City wants 21% water rate hike
If you go
What: Wisconsin Public Service Commission hearing on a proposal to raise Janesville city water rates 21 percent.
When: 10 a.m. Wednesday
Where: Simultaneously in city council chambers, Janesville City Hall, 18 N. Jackson St., Janesville, and the Amnicon Falls Room, Wisconsin Public Service Commission Building, 610 N. Whitney Way, Madison.
MADISON — Janesville Water Utility's long-delayed 21 percent rate increase is scheduled for simultaneously public hearings Wednesday in the Janesville City Council chambers and at the Wisconsin Public Service Commission offices in Madison.
The request is the utility's third in four years following a 3 percent increase last year. It also follows a new rate structure approved in 2009 designed to promote water conservation.
If the Public Service Commission acts on the rate request this month, the utility would implement the increase Jan. 1, when rate changes for garbage collection, wastewater and storm water fees also will change.
"It's easier on the billing office to have all the changes go in at once. There are fewer phone calls that way," said Mandy Price, the utility's senior accountant.
The city council authorized the water rate increase in January, but the city delayed filing the application until mid June to mitigate its impact and "a lack of department resources," Price said.
The utility's finances still are feeling the impact of the GM plant closing. Usage has declined citywide, although water use spiked for few months during the summer drought, Price said. Lowered consumption means lower revenue projections.
"It's difficult being in a declining trend. Where's the bottom? We thought we bottomed out nearly four years ago, but we're in a negative $3 million cash position," she said.
The city didn't want to raise water rates when GM closed and instead used utility cash reserves, Price said.
The utility also lost money during the past few years when it installed water mains and hydrants in a subdivision that was platted but later sold at a tax auction when lots didn't sell. The utility couldn't recover its installation costs through special assessments on the unsold lots, Price said.
The water utility's net operating income, which is income remaining after expenses, has shrunk from $954,022 in 2008 to an estimated $298,654 this year.
Total operating revenue reached $6.04 million in 2008 but fell below that mark for three years. It is estimated to rebound to $6.13 million this year, according to the utility's rate application. Meanwhile, operating expenses continued to rise from $5.09 million in 2008 to an estimated $6.13 million this year.
Without a rate increase, the utility would earn less than 1 percent on its infrastructure investment valued at $33 million, according to a Public Service Commission staff analysis.
The new rates would boost revenue by $1.95 million next year, increase the net operating income to $1.69 million and earn the utility a 5.35 percent return on its infrastructure investment, a figure the Public Service Commission deems adequate for financial viability.
A typical residential customer paying $27.87 per quarter for 13,500 gallons of water would pay $33.84 for the same volume under the new rates, an increase of less than 7 cents per day, according to the utility.
Dec 7, 2012 at 12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
frusion_we have mostly good water quality because of the depth of the aquifers and the type, but with land uses seriously impacting the shallow aquifers and discharges to surface waters, so it's only a matter of time before the deeper wells are impacted....as to the other question-because I don't work at the water utility I would have to assume the workers there have the responsibility of maintaining the thousands of miles of pipelines, perform laboratory testing of input/output water resources, make sure businesses are in compliance with federal/state/local clean water regulations, fix and/or upgrade pollution removal mechanisms, etc...there is a mixing apparatus that mixes the nitrate free water with high nitrate water, so someone has to know how to do that...a regular joe off the street could not get these jobs and they require some level of skill...
Dec 7, 2012 at 12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
tpaine09...I'm not a city worker..I'm a full time grad student at UW Madison
Dec 7, 2012 at 11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jvillian, I will agree the capital investment is the same without GM, but O&M costs are going to be lower without GM. Most of Janesville's water system is pressurized via pump vs water towers. Without GM they are pumping less water so for sure in electricity alone there are less O&M costs. I am curious as to how much lower the O&M spend is without GM.
