Today's News-Gazette:
A 47.2 percent overall water-rate increase, approved Wednesday by the Illinois Commerce Commission, should go into effect during the second week in August, according to an Illinois American Water spokesman.
The commerce commission, as expected, approved the rate increase for the water company's Champaign district, which includes Champaign, Urbana, Savoy, St. Joseph, Sidney, Bondville, Philo and some unincorporated areas.
For a typical household using 6,000 gallons of water per month, the increase will mean a $38.13 monthly bill, compared to the current $26 per month. Residential water-rate rises will vary between 45 percent and 47 percent depending on usage.
Discuss.
UPDATE: Comments on this post were somehow disabled before, but that's fiixed now. Sorry!
This increase is most disconcerting from so many perspectives:
1. At no time did the ICC, Illinois American Water, CUB (that group was part of the process arguing against the increase), either of the cities and surrounding communities served by the company as part of the conversation discuss ways and means of putting in place community conservation of water useage. There is so much written about this--ways to do it, case studies of communities that have done so, landscaping designs to reduce water use, etc. that this becomes one more example of how this community does not think outside the box. In fact there is one community by putting in place a water conservation plan pushed back the need of building another water plant for many years to come.
2. Sprawl is one of the variables contributing to this need. Yet, the cost to build is put on those who already live within the service area, not those who will be causing the increased use, such as the sewage district does.
3. At no time has there been any discussion about the burden this increase, along with all the others that are occurring within this state, on the low-income, fixed income, and elderly. I have had many communications with CUB on this aspect because there are various means of relief for other utilities, but not water.
4. Now is the time for C-U to stop talking about purchasing the water company and do so. The company has already announced that the company will apply for the percentage increase not allowed this time within a couple of years. So we have been forewarned that the cost will continue to rise. It would be rather ironic if people began conserving and the water company really overbuilt. Go out and buy and install your cistern now. A good example of a community that owns not only the water company, but also utility is small Carlyle. This saves the residents a great deal of money.
Pattsi Petrie
Water utilities are overwhelmingly public utilities. There are good reasons for this.
"Water utilities are overwhelmingly public utilities. There are good reasons for this."
Nursing Homes are overwhelmingly privately owned and operated. Does that fact inform your decision-making on the CCNH? If not, why should we consider the ownership situation of the majority of water companies on one hand, but disregard it for nursing homes on the other?
What rates does the rest of the state pay for water? More or less than the rate after the increase? Will water rates drop after the new plant has been built and paid for or is this a new baseline for future increases? Having the city run the water system is sounding like a better idea all the time, as long as it's not set up as an independent fiasco like the MTD.
Mahomet water bill last month:
Usage - 57 (,000 gallons?) - 2 meters - $30.10.
We are charged $8 per month per meter, but it saves you on paying the higher sewer service fees for outside water usage.
I hope IAWC is as generous to it's employees when it comes time to renegotiate their contracts!!
Nursing Homes are overwhelmingly privately owned and operated. Does that fact inform your decision-making on the CCNH? If not, why should we consider the ownership situation of the majority of water companies on one hand, but disregard it for nursing homes on the other?
<applause> <strong>
The Cities of Champaign and Urbana never had the forsight in the past nor the recent insight to bring this public utility out of private ownership. The results are quite simple we all have to pay the 47% increase. Another sad reflection on the capabilities of our elected representatives here in the State of Illinois.
Hopefully some of you will question CUB based upon their complete silence on this increase.
Great plan. A (fairly)locally-owned monopoly gets sold to a german company who promptly overstretches plant capacity by hooking up towns well out of the previous service area. Then they turn around and tell us we have to pay for a new plant because they don't have enough capacity. How about not hooking any new community up unless that community pays an impact fee? We will now be charged to increase plant infrastructure so the water company can make more money selling water to more people. This is not what we had in mind with the monopoly concept.
