Ann Arbor OKs $1.7M increase in water, sewer and stormwater fees
The Ann Arbor City Council gave final approval Monday night to utility rate increases expected to generate $1.7 million in additional revenue in the coming fiscal year.
The vote came 10-0 with Tony Derezinski, D-2nd Ward, absent.
John Hieftje
In terms of dollars, the changes are projected to increase revenues in water, sewer and stormwater by $664,993, $829,481 and $176,915, respectively. City officials say the increases are needed in order to finance capital improvements in all three systems.
According to data provided by the city, the impact on a typical residential customer is $18.92 per year, a net increase of 3.2 percent. The typical residential customer currently pays close to $600 a year.
Mayor John Hieftje defended the increases, saying Ann Arbor still has some of the lowest water and sewer rates in the state of Michigan (download a chart provided by the city).
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
snapshot
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 4:56 a.m.
Of course they approved it. when have they not approved any increase that the electorate didn't have a say? Ann Arbor fee and tax increases are keeping up with gas and food inflation.
Tom Whitaker
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 2:32 a.m.
On my water/sewer bill, the City provides me with a very generous 10% discount if I pay it a few days early. I understand this program may have been instituted at a time when there were many late payments or uncollected payments, but 10%? If the vast majority of rate payers are taking advantage of this, then the City is collecting probably 8-10% less revenue than it is technically owed each quarter. Why not reduce this early payment discount to 5% and see how much revenue THAT generates before raising rates and spending more fee revenue on pet projects like public art for City Hall or the Fuller Road Parking Structure?
Joslyn at the U
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 11:34 p.m.
taxes taxes taxes and more taxes........wow Save a buck FIRE the Mayor
Mike K
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 8:48 p.m.
I have 165' of frontage if I am not mistaken. 95% of my property drains back into my yard. My house is in a small "trough" with the house immediately to the south in the middle of the trough. There is no storm sewer. Whatever storm run off generated flows down into the trough and into our yards. Not that I'm upset by this, it seems to work well and only in a mid winter thaw will we see flowing water, but now I have to pay an increased storm water rate??? How about me and my neighbor get a credit??? Heck, I even paid a guy to do some excavating to improve the flow to my back yard lol.
Vince Caruso
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 4:40 p.m.
The use of these stormwater fees, not taxes, for road construction is not appropriate. The roads are generally paid for with the general fund or road millage both are taxes that are voted on. We have four streets with proposed construction using porous pavement to greatly improve rain water management. Porous pavement is being used by many communities across the nation to preserve the environment and save money. Rain water flows into the pavement, not across it, and absorbed by the ground. The proposal is to pay for the full cost of these roads (several $M) with stormwater fees, not just the incremental cost over conventional roadway construction. The Allen's Creek Watershed Group feels the porous roadways are a great technology (now recommended for use on streets by the US EPA) but using these fees is not appropriate and threatens the stormwater utility that collects these fees.
deb
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 5:44 p.m.
From a study by the minnesota department of transportation: <a href="http://www.mrr.dot.state.mn.us/research/pdf/2009MRRDOC007.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.mrr.dot.state.mn.us/research/pdf/2009MRRDOC007.pdf</a> This reduction in freezing cycles experienced by pervious PCC Cell 64 may indicate that even with decreased laboratory-measured freeze-thaw durability of the pavement materials (ASTM C 666), field (actual) freeze-thaw durability of the roadway may be comparable to impervious roadways due to fewer experienced pavement freeze-thaw cycles. The real pertinent parts is this "decreased laboratory-measured freeze-thaw durability" We should not be doing porous pavement in Michigan until it is better equipped. The state doesn't have money for roads, nonetheless to build roads with unreliable materials for our climate
deb
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 5:31 p.m.
Vince, Will porous pavement stand up to the constant freezing and thawling that Michigan roads must endure, or will it let water get into the roads, freeze, expand and destroy the road?
debling
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 3:43 p.m.
Should have been put to a city wide public referendum. Democracy in action. Just crazy enough, it might work.
DonBee
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 3:09 p.m.
The city raises taxes to help the UofM pay for more parking (see the fuller station article today)....lol. Your tax payer dollars at work.
grye
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 2:03 p.m.
Are the increases due to a decrease in funds collected because of water conservation? I would have thought that rates would have been set to allow for capital fund funding. We are consistently hearing how we should be saving water. Yet the more we save, the less money the city receives, thus the need for rate hikes. It is a never ending battle.
andys
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.
Good point. So we will never see a financial benefit from from water conservation. The water / sewer dept needs "x" number of dollars to fund operations, so you'll always pay that same amount no matter the volume of water used. If each household used one gallon of water per year, the rate would be $600 per gallon (using the numbers in the article).
deb
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 1:22 p.m.
. . . . and that won't even cover the relocation of the sewer lines for the fuller road station. ( a terrible idea, that the city should not be a part of)
Chuck Warpehoski
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 1:18 p.m.
Considering all the flooding and stormwater issues we saw with the spring rains, it seems to me like this is money well spent. I'd rather spend $20/year to keep our stormwater management system up-to-date than see massive flooding that costs homeowners tens of thousands of dollars in damage and abatement.
deb
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.
Mr. Landes, I respect your comments, so dont take this the wrong way. The plan apparently is to spend the money for the fuller road station. This new increase would fund that in about one and a half years. I can almost guarntee the relocation of those lines was never budgeted for. For everyone remember relocation not replacement. I am fine with replacing things that need to get replaced. I dont like the idea of relocation for a project that hasn't passed the council stage, and is a terrible idea for the taxpayers of Ann Arbor. It is a good idea for the U though
Stephen Landes
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 1:48 p.m.
Whether this is a good for funds is not the issue: do we need to raise taxes to pay for these improvements? According to prior articles in AnnArbor.com there is a large positive balance in the water and sewer fund. Before Council raises water and sewer rates I think we are entitled to know how they are spending the money they already have. So far I haven't heard what that plan is. All we have is the Mayor saying our rates are low, so raising them isn't a problem. His comment is condescending; not very helpful.
xmo
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 1:09 p.m.
I am so glad that the city council does not have a problem passing a rate hike on to us. SO, what do we get for this tax increase? "to finance capital improvements in all three systems" What does this mean? Raises, better health and pension benefits to water workers? Maybe next time you vote, think what these types of people do to you! I think we need a change!