Bain-Blog

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Water and sewer rates

At the June 26th meeting, the council will decide on whether or not to raise the water and sewer rates. As indicated in a letter from Finance Director Ed Nokes to City Manager Richard Wollangk, the water rates are proposed to be increased by 16.9% and sewer rates by 19.8%. I cannot get the URL for the letter to link properly. To view it, go to the city's website and click on "Water and Sewer Rates" under "Headlines" on the right hand column, or copy and paste the following URL into your web browser: http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/nwwatersewerrateinc'07.pdf.

Bottom line: The average residential user will see a $6.70 per month, or $20.10 per quarter (billing cycle), increase.

At the June 12th meeting, the council voted to lay over the water rate increase resolution in order to receive further information, such as does the increase have to be 16.9% and could the increase be spread out over two or three years.

In our most recent Friday council packet, we received a memo from John Mayer, the city's rate consultant, answering our questions and providing further information to consider. (I thought it would be helpful for citizens to see the memo so I now have it on my website - see above link.)

According to the memo, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, or PSC, considers itself as the final authority in determining the water rates - sewer rates are set by the council and do not receive approval from the PSC - and seemed to question why the council was voting on the issue. It also was determined that the rate must be implemented all at once.

Definitely some interesting information to consider before the next council meeting. Please read the memo and share your thoughts here for discussion purposes or email me directly.

-Bryan

posted by Bryan L. Bain at 6/19/2007 09:11:00 PM

15 Comments:

  • Why was city staff not aware of these basic facts. Makes you wonder if city staff knows what they are doing? I would expect an explanation as to why city staff was not aware of the rules for the water utility.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 20, 2007 9:33 AM  

  • We could accept an increase in the water bill.
    However, We feel the PSC usually projects an "overkill" approach to rate increases. They want to error with more bucks in the pockets rather than less. "16% is overkill".

    The problem we have is the sewer charges in the summer months. We need to disconnect the thinking that all the water used in the summer needs a sewer charge attached to it.
    We shouldn't have to pay for an extra meter or the extra fees to get a sewer charge credit for extra water used.
    It doesn't take a scientist or a college degree to figure out the the increased use of water is for gardening, filling kiddie pools, or washing cars. The extra water is NOT going through the sewer system!
    Can the city look at giving
    "Summer Month Credits" on the homeowners sewer charge when they use the extra water for their yards ETC?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 20, 2007 10:05 AM  

  • Hummm.
    One of the comments made:
    "• #2: Increases in labor and non-labor costs will continue. Merit / longevity increases. Prices for electricity, natural gas, pipe, and all other items will increase. Federal Reserve target 2%-2½% inflation rate. No money saving technological breakthrough likely. No electronic chip to fix water main break. Can’t outsource water or sewer mains repairs nor send our water tower out for painting to some developing country with cheaper labor. Basic industries - not changed since Romans except on the treatment side."

    This seems a bit "in-your-face" to me. Not since Roman times...can't send the water tower to a developing country for painting???what the heck?!

    And just who are they to say we couldn't outsource fixing repairs?
    Is there a magic wand needed that only a few possess to correct water main repairs? May not be viable, but I think it COULD be an option.

    I'm a little ticked off at this entire PSC response.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 20, 2007 10:48 AM  

  • Bryan is correct. I recall the workshop that the rate increases were originally presented to the Council and they stated then that the PSC would ultimately be the approving authority on the increase and any council involvement would be nothing more than window dressing (my words, not theirs). I had actually thought that the rate increase was in effect already but it may be upcoming for July.

    As for the size, they said then that the bulk of the increase was due to the water meter conversion and planning ahead for the Main Street project in a couple of years.

    Before everyone goes nuts, this is strickly from memory and should not be taken as gospel.

    K. Monte

    By Blogger Kent Monte, at June 20, 2007 11:58 AM  

  • "2. There is no option to phase-in the increase over two or three years."


    Why is there no option? Please ask for an explanation.



    "3. Since the new rates are considered to be in effect,...The staff feels that the approved rates are appropriate and needed for adequate debt service coverage. There is no guarantee that staff would support a rate reduction because of the very large amount of outstanding debt and the responsibility the PSC has to make sure that the approved rates are adequate for the financial health of the utility."

    Key phrase: "make sure that the approved rates are adequate for the financial health of the utility"

    That pretty much explains why the rates are as high as they are. They speak about reductions in the population's consumption and aging populations using less water.-- "Water and sewer volumes are decreasing, they are not offset by population growth, and this trend is not temporary." They speak about increases in their operating costs-- " Increases in labor and non-labor costs will continue. Merit / longevity increases."

    If usage declined, wouldn't labor costs?

    Who regulates the PSC? What are their profit margins? I'm not completely sold on their justification of the rate increase.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 21, 2007 7:34 AM  

  • The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) is an independent regulatory agency dedicated to serving the public interest.

    They are not a corporation and do not have a pofit margin.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 21, 2007 8:58 AM  

  • I see this as another corporate decision vs. left up to local government as it's always been. The City made the final decision. So here we go again, another of our local "rights" taken away; frightening.... I certainly agree the Council should have been aware of the PSC decision and they had no choice. This was reported in May; if the public knew why not the Council? Something was definitely lacking in due diligence. I do believe the citizens became confused due to the local media's later reporting. However, the Council/City should not be depending on that source; well anyone for that matter. Articles are written in many different ways; kind of "stir up the pot" way of thinking! In essence I think with the sewer increase we're looking at around 35% total! That was essentially what was reported in May.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 21, 2007 10:27 AM  

  • Excuse previous comment. I note that the Council was aware and that they were going to try and over ride this corporate decision; not as reported. One Council member is going to vote no anyhow as a protest; symbolic yes but I rather like the idea.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 21, 2007 10:30 AM  

  • If this is all cut and dried I would think the entire council would vote NO.

    This council does not rubber stamp things as past councilors have.

    Conversations are mute when we have no local control and the result is another "royal flush" for the taxpayers.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 21, 2007 11:22 AM  

  • I don't know what you mean when you say they're "mute" unless you mean "moot" and then I think I understand.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 21, 2007 4:44 PM  

  • YES I should have typed MOOT sorry...

    THIS IS a moot question.

    a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.

    b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.
    Here again the city administration could have saved a lot of time for the Councilors.
    Why can't they be candid & honest UP FRONT?
    Why does it seem like this council is set-up to be the last to know all to often?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 25, 2007 8:01 AM  

  • It's been like this for as long as us old timers can remember. City staff intentionally withholds information from councilors. Councilors don't do enough reading of the information in their packets to ask intelligent questions. Two-fold problem. Choose councilors who ask questions and demand more accountability from staff. Reprimand and discipline them for not being totally forthcoming with information.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 25, 2007 11:13 AM  

  • 11:13 you stated:
    Reprimand and discipline them for not being totally forthcoming with information.....

    What reprimand or discipline would you consider and how would you implement that reprimand.
    In this case would you discipline the City Manager or Mr. Nokes?
    In other cases I think Mr Kinney would be so entitled to some strong
    discipline.
    What would be Better for the good of the city is to have city staff and councolors WORK TOGETHER. NO hidden agendas!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 26, 2007 9:14 AM  

  • Just wanted to say THANK YOU MR. Bain for the attempt to delay the sewer increase until September.
    It would have saved citizens from the extra fee throughout the dry summer months.
    35% over-all increase will be a tuff and bitter pill to swallow. We will all be gulping more water.
    thanks again for trying to represent us.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 27, 2007 4:20 PM  

  • You're welcome!

    -Bryan

    By Blogger Bryan L. Bain, at June 27, 2007 8:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home