And this doesn't address the potential depletion of the Mahomet Aquifer. That's a whole different story
It's really not so simply as Champaign and Urbana waking up one day and saying, "Hey, we own the water company now... cut the rates!"
First, you have to pay for the acquisition of all that property. One water treatment plant is $50M according to the costs of the new one being built... I assume there's at least one more hanging around. Ok, that's $100M. Now there's all the distribution, the pipes going to every property, the metering. Add in the acquisition costs. Add in hiring staff and building a new agency. So, day 1 when we say we want to acquire it, we drop a good 9 figure bomb on the taxpayers. Let's say $100M to lowball and pick a nice round number. What's the population of the twin cities these days? Little over 100k, right? So before we can realize a $5/mo savings on our water bills, we need to drop $1,000 per every man, woman and child in the area. And that's just a napkin calculation.
It's further complicated by the fact that IAWC and the equipment doesn't just service incorporated C-U... so we either need to go in county-wide or create one hell of a headache seperating out what belongs to who... what brings water to Champaign, what brings it to Mahomet and how to interface between the two in a way that makes sense...
Then of course, you are talking about a bond deal to make it all happen for a governmental agency that doesn't exist at this point and during a time of an ongoing credit crunch. That means higher debt service costs, right on top of it all.
So fist-pounding that we should just take the water company over may be satisfying, but its a far more complicated issue that will slap a huge cost on the taxpayers up front for a ****potential**** savings of very little over time. Someone is going to need to show that such a transaction is worth the purchase costs before we hop on this bandwagon.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
let's not forget the small little detail that this is a privately-owned company that has no interest in selling
Well, eminent domain solves that...
The scary thing about that is after the Kelo was a case in Texas... Seureau v Houston Port Authority where an eminent domain action was initiated and the property owner of 105 acres of prime beef real estate was paid $1. Reason, well the property is condemned so you can't sell it so you have no fair market value. (Was settled before appeal for more). C-U could simply keep depressing the value of the business and property and basically steal it... I would hope they wouldn't entertain such an option.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
The government taking over the water company? Hmmmm.
I thought most of you folks were private enterprise free market people.
Maybe we should nationalize ... the airlines, or ... the oil companies ... or all energy producers, or ....
I can hear you now, "but it's a monopoly!" No it isn't. Build another water company and compete. Sink a well in your backyard.
Funny how the anti-government types call upon the government to save them from some evil private business, and even promote government take-over of a business.
I can hear you answer, "Hypocrite? Me? No way, THIS is different. It's water."
I'm not saying it should be taken... to be honest, I really don't see the compelling government interest... I was simply stating the facts of what would have to happen before it could be accomplished.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"The government taking over the water company? Hmmmm.
I thought most of you folks were private enterprise free market people.
Maybe we should nationalize ... the airlines, or ... the oil companies ... or all energy producers, or ....
I can hear you now, "but it's a monopoly!" No it isn't. Build another water company and compete. Sink a well in your backyard.
Funny how the anti-government types call upon the government to save them from some evil private business, and even promote government take-over of a business."
I think most of the "private enterprise free market people" are the ones on here expressing concern about the cities buying the water company.
To save some water (to save a couple of flushes a day), I think I'll start peeing in a cup, and then dump it under the peony bushes in the backyard. That should save about 150 gallons of water a month. I could also start showering only every *other* day. That should also save another 150 gallons a month.
Or, I could install one of those nifty "waterless" urinals like they use in the National Parks now.
I called IAWC today and cancelled my service (after spending a while with the speech-recognition system that makes you feel like you're talking to a real person).
Granted, I'm moving out of the area, but I at least felt like I was sticking it to the man.
"I called IAWC today and cancelled my service (after spending a while with the speech-recognition system that makes you feel like you're talking to a real person).
Granted, I'm moving out of the area, but I at least felt like I was sticking it to the man."
:-)
(and good luck to you with your move....)
I can hear you now, "but it's a monopoly!" No it isn't.
Maybe you should check that definition again.
