like the rest of us do."
------
From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Friday, January 20, 2023 7:00:16 AM
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Stephanie Gossard
Submission Time: Jan 19 2023 5:28PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 28239 N Silver Meadows Lp
Athol, ID 83801-8726
Name of Utility Company: Stephanie Gossard
Case ID: GSW-W-22-01
Comment: "January 19, 2023 Jan Noriyuki Commission Secretary ldaho Public UtilitiesCommission PO Box 83720 Boise, lD 83720-0074 Re: GSW-W-22-01: ln the matter of the
Application of Gem State Water Company, LLC for an Order Authorizing increase in theCompany's Rates and Charges for Water Service in the State of Idaho. Dear Commission
Secretary Noriyuki, This is in reference to Gem State Water Company application filed withthe Idaho Public Utilities Commission to increase the Terms, Rates and Charges for Water
Service. Most residents received what we assume is the required Notice from the Gem StateWater, (hereafter referred to herein as Applicant). However, the information contained therein
appears incomplete. They provide a chart with the proposed rates indicating it is necessary for,“…operating and maintaining the water systems which have escalated in recent years.” They
then make the brazen statement that it will, “…increase the Company’s revenues by $402,000which represents an increase in the Company’s revenues by 69%. There is also the statement
that the proposed raise in rates is for funding the Applicants consolidation and aligning thedifferent systems into one. In reviewing the application on the PUC website, it is concerning
there are additional requests the Applicant failed to disclose. Specifically, the decrease in theminimum customer volume from 15,000 to 10,000 with the increase in charge per 1000
gallons after reaching the lesser minimum customer volume. These two items are ratherimportant. Were we going to be notified of this? Is this not a requirement of the PUC to notify
those who use the system of “all” intended changes contained in the Application? This is anobvious intentional failure of the Applicant to notify customers. A few other points concerning
their request to note: 1. Failure of the Applicant in their “Notice to Gen Stat Water CompanyCustomers” to disclose their intentions of reducing the customer minimum by 5,000 gal and
increasing the 1000 gal overage. 2. An increase in rates for funding the Applicantsconsolidation and aligning the different systems into one. This should be the responsibility of
Gem State Water not those who are serviced by them. 3. When the Bitterroot system waspurchased by Applicant, several improvements that were to take place. Have they been
completed? I do know they claimed they upgraded the generator which would prevent thewater system from going down during a power failure. This has not been done to our
knowledge, as it still requires someone to go to the site to start the emergency back-up system.4. Water usage in the winter months, usually October through April/May, when the meters are
not accessible due to snow, we are charged the minimum monthly fee. During these monthsthe water usage is normally minimal as there is no yard or garden watering. However, if you
do not reach that minimum usage, we have never received a refund. During these low usage months are we paying for water we don’t use? Once the meters are read shouldn’t the
customer be credited for any amount not used? 5. New homes and businesses are being serviced by Gem State Water. Who pays for the hook up fee, labor, time and equipment
upgrade to provide the service for these new homes? Impact fees? 6. Water pressure is an issue and more so now that there are additional properties pulling from this system. It has also
created fire prevention issues at some of the outlying areas as there is not sufficient water pressure to those fire hydrants to protect the homes. They have been on notice for this issue for
several years following the loss of a neighborhood home where it was necessary for the fire department to bring in a pumper truck to produce enough water pressure to put out the fire. 7.
Customer service is an issue. Our bills are sporadic. 8. Many residents are retired seniors living on a fixed income. Most are struggling with the state of the economy. This request from
Applicant to increase their total revenues by just short of a half million dollars is repulsive and greedy. 9. Opposed to the request to decrease the minimum allowed from 15,000 to 10,000.
Many families have livestock and this would be detrimental to those as well as an additional hardship financially. Also opposed to the increase in the per 1000 gal overage charge. With
the above in mind, we are hereby requesting the Application by Gem State be denied in its entirety. Thank you. Tom & Stephanie Gossard Jim & Patty Tomlinson Rich & Kim Prindle
Joe Baumann Debbie Funk Dale Fitzgerald Mike & Linda Mallory Paul & Deborah Skinner Greg & Melanie Vander Feer Rick & Debbie Wright Doug & Shelly Thaxton Ryan & Wendy
Vander Feer Beth Washabaugh Paul & Jamie Wise Jason Kuenkler Kevin & Joan Peterson Brian & Geri Patton Cathy Colby Residents of Silver Meadows Loop Bitterroot Water "
------