You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 12:30 p.m.

Pittsfield Township water, sewer rates to increase next year

By Julie Baker

Water and sewer rates will rise for residential and commercial customers next year in Pittsfield Township, the Ann Arbor Journal reported.

Water rates will be $3.34 per unit, residential sewer rates will be $3.48 per unit, while commercial sewer rates will be $4.15 per unit. A unit is equal to 748 gallons, according to the story.

The rates will cost an extra 12 cents a day. The township board cited increased wholesale costs when it approved the increases this month, the story said.

Read the full report.



Wed, Nov 23, 2011 : 12:34 a.m.

It's beginning to seem that local governments are sucking citizens dry with tax and fee increases these days. I'd like to see how much all government services, taxes, fees, millages, and bonds, have increased citizen costs over the past 5 years and include employee wage and benefit costs too, if possible. It's always 12 cents a day, 12 dollars a year, here, there, and everywhere on a never ending basis.

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 4:11 a.m.

My Dear @ERM's Ghost: I've been called a lot of BAD names before, but this is the very first time I've EVER been accused of being either... 1) A *supporter* of the DDA! 2) President of "Bank of Ann Arbor"! Ouch! ;-) Did you miss the fact that I'm President of "University Bank" or my many posts knocking the DDA's $50 million Big Dig? You misread so many things in my post, it's just puzzling, and since I'm very busy right now, unfortunately I just don't have the time to give you a point by point rebuttal, so *please* carefully reread what I wrote, since I did not: 3) Assert that U-M pays higher utility rates than any other customer and 4) *Newly elected* Independent Jane Lumm thanked me tonight during a break at City Council for my many posts on the need to "Drain The Buckets!" Buckets, or "separate fund accounts" are partially drained in Ann Arbor each month for administrative and IT overhead & etc. The buckets for sewer, water and waste management in Ann Arbor have run substantial surpluses over the years. The purpose of the city of Ann Arbor's leadership in overcharging for utilities appears to be to have more money to divert to other uses including the General Fund. The DDA is not the only "bucket" created by city council which could be abolished by city council. As I have noted in past posts over $100 million of funds could be drained by abolishing the many "buckets" that are merely created by vote of city council. At any rate please put your big guns away for another day when we are on the opposite side of an issue! Best wishes, Stephen Lange Ranzini President & CEO University Bank

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 12:34 p.m.

@Stephen: The DDA is not a "bucket". 1) It is an unelected body over which the voters have no say over its membership nor over its spending. 2) None of its money is in a "bucket." It gets to spend its money as it want--including transferring some of it back to the City of A2 if it so desires. 3) Buckets almost always are limited by the origins of the revenue. For example, the revenue from the city's bond to purchase rural land can only be spent on the purchase of rural land. That was the deal with that bond. Money received from state and federal government streets go into the street "bucket". Don't know the origins of the "bucket" that pays for art, but suspect it a similar story. For the DDA, by contrast, the parking revenue surplus can be spent on anything the DDA so desires--anything--as can the tax revenue stolen--er, "captured"--from the AAPS, City of A2, AADL, WCC, and WISD. 4) Don't like the number of buckets A2 has? Fine. There was just an election. I hope that you got someone on city council who agrees with you. Ain't democracy great? So I would encourage you not to make misleading posts about the buckets in the city of Ann Arbor nor to incorrectly describe the DDA's $12 million piggybank of fun money a "bucket". But, gee, the president of the Bank of Ann Arbor, with its substantial presence downtown, wouldn't have reason to grossly misrepresent the facts regarding the DDA while also belittling one of its sharpest critics in, would he?? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Good Night and Good Luck

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 7:10 p.m.

To continue: SR wrote: "Also, by charging more for sewer and water than the actual cost, Ann Arbor gets extra funds from non-profits like U-M, which otherwise would get a free pass on paying taxes because they are exempt from paying property taxes." 1) Any proof that the U pays more for its water and sewer than do other businesses and industries on the A2 system? 2) And presuming you correct that the U pays a higher rate than other businesses and industries, the purpose of overcharging the U of M for water and sewer would be what, exactly? Certainly not to cover shortfalls in the general fund because water and sewer revenue go in to . . . . wait for it . . . . a "bucket" that can only be spent on water and sewer! And you run a bank?? Seriously?? GN&GL

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 12:04 p.m.

@ERM's Ghost: You are not intellectually consistent in your remarks here. On one hand above you say that buckets are great but in many other posts you note that the Ann Arbor DDA bucket which generates an extra $12.5 million per year above the actual cost of parking maintenance ought to be abolished. There are many well managed cities that get along just fine without very many buckets, for example, Livonia. Livonia has a bucket for "schools" and a bucket for everything else, the "general fund". Ann Arbor has (at least) 58 buckets, and the need to spend that money when it accumulates too much liquidity in the bucket results in $750,000 sculptures or $50 million underground parking lots we don't need. It also prevents the money from being moved to where it could be better used like fire protection and downtown police foot patrols. Also, by charging more for sewer and water than the actual cost, Ann Arbor gets extra funds from non-profits like U-M, which otherwise would get a free pass on paying taxes because they are exempt from paying property taxes. So, I would encourage you to acquire a more nuanced approach to the pros and cons of buckets, since they are often contrary to the public good and your own frequently expressed opinions.


Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 2:16 a.m.

The Ypsi water authority - aka "YUCA" - supplies most of the water in the populous areas outside AA city. They seem to raise rates on the rural townships ever year. I remember when Pittsfield held off on passing along YUCA rate increases to residents in 2009 and maybe the year before too. They can't eat these increases much longer.

Basic Bob

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 4:11 a.m.

YCUA - Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority The best water in Washtenaw County. Seriously, Ann Arbor and Saline should be so lucky. Every time DWSD raises the wholesale price of water, YCUA and Pittsfield raise their rates. They're not eating the cost increase, and I don't expect them to.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 8:35 p.m.

@Terry: 1) Pittsfield will install a second meter at cost if you want one for outdoor water lines so that your sewer charge will accurately reflect its actual usage. 2) Pittsfield draws its water from the Ypsilanti system which, in turn, draws its water from the Detroit system. I'd be shocked to find out that this rate hike is caused anything other than by what Detroit and Ypsi charge Pittsfield. 3) The Water Department in Pittsfield has an entirely separatge budget from that of the township general fund. The revenue from this rate hike cannot be spent on projects outside of the purview of the Water Department. For all of those who complain about the "buckets" in the AAPS and in the budget of the City of Ann Arbor, this is why those "buckets" exist--to prevent money collected for one purpose from being spent on another. Good Night and Good Luck

Terry Star21

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 7:38 p.m.

So what's news about that, townships are always trying to figure out how to get more money out of the residents for the least service. Pittsfield takes a reading on water consumption per every three months, then since they can't calculate sewer use - doubles the water use for a sewer readings. True story. So watch watering that lawn, etc. !