Lack of competition? Check.
Substantial control over pricing? Check.
Lack of substitute goods? Check.
Huge barriers to entry? Check.
If anything, water companies are natural monopolies, so your argument about competition won't really work. Public ownership (Amtrak, European economics) or substantial regulation (power companies) would help consumers.
I don't think the cities should buy the water company--the cities can barely manage what they're responsible for now. If the cities took over the water company, we'd probably be looking at rate increases of 147%, not 47%.
Well, there certainly have been many posts on this topic. Not one though focuses on conservation of water resources. There will be a second rate increase in a number of years so a terrific campaign of subterfuge would be to significantly decrease the amount of water useage. Then it becomes extremely difficult to make the argument for a need to increase the water rate. This is a concrete plan. Here is a web site that is a good place to start http://www.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/guide.htm
By all means take CUB to task for not going to battle on this increase. Our area was probably the hardest hit.
One last point, water conservation is not a bad idea from another perspective--there are water problems within this state, maybe not immediately here, but could be if more ethanol plants are built.
Pattsi Petrie
Lack of competition? Raise the money and build a competing water company. Free enterprise.
Substantial control over pricing? Raise the money and build a competing water company. Compete.
Lack of substitute goods? Raise the money and build a competing water company. There is no "exclusive" for taking water out of the ground here, with proper pemitting, anyone can tap the aquafir.
Huge barriers to entry? Raise the money and build a competing water company. Are you having trouble raising the money to build a water company, is that your barrier? If you have the money, you can run all new pipes from your all new water plant.
Pomote government take-over because you lack the means of production, and the consumers (masses) need it? That's not "free market smaller government" conservatism, it's a different ism.
I'm for free market smaller government, which ism are you for?
"By all means take CUB to task for not going to battle on this increase."
Pattsi, How many letters do you think were written to the Interstate Commerce Commission by customers of IAWC? I would bet not many, That's who needs to complain about the constant rate increase requests.
Gregg--probably not many letters were sent, I agree. There is power in individual letters along with the power of such an organization at CUB, if it would come to the table.
Pattsi Petrie
I'm for free market smaller government, which ism are you for?
In your entire you post, you didn't make a single argument that IAWC is not operating as a monopoly.
Also, in addition to "monopoly," you don't seem to understand the terms "substitute goods" and "barriers to entry." What substitute exists for water? How readily can a company run its own water mains in the cities?
Oh, and government takeover I advocate is still free market - if the government doesn't rely on eminent domain and IAWC accepts the deal, how is that not free market? What kind of free market doesn't allow all parties to buy/sell with mutually agreeable terms?
Your posts indicate that you don't grasp the finer elements of economics, especially natural monopolies. Do you disagree with my assertion that water companies operate as natural monopolies? If you do, I can see why you're advocating for competition. If you don't, I don't understand how you think competition will help consumers.
Hell, even Milton Friedman agrees with me:
"If the technical monopoly is of a service or commodity that is regarded as essential and if its monopoly power is sizeable, even the short run effects of private unregulated monopoly may not be tolerable, and either public regulation or ownership may be a lesser evil."
A typical ploy. Ask for more than you really want, and when the dumbkopfs at the ICC cut it back, you wind up with what you wanted in the first place. The ICC can then claim they were looking out for the public's interest, the water company gets to screw away, and the only losers are us.
Pattsi-
You brought something up that I was thinking about on the way home, namely, that sprawl increases water demand. How does this work? I will grant you **population growth** contributes to water demand, but I fail to see how it makes a difference whether someone lives in a house, or the entire population of C-U lives in some high-rise government apartment complex that takes up one block in respect to how much an individual uses. They'll shower just as much, cook just as much, drink just as much and flush just as much. Why does owning your own home make you a greater water consumer?