Dec 7, 2012 at 4:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
janesvillean
yet another city worker; they keep popping up!!
as far as gm being "redeveloped" yes, you are correct some day after they scrap it out and fill our landfill...it will be another 80 acre weeded lot..AND then someone in the city will have a bright idea to use our tax $$$ to build 156k houses {on the contaminated grounds} then sell them to 1st time home buyers for 70k..
and as for your other comment zzzzz.... fgfcjfcj.....sorry, i dozed off a moment what was it again??? oh well i forgot soo it must not MATTER..good day
Dec 6, 2012 at 6:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
tpaine09, I do not believe it is correct that the water utility revenue subsidizes any other part of city operations. It is a separate, regulated utility. The cost structure is not simply about labor, but paying for capital investment in the water system, which remains the same even if GM is currently shut down. Keep in mind that is an industrial property within the city and one day it will be redeveloped, which will again boost utilization.
Dec 6, 2012 at 1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
partarican1, after you answer tpaine's question, I have one too. I would like to know what the fine people working for the city do to make Janesville have some of the highest quality water in the state. I believe Janesville has good water, I just wonder what city workers do to make it that way. I've always thought the water quality had something to do with the aquifer and transition zone of sand/limestone?
Dec 6, 2012 at 1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
partarican1
i'll take it you are a city worker...
i did not suggest water utility jobs to be cut..
i do not like when the city picks a NEEDED service to TAX to help pay for functionless jobs in OTHER departments...soo what dept. r u in "partarican1" ????
Dec 6, 2012 at noon
Suggest removal
tpaine09-we have some of the highest quality drinking water in the state because of the fine people who work for the City...why should they 'fire themselves' as you suggest? would you prefer they be as overworked as the DNR or our county prosecutors?
Dec 6, 2012 at 10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
the real problem is the city keeping the same number of workers even when their "services" ore not wanted or needed... the largest employer left and is not coming back has the city laid off even one worker nooo.. they have to come up w/ new taxes to pay for themselves so they pick things everyone needs ,like say water etc. all the while not a peep about the 70 plus leisure services workers on the payroll all winter long...but after all no one REALLY wants to fire themselves... oh well
Dec 6, 2012 at 10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
rusty- most of that water for the corse comes from their own ponds and it pumped to irrigate.
Dec 5, 2012 at 3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
So let me get this straight..they changed the water rates to bill people MORE when they use MORE water. Now that people are using LESS water and the city isn't making as much money, they want to raise the rates? WTF???? They figure out how to get you one way or another, don't they?
Dec 5, 2012 at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
I wonder if all those golf courses pay the same price for water as a homeowner does. Raise their rates, a backdoor tax on the rich who use those courses.
Dec 5, 2012 at 2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
NEWS FLASH Ezoner - your water bill is not a TAX. Providing water is a service so why are you comparing the rate hike to taxes?
-
I'll bet Ezoner is one of those "geniuses" that has no problem spending over $6 per gallon for his PBR yet whines and cries about having to pay less than a penny for a gallon of water. Ezoner is oblivious to the fact that he likely uses over 50 gallons of water PER DAY. If we didn't have those fools who think they must have a green lawn, especially during a drought, then the city could reduce their capacity. Perhaps the city could reduce water costs by cutting off the water supply in different parts of the city over the course of each day. Think about it, we depend on CLEAN water for washing food, clothes, vehicles, floors and ourselves; we use water for flushing our waste, for producing essential goods, for growing food and countless other needs- and all we have to do is turn a handle.
-
Like everyone else, I also have limited financial resources so paying more for something I use everyday means less money available for something else. But just offhand I can't think of anything I need MORE to live that costs me so little to buy, except oxygen. Don't be foolish Ezoner, available, cheap, clean water has NOTHING to do with politics.
Dec 5, 2012 at 1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
People should find something else to complain about rather than this vital necessity.
Dec 5, 2012 at 1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
If you don't like the enevitable increase after GM left, whom was keeping your prices down, then go out and buy a septic system, the services to clean it yearly, drill your own hole for water, buy the filtration system to clean the water, the services for upkeep and materials for the filter and pump, and hire your own company to pick up your waste. Then come back and complain. I bet it won't be about a small necessary hike from the city. Or you can always blame Obama like the person below.
Dec 5, 2012 at 1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Look at the lefties supporting this rate hike.... The usual crew -- that wants to tell you how much they will let you keep. The reality is we hear about the Obama tax increases for Obamacare, the fiscal cliff which we will certainly go over. So guess what --- for the forseeable future, you will see no gains in real disposable income and in fact you will continue to see your disposable income drop. Sales will drop of goods and services, employemnt will drop, unemployment will rise. The equation is simple -- tax more so you get more people that collect from the government.....
