By Michael S. Hoey
CORRESPONDENT
An auditor has determined an increase in sewer rates to city residents is not because of higher city costs but additional costs to the city from the Walworth County Metropolitan Sewerage District.
WalCoMet officials say the higher cost is because of an increase in the material WalCoMet is treating from the city, not an increase in WalCoMet’s rates.
Alderman Gary Stebnitz told the public at the Jan. 14 Common Council meeting that the city’s auditor determined sewer rate increases that went into effect Jan. 1 were not related to city rate increases.
The council debated Dec. 11 meeting whether to approve the rate increases, which the aldermen and Administrator Denise Pieroni said resulted from charges from WalCoMet that were being passed through to city users.
The council originally voted not to approve the increases as a way to send a message to WalCoMet but later at that meeting approved them after determining there was no real alternative. If the rate increases were not approved, the utility would have had to use up some of its reserve fund balance to make the required payments.
WalCoMet Commission President Dean Logterman and Commissioner Ron Henriott disputed the city’s numbers, saying the type of increase the city was charging could not have resulted from WalCoMet rate increases.
Logterman said the increase could be from the city for city-related costs. He said WalCoMet sends the city an invoice, and the city determines whether to pass the charges on to the users.
Logterman and Henriott were invited to a meeting with city officials and Baker Tilly auditor Jodi Dobson on Dec. 17. Utility Director Barb Stebnitz said Dobson told Logterman and Henriott the city has three categories for billing –water, city sewer costs and WalCoMet’s charges to the city. Stebnitz said the funds are not intermingling, and the rate increases were necessary to cover charges related to WalCoMet, not city expenses.
After the meeting Logterman said the numbers the auditor provided regarding charges attributed to WalCoMet are correct, but it is not accurate to say city rate increases were the result of WalCoMet rate increases.
“What WalCoMet charged the city went up substantially. That is correct,” Logterman said. “They are attributing it to a rate increase, and that is not correct.”
Logterman said the increase in charges to the city was the result of an increase in the amount of water the city sent to WalCoMet to be treated and an increase in the things in the water that need to be treated, not a rate increase by WalCoMet.
“There is no direct correlation to the rates WalCoMet charges,” Logterman said. “It is not technically a ‘pass-through.’”
Stebnitz said WalCoMet’s charges to the city in 2012 were $1.28 million while the city collected $1.15 million from users to cover those costs.
The volume of water sent from the city to WalCoMet for treatment decreased from 2011 to 2012 – from 314 million gallons to 292 million gallons. However, the amount of material in the water that WalCoMet treats – such as biological oxygen demand, suspended solids and nitrogen – increased, Stebnitz said.
Stebnitz, other city officials and Baker Tilly representatives planned to meet Wednesday with WalCoMet Acting Administrator Cindy Moehling and Commissioner Harold Shortenhaus regarding the costs.
For more Delavan news and the rest of this story please pick up the Jan. 24 edition of the Delavan Enterprise.