As far as land, I would imagine that farm-land uses more water per square foot than a lawn to keep up both. There are a fair number of people (like myself) who's only criteria for a lawn is that it isn't the deadest lawn in the neighborhood, but if I was a farmer my livelihood depends on not dead looking crops. So I'd imagine farms use more water (but can't necessarily prove right this second). I'll grant you unused land certainly uses less water.
So how exactly does sprawl increase water demand? If it's just by encouraging population growth, we're really talking about migration, not reproduction. The availability of a 3 bedroom house doesn't spur people to mass reproduction. We're really only talking about where people use water at that point.
Lastly, I've seen it claimed but would like to see something to substantiate that we're really draining the aquifer faster than it can support to the point we need to talk about conservation (or rationing). For that matter, on one hand you want conservation, on the other you complain about rate increases which very directly would cause reduced consumption (or conservation)... Which is it?
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"Why does owning your own home make you a greater water consumer?"
Watering the lawn/garden.
"As far as land, I would imagine that farm-land uses more water per square foot than a lawn to keep up both. There are a fair number of people (like myself) who's only criteria for a lawn is that it isn't the deadest lawn in the neighborhood, but if I was a farmer my livelihood depends on not dead looking crops. So I'd imagine farms use more water (but can't necessarily prove right this second)."
I doubt it. I don't think there are many farms around here that regularly irrigate.
But do farms water more per square foot than you would for a lawn? I don't have an answer, intuitively, I'd think farms would use more water... but then again, I'm someone who doesn't water his lawn. :)
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"But do farms water more per square foot than you would for a lawn? I don't have an answer, intuitively, I'd think farms would use more water... but then again, I'm someone who doesn't water his lawn. :)"
Farms probably use more water, but it's almost all stormwater, at least around here.
Lawn watering almost certainly consumes more "water company" water than the typical local farming operation, I would think.
To John Bambenek--let me try to address your very good questions.
I think that IP covered some of the questions. Sprawl causes the need for infrastructure, which goes into the need for increasing rates. The basic argument, according to the IAWC, for the increase is the building of a new structure in SW Champaign, based on needing to service more people--some come from all of the new building in this area and some from bringing in other already existing communities. Rather than build this new facility, IAWC could have been working with Champaign related to the growth pattern. Another approach is what has happened/is happening in other communities--communities are putting in place ordinances that require low flow shower heads, low flow toliets, "X" amount of insulation, orientation of windows, etc. In turn, the utilities are offering incentives for individuals to replace toliets, shower heads, landscaping, etc. None of this has been done in our area.
If one looks at a GIS map of the area just 10 years ago and today let alone the projected growth, it is scary. This map is available at the RPC. Further, we are covering ground 4-5 fold compared with the population increase. (This means we are covering valuable farm land. This land along with that in the Ukraine and Argentina is the best in the world--I know I am off the topic of water.) As IP mentioned with this sprawl comes lawns, which are watered and fertilized, not sustainable landscaping, which would retain moisture, prevent runoff, eliminate under ground drainage pipes, eliminate the need for mowing, which is high in energy use, eliminates fertilizers, and best of all saves one heck of a lot of money. All one has to do is drive throughout SW Champaign, SE Urbana, 150 to visually see what I am describing. (There is a great exhibit at the Chicago Architecture Foundation--right across the street from the Art Institute--cleverly describing just how much energy and water we use for our various life functions and how much can be saved by changing our patterns without causing us major discomfort.) Of course, tongue in cheek, I could argue how much more water is used to keep these McMansions clean than a 1950s house. :-) Along with all of these aspects, one needs to ask if these new homes have been built sustainably--my guess is no. There may be a low flow toilet, but what about all of the faucets, dishwasher, washing machine, is there a cistern, earth roof, bioswales, etc. If not, more water will be used.
There was a terrific experiment done in the Netherlands--a country in the developed world that probably uses the least amount of water per person. The water company there placed the water meters inside the abodes in a place where the spinning wheel could be viewed by all. Just being able to see this caused a decrease in water useage. Not unlike the display in the Prius that helps the driver maximize the use of the batteries and gas while driving.
