Plans advance for water tower
JANESVILLE The city of Janesville will keep working toward building a new water tower, but plans are not concrete yet.
The city council Monday night voted to move forward with plans to build a 1.5-million-gallon water tower on the city's northeast side and a large-diameter water main to connect existing mains on the city's east and west sides.
The project would cost about $7.15 million.
The vote didn't commit money, but it will keep the city on a timeline to compete for federal stimulus money for the project, said Dan Lynch, utilities director.
A tower could address current problems in the north zone of the city's utility service, Lynch said.
"We're not talking about the future," Lynch said. "We're talking about right now. When we have a major main break, we really don't have water for anything."
Eight times in the last five or six years water pressure has dropped to problem levels in the north zone, Lynch said.
"That's eight times too many," he said.
The north zone serves about 30,000 people, he said.
When the pressure drops, bacteria could get in the system. It also could leave fire crews unable to pump water to fight a fire, he said.
The loss of a huge customer—General Motors—on the city's south side doesn't give any relief to the water pressure problems in the north zone, Lynch said.
Council member Tom McDonald voted against the project.
Rate increase
The city will ask the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin to raise utility rates for city customers.
The city will request a 14.75 percent increase.
With no production at GM, water sales have dropped, said Patty Lynch, city comptroller. GM accounted for 9 percent of the city's water sales, she said.
In addition, operating expenses and capital improvement costs have gone up, she said.
Currently, the average quarterly water bill for a residential customer is $40. That breaks down to $35.10 for water and $4.90 for public fire protection.
After an increase, the average bill would be $40.28 and $5.62.
The PSC will host a public hearing on the matter, probably via video, Lynch said.
It could be about six months before the state gets to Janesville's request, she said.
Council President Bill Truman voted against the application for the rate increase.
Council delays vote on sexual material ordinance
It's never easy talking about minors and sex.
The Janesville City Council on Monday night decided to put off a decision on the matter for two weeks.
The council postponed voting on a proposed ordinance that would require stores to keep "harmful" sexual materials away from the eyes of minors.
Only two people spoke during a public hearing. Once was an attorney on behalf of Spencer Gifts in the Janesville Mall.
"Spencer Gifts sells nothing vulgar, nothing that is pornographic," attorney Marc McCrory said.
The proposed ordinance is in reaction to a complaint made by council member Russ Steeber, who contacted the city manager's office after seeing sex toys and other novelties on display at the store.
McCrory said Spencer's does not sell sex toys.
The proposed ordinance requires that "harmful materials" be displayed so that minors cannot view them.
Some council members asked city attorney Wald Klimczyk to come up with a less complicated ordinance. He said he would review the wording but told council members not to expect big changes, because the ordinance was based on state statutes.

Apr 30, 2009 at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
I watched this on TV - and they didn't approve a water tower - the manager said they were just voting on letting him apply for a loan.
Apr 29, 2009 at 10:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'd like to see who has an average quarterly bill of $40. We are a family of 4 in a small house and our quarterly bill is over $100.
Apr 29, 2009 at 3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
spend , spend , spend. do we actually have any money or will you raise our taxes MORE to pay for this?
Apr 28, 2009 at 9:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
It was only two years ago when Janesville's first water tower was passed by the council for the far NW part of the city. That tower was needed to service Hendricks' residential development's higher altitude and challenging terrain. The city opted to pass the expense of this to Janesville water users, by charging the $2.7 million to residents in our water bills.
Statements made by Dan Lynch to the council at Monday's meeting are conflicting. Dan said the NW water tower is a separate service area from the south side, when he was answering Russ Steeber's question about water availability due to GM's closing. The NE side could use the NW tower to make up additional pressure needed during the 3-8 times every 5 years, that we have a loss of pressure, without requiring another tower. Considering our local (and global) financial disasters, it seems like the only reason staff is suggesting a NE tower is to allow for growth on the NE side of town. They are at their water pressure limit, but not extended beyond it.
Also according to Dan, the City is not in a hurry to move forward on this project. From both Dan and the City Manager: "If we don't get some stimulus money to build the tower, then we don't have to move forward." Dan said that "fire safety" is the reason we need the NE tower - the loss of pressure to fight a "significant house fire" is not available if we have a main break (unless the borrow from our new NW tower). In searching the Gazette's website, I find no house that reportedly was destroyed by fire, because there was not enough water pressure to put it out.
Dan states that the NE side of Jvl is at risk. Public safety is at stake. So does that mean the Council is endangering residents every time a home or commercial building permit is approved for the NE side of town?
Growth on the NE side poses a threat to the residents of the City of Janesville!!! More building will put further strain on the system - so the choices are to either stop growing to the NE side, or ask residents to pay 7.1 million dollars for a new watertower - even in a recession/depression, when new growth is not happening, and we don't know how long it will take for our City to recover.
Staff stated that the Council's vote was "only to approve an application for the DNR loans and grants". You have to really pay attention to see the plain truth; that we don't really need this water tower - and especially not now.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.