Dec 5, 2012 at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm glad I installed my new sod a few years ago! No doubt Janesville's rates are dirty cheap. My only point was the stupidity of talking about a plan that was intended to increase water conservation, and then complain about how now we have to raise rates to account for the decrease in usage. When I lived in Edgerton, our water bill was easily twice (probably more) what I've ever paid in Janesville. I just wish the city would quit tacking extra "fees" onto my water bill and just tax me for municipal services like they're supposed to.
Dec 5, 2012 at 11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
If you think clean water costs too much, try living without it.
Dec 5, 2012 at 11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
it's the tragedy of the commons...everyone wants to use the resource, but no one wants to take responsibility for using it...we have the lowest rates in the county even with the increase...guess it's time to stop over-using water and remember it costs more to dispose of the water than it does to take it in...
Dec 5, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
li713, it is because the city invited or welcomed the enviromentalists (sp?) into the city's decision making and now, everything is going up with the utilites, except for the automated pickup decision.
Dec 5, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
...because your water bill is 100% of your income?
Dec 5, 2012 at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Not a problem. i will just tell my employer that i need a 21% pay raise.
i'm sure they will see it my way.
Dec 5, 2012 at 9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Good luck with THAT !
Dec 5, 2012 at 9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
So this plan "follows a new rate structure approved in 2009 designed to promote water conservation" - but at the same time they're talking about how decrease in water usage has led to reduced revenues which make this increase necessary? Sounds like typical government logic.
Dec 5, 2012 at 9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jocose-The Gazette releases only a summary of an article the morning it is released in the newspaper. This is done in an effort to get you to either buy a paper, or subscribe to the Electronic edition. Around 4PM, they remove the summary article and release the full article so people can read the full story. This practice in not done to censor anyone, but to encourage people to pay for the full version.
Dec 5, 2012 at 8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
jocose- I have noticed this several times in the past with the gazette. They must get a call from the city when the see several negative comments and repost then maybe with made up users only post positive comments? Not sure what the motive behind why the Gazette does this.
Dec 5, 2012 at 7:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Did anyone notice that in the comparison chart Roadmaster provided Janesville is by far the largest city? Wouldn't that suggest that it has the largest and most costly infrastructure to maintain? I don't think we are comparing apples to apples here. Thanks Roadmaster for the link just the same. We all do appreciate it.
Dec 5, 2012 at 7:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hey Gazette- why do you often put up another version of the same story and start a whole new section of feedback from readers? Are you letting the readers get their frustration out on the first version of the story so that others won't see their frustration and then you have a much mellower version of feedback to present to someone who is involved with assessing feedback? Tell me why do you practice this? Here is the original comment page from the original story as it was presented: http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-ne...
Dec 5, 2012 at 12:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
doc0430, what would you have them do? Pump you less water?
Dec 4, 2012 at 9:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
The utility's finances still are feeling the impact of the GM plant closing. So are the finances of most local business owners, but you don't see them raising their prices like this to make up the differences in their bottom lines with GM and families that were tied to the plant leaving. The utility company is a monopoly here and we are at the mercy of them! If GM leaving reduced the money that was made, then aren't we using a lot less water overall, and wouldn't that eliminate the need for that second water tower they are claiming is needed?
Dec 4, 2012 at 8:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why does the Water Utility need to increase profits?
Dec 4, 2012 at 7:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Thanks for that link, Roadmaster. The obvious conclusion is that GM subsidized residential water rates. Even with a 21% increase we'll still be the lowest rate in the county by far.
Dec 4, 2012 at 7:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
If we pay 21% more, will we get 21% better quality water?
Dec 4, 2012 at 5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
I can see now why Lynch left
Dec 4, 2012 at 5:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
was it 20% earlier today?
Dec 4, 2012 at 5:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wait, so useage is down so now you get to pay more to promote conservation? ROFLMAO
Dec 4, 2012 at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Comparison of Rock County water rates: http://psc.wi.gov/apps40/waterbill/conte...
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.