I do not have the statistics as to what percentage of the farmers in this area irrigate. I do know that many do so from the ditches. (The Champaign County Farm Bureau probably has this information.) This would not even be necessary if the farmers converted to organic farming. When the soil is worked in the organic manner, the friability and moisture retention of the soil increases significantly. This actually ends up saving the farmer to not have to irrigate, but also the cost of fertilizers.
About draining the aquifer--this information is based on the Community Planning Conversation TV program that I did with the chief of the Illinois Water Survey. The aquifer is rather healthy, but concern surfaced during the discussion of the ethanol plant. The amount of water needed for the production of ethanol is prodigious. This water would be drawn from the aquifer. Depending on the amount withdrawn related to the recharging of the aquifer there was expressed concern that this might potentially causes an inbalance, which in turn could potential cause a shifting. It is hard for us to realize that the aquifer is not forever, but it a delicate balance that we need to keep in mind as we build and build and do not set in place a conservation plan. The northern part of Illinois is facing serious water problems already, without ethanol plants.
This is my personal lament--I look at all of the lawns in spaces not designed for use or play and I think about the maintenance of such. And much of the time, the lawns are not maintained so they are not attractive. Lawn grass is not indiginous here so to look like the NW, the lawns need to be watered. As a very attractive alternative, Illinois native prairie flowers can survive our weather without fertilizer and water. Specifically, I look at all of the grass planted around the new Champaign library and my imagination thinks of the beauty of this space covered by native plantings.
Hope this covers your inquiries, Pattsi Petrie
I read illinipundit when I can and have a question. I notice Pattsi Petrie posts quite often on different topics and wonder if she holds a political office, works for the U of I, or is just an interested citizen with an opinion. If this question is not appropriate, please delete.
Reading all the negative views on the ciites providing water to their citizens makes it easy to see why CU does not provide this service. How do you naysayers explain Rantoul and most of the communities in the State of Illinois and the USA as having the ability to provide water to their citizens at a reasonable rate lower than Am IL?
It is my opinion, this rate increase has just enough "public good" justification so all the state political patronage appointed "watchdogs" could allow our monoply to expand giving them even more assurance no one or two communities could do a take over. Most of you seemed supportive and happy our local elected completely allow this and even support Am IL with this plan. Am IL's new revenue stream will allow them to pay for their expansion in less than 10 years with money left over. The remaining revenue increase should maintain or increase the profit to AM IL shareholders. All of this expansion magnifies the attractiveness of a buyout/takeover by a big service provider such as Haliburton. And the wording of this action allow Am IL to come back to those same political patronage "watchdogs" for another increase to pay for operational costs. If you do not know about those separate costs check you Amern bill. It was a great business deal at the consumers' expense.
Like our political system in this state enjoy the 'warmth' now as this type of action will 'cool' very quickly. IP pulled a similar action with complete governance approvals when they built the Clinton power plant.
Just wondering--I am simply a concerned citizen who has lived here a relatively long time during which I have been involved with various issues, but not an elected office, though I was a candidate last Feb. for the Champaign County Board District 6 Democratic seat. I lost the primary by 46 votes.
Pattsi Petrie
FYI Irrigation is a significant factor in water consumption in this county. I cannot give you the numbers without looking them up, but we do have "center post" irrigation in the county. Frito Ly, I believe, requires its contracting corn producers to have irrigation avaailable. Ralph Langenheim
Any response to my CCNH/water company question above, Mr. Langenheim?
I am so glad I have a well. We have low flow toilets/shower heads/faucet aerators. We have rain barrels. We do not irrigate anything and refuse to water the lawn (why mow more?). However I am concerned with the possible drawdown of the aquifer as more demand is place on it from the C/U metro and surrounding area plus potenital ethanol and power plant use. The second Clinton reactor will use an incredible amount of water for cooling (the lake is overheated now and will not support a second reactor). The ethanol plant in Gibson City is going to use aquifer water for processing corn. Bloomington/Normal is going to tap into it for their water needs. At some point in time we will see a shortage, not if but when. You can drill all the wells you want but when the source is dry where will you go then?
There was a terrific experiment done in the Netherlands--a country in the developed world that probably uses the least amount of water per person. The water company there placed the water meters inside the abodes in a place where the spinning wheel could be viewed by all. Just being able to see this caused a decrease in water useage. Not unlike the display in the Prius that helps the driver maximize the use of the batteries and gas while driving.
Pattsi,
I agree wholeheartedly. I drive a Prius and the instant feedback it provides definitely changes the way you drive. Even if nothing else at all changed on today's automobiles, I would suspect that if people were able to see just how bad it is on their gas mileage when they do certain things (like jackrabbit stops and starts), we could all conserve a heck of lot more gas.
Likewise, I also signed up for the power smart pricing program through AmerenIP. All you free-marketers should put your money where your mouth is and sign up as well. Basically, you pay the hourly market rate for electricity instead of a flat, sometimes subsidized (*gasp*) rate for electricity. Plus, I got this nifty little device called an energy pricelight that glows different colors depending on the price of electricity that hour. When it's red, turn the air up (or off). When it's blue, use all the cheap electricity you care to. Most people are money ahead after signing up for this program, plus it helps with the very serious issue of peak electricity demand.
I know this doesn't have anything to do with water, but I figured since we're talking about utilities, why not.
Don't expect to here from Ralph or any of the elected on this as they all backed it 100%.
I can just imagine the lovely sight of having five or six separate sets of water pipes running all over town, jury-rigged on the outside of buildings and up on poles since the ground is already paved over, so that each household can CHOOSE its water service, complete with multiple forms of bureaucracy to set up service for each.
I'm thinking the theme from "Brazil" playing over an image of the ad-hoc water piping from inside the Kowloon Walled City when it was still up.
Add to this the inevitable lawsuits over some company drinking some other company's milkshake, and it could be quite the fun for all.
"Nice ducts!"
Mahomet water bill last month:
Usage - 57 (,000 gallons?) - 2 meters - $30.10.
We are charged $8 per month per meter, but it saves you on paying the higher sewer service fees for outside water usage.
RSW, please explain how you do this. My bill this month was only 28 (,000 gallons), but I owe $34.36. How is it possible that you used twice as much as me but pay less? Wouldn't you just have the expensive sewer charge on both bills? Have I been overpaying all this time?
Akibare--based on your imaginative posting, I am prone to suggest that you are miss directing your writing talents posting on Illinipundit when you could be putting them to good use as a screen writer. I even have a title for your endeavor--Pipes of Zanzibar, starring Barack Obama, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, and Lisa Murkowski plus a cast of thousands. :-)
Pattsi Petrie
Mahomet provides water and sewer service to some of its residents and only sewer service to others. Both are charged based upon water usage but obviously sewer only users pays less.
Mahomet provides water and sewer service to some of its residents and only sewer service to others. Both are charged based upon water usage but obviously sewer only users pays less.
I see. Just for the record, Mahomet charges more for sewer service than it does for water service. It probably has something to do with the fact that it costs more to maintain the sewer service as opposed to the water facilities. I understand that it's still cheaper if you only got one instead of both, though.
Just because I'm curious, how much water does everyone else use per month? What is the average? I'm wondering if my rain barrel, supposedly high efficiency washing machine and dishwasher, and low flow showerhead are all actually working as claimed.
For a typical household using 6,000 gallons of water per month, the increase will mean a $38.13 monthly bill
Oh, btw, I did read this. I'm just wondering if this is accurate or just a number that the water company throws out to make it look like the bills aren't going to be going up much.
In answer to Illini Pundit's question comparing nursing homes and water companies: Nursing Homes do not cosntitute a 'natural monopoly'; water companies do.
Here is an Amy Goodman interview with Maude Barlow, who has written 16 books on water, along with comments by Michael Campana, Oregon State University. http://aquadoc.typepad.com/waterwired/2008/03/maude-barlow-hy.html A key quote by Campana from this discussion is "I see nothing inherently evil about privatization; what is important is to have local oversight and lifeline rates. Without those, it is bad." Well, we citizaens do not have local oversight and lifeline rates, so our situation is bad.
Pattsi Petrie
P.S. Ralph you did not answer the question that IP posited. Along with water companies are not a "natural" monopoly, unless you mean that water comes from nature.
You are correct pattsi, American Illinois Water Company does not have local oversight and never will as long as we elect representatives who serve their interest and not the communites they were elected to serve.
I have two toilets that run almost constantly, water the lawn and flowers and add water to a pool at least once a week. My bills from Illinois Water have averaged $55.00 for the past year (that is every 2 months, so approximately $27.50 per month). I have friends elsewhere who pay that much or more per month. I think our water prices are reasonable even with the increase.
Patsie: Check Thought Police, " I can hear you now." on this thread for a definition of a 'natural monopoly.'
Patsie--Ralph defines Am IL Water corporation as having a natural monopoly but in reality elected officials here chose to grant that honor (and market) to this corporation enabling this unjustifiable rate increase.
God., can you imagine a MUNCIPALLY OWNED water company....another batch of lazy public employees with mega pensions.....now that's scary.
John Boy--God., can you imagine a MUNCIPALLY OWNED water company....another batch of lazy public employees with mega pensions.....now that's scary.
I don't think I agree with a muncipally owned water company either. I would like to know when I became a lazy public employee and when my MEGA pension starts?
Your views are not shared by most here in Illinois as the majority muncipal water systems are owned and operated by the cities they serve. Note those cities have lower water rates than here in CU. Obviously, your views are shared by our elected so sit back and enjoy this rate increase and lack of local control.
To Anonymous 1:55P 3 August--your cavalier comment indicates that you must have a very stable, relatively well-paying job and salary. This probably is not the case for many so a concern about what happens to not only the water rates but also other pending increases and actual increases in gas prices is legitimate and ought not to be dismissed.
To John Boy 6:59A 4 Aug--have you taken time to look at the web site of the company that owns Illinois American Water? Here is the url www.amwater.com Why don't you do this before assuming the municipal bloating if the municipality owns the water company? This company could care less about Champaign, IL.
Here is the information from the ICC decision, which shows just how much more the increase is in this area compared to the rest of Illinois serviced by Illinois American Water www.icc.illinois.gov Here are the pertinent parts of the decision:
"The company revenue request and the Commission decision are as follows:
Southern Division, Peoria, Streator, Pontiac and South Beloit Districts: IAWC proposed 20 percent increase. ICC approved 14.9 percent increase.
Champaign District: IAWC proposed 59.8 percent increase. ICC approved 47.2 percent increase.
Lincoln District water: IAWC proposed 0.76 percent reduction in revenue. ICC approved 0.76 percent reduction.
Pekin District: IAWC proposed 26.7 percent increase in revenue. ICC approved 21.2 percent increase.
Sterling District: IAWC proposed 31 percent increase in revenue. ICC approved 20.7 percent increase.
Chicago-Metro (water): IAWC proposed 5.8 percent increase. ICC approved 5.28 percent increase.
Chicago-Metro (sewer) IAWC proposed 3.18 percent reduction in revenue. ICC approved 15.5 percent reduction in revenue.
The company’s Southern Division encompasses much of the Metro East area near St. Louis, Alton, Belleville, Granite City, Madison, Venice Fairmont City, Brooklyn, Sauget, Washington Park, Cahokia, Centreville, Alorton, Swansea and some unincorporated areas. The company also offers water for resale to Scott Air Force Base, O’Fallon, Caseyville, Columbia and a number of water districts in the area.
The Northern Division includes Peoria, West Peoria, Bartonville, Bellevue, Rome, and nearby unincorporated areas and other water districts, as well as Lincoln and Pekin and surrounding areas.
The Eastern Division of IAWC includes Champaign, Urbana, Savoy, St. Joseph, Bondville, the University of Illinois, Philo, Tolono, Tuscola, Arcola, Sidney and the Seymour Water District. The division also includes the Sterling, Streator and Pontiac Districts.
In Chicago-Metro Division public utility and wastewater service are provided to Alpine Heights, Arbury, Central States, Chicago Suburban, Country Club, DuPage, Fernway, Moreland, Nettle Creek, Potter Golf/Sunset Manor/Forest Estates, Ridgecrest, River Grange, Rollins/Elgin, Sante Fe, Southwest Suburban, Terra Cotta, Valley Marina, Valley View, Waycinden and West Suburban.
The ICC approved a rate of return on equity for the company of 10.35 percent and an overall rate of return of 7.84 percent. The company must file new rates for ICC staff to review to ensure compliance with the order. "
Pattsi Petrie
All of this discussion about the water charge increase is based on a percentage so I became curious as to what I will be seeing on my next bill. So a call to Illinois American Water Company yielded the following information: franchise fee will increase from 70 cents to 82 cents; 5/8 inch meter (size of majority residental meter) fire protection fee will not change; facility charge for 5/8 inch meter will increase from $12.92 to 15.20/month (or amortized over a shorter or longer period of time), and cost per unit of water used up to 50 units will remain the same at 1.9055/unit.
So the killer figure for everyone is the increase in the facility charge. So someone who uses only 4-6 units/2 months billing cycle will be paying a hugely disproportion amount to support the building of this new facility.
Pattsi Petrie
For the Aug 2 anon,
I only listed the water usage part of my Mahomet bill. The sewer portion was another $29.51, but this was not relevent to the Champaign discussion because they get sewer seperately billed by a different provider.
If 6,000 gallons is going to cost 38.13 in CU, looks like that is a bit higher than in Mahomet. My '57' is hundred, not thousand gallons - and again, came in at $30.
All you Am-IL Water Company supporters, especially those Champaign elected who pushed through the 'spot annexation' agreement, take a little time and review what has been said to the ILCC by customers about the way this company operates in other communities. Here is a site for some of those comments from one community served by AIWC.
http://www.icc.illinois.gov/docket/PublicComments.aspx?no=07-0507
16 books on water! Just think what she could do with carrots, or mashed potatoes!!!!
Run et al: Yes, just as soon as the cities get control of the water company, along comes the Administrator,assistant to the administrator, assistant to the assistant administrator, study group advisor for the administrator, assistant to the study group advisor, etc. ad nauseum. Look at the MTD, and the U of I. Even been in that University Building will rows and rows of assistant here, assistant there..all drawing huge break the backs of taxpayers pensions and benefits. Wait till these bills for this entitled class come due at retirement....OUCH! The water company will be the same issue....People flying to Tampa for lunch on the taxpayers dime (MTD), expensive consultants and on and on. Keep it private, where you have some accountability, lest it becomes another poorly run , runaway drain on the tax bill ( see county nursing home).
I think you should read my post again JohnBoy I said I wasn't for the city owning the water company.
I would agree on the out of control numbers of Administrators at the U of I.
You apparently don't know who pays for the Pensions and benefits at the U of I because we pay for them and our employer does though are social security tax just like any other employer so I think you are a little confused about our pensions breaking the taxpayer back. If anything the General Assembly is stealing what would be our Social security payment to spend in the general fund for other taxpayers.
I think you are right about the Nursing home but that also is bad management and if it was private it would still be happening and the taxpayers would be paying for it. Not that I don't think we shouldn't fix it but don't blame the employees for the bad management blame the County Board.
While your comments are lively JohnBoy, I find no relavance to public owned and operated water utilities. You need to review how other city owned utilities here in Illinois are managed especially those that provide water.