Bargersville Water rate meeting set for Thursday
Many of you have seen received notification from Bargersville Utilities that they are considering a rate increase for water. Some of you have attended one or both of the public hearings associated with these proposals.
Water bills for Bargersville Water customers have not changed since 2004. But be prepared! If the Bargersville Town Council (a.k.a. Water Utility Board) passes the proposed ordinance, water bills will increase by at least 77%.
In order to realize what this means to your wallet, consider a typical Bargersville resident using 5,000 gallons of water per month, and without a lawn sprinkler system. That bill will rise from $18.36 to $32.46 per month; an increase of $14.10 ($169.20 per year). A non-Bargersville resident with a lawn sprinkler system will see their bill rise from $34.66 to $67.20 per month; an increase of $32.40 ($390.48 per year). Because these customers use more water than the 5,000 gallons, the numbers given here are a very conservative example.
Since this will be a major water rate increase, how will our bills then compare with others in the state? A review of 140 other water utilities in the state reveals that the typical non-Bargersville resident with a sprinkler system will have a bill second highest in the state. The typical Bargersville resident without a sprinkler system will be the 33rd most expensive in the state.
Have you non-Bargersville residents (you compose 80% of all customers) noticed the large difference in the examples above between your future bill and your neighbors who lives in Bargersville? That’s because you will pay a Fire Protection Fee of $20.00 per month; the highest in the state.
The reason for this enormous increase is reported to be the need for a new $20 million water plant, wells, and distribution system. In the 2002 Master Plan for the utility, this expansion is justified, in part, to supply water to Trafalgar and Brown County. It is currently being justified because of peak summer demands on the existing supply system.
White River Citizens United representatives have repeatedly spoken against this logic. A $20M expansion is inappropriate for the current economic conditions, and it is not the most cost effective solution for today’s water supply concerns. The proposed rate structure places the financial burden on the current users, and does not include an appropriate System Development Charge for future customers who will benefit the most. These challenges have gone unanswered by the Council. The Town of Bargersville letter of September 1, 2010, composed by consultants, has been offered as an answer, but it also avoids the question of alternative solutions. We suggest, you the water bill payee, attend the special Town Council meeting at 7:00pm on Thursday, September 9, 2010, and/or contact members of the Bargersville Town Council, and demand that alternative solutions be addressed. Their e-mail addresses are shown below:
Kevin Kombs – kcombs@townofbargersville.org
Steve Welch – swelch@townofbargersville.org
Cindy Jarvis – cjarvis@townofbargersville.org
Inabbnitt – jinabbnitt@townofbargersville.org
Mike Kehl mkehl@townofbargersville.org
No related posts.
17 Responses to “Bargersville Water rate meeting set for Thursday”
On Thursday evening at the Bargersville Town Council meeting, I was approached by Mr. Marks, our Township Trustee. Trying to be clever and divisive, he loudly asked me why WRCU was not at the Greenwood Sewer increase meeting, but showed up at the Bargersville Water Utility meeting.
If Mr. Marks would simply look at the facts, perhaps he would understand –
• 44% rate increase after 12 years for Greenwood represents a 3.1% compound annual increase – not desirable but probably acceptable
• 77% rate increase after 6 years for Bargersville represents a 10% compound annual increase – not acceptable
Not sure how to make it any simpler than that…
Comment made on September 10th, 2010 at 6:45 amNo, Mr. Mellott, Mr. Marks correctly recognizes you’re a puppet of Pat Sherman and are working to steer WRCU into support of Greenwood rather than being fair and unbalanced. You doth protest too much, me thinks.
Comment made on September 10th, 2010 at 7:37 amMr. Murphy, thanks for your feedback. I will remember that the next time I pay my water bill.
Question…why do you think WRCU is fair and unbalanced?
Comment made on September 10th, 2010 at 8:52 amMr Murphy is my kind of man. It appears he has everyone pegged. I too have been wondering where the big Boss is relating to sewer rates, mergers & what
Comment made on September 10th, 2010 at 3:29 pmall there is to be the next Mayor of Greenwood. But back to “compound annual interest”. Those are terms thrown around by the accounting types. In the real world of unemployment, foreclosures & bankrupt cities, forget the compound stuff. The real issue is how does Joe or Mary home owner cough up another 44 or 77% to meet next month’s bill. I’m surprised the WRT council didn’t think about compound interest when they said no dice to a 10% merger cost of doing business and the real world figures Mr. Marks arranged for the WRT voters to be exposed to (27+%) hit the screen. Being opposed to a 10% CDB and busting their tails to get a 27+% CDB on the ballot, now thats compound INTERSTING. You all watch out for Mr. Murphy.
Mr Mellott: I think WRCU positions itself as impartial, but doesn’t quite meet the bar. Its apparent that WRCU is pro-Greenwood, anti-Bargersville. Neither municipality has earned WRT’s trust, nor does either one have WRT’s interests at heart. Yes, the 77% water increase is difficult to take, but so is a 44% sewer increase. B-ville uses its utility to fund lots of other things; and G-wood has used its funds to sue B-ville. In both case, we’re the ones who pay the bills.
Jay Marks is no friend of the township, but he’s also not without some political skills. With the Board’s involvement, he managed to trade a multi-million dollar building into a sweetheart deal for the Bantam football league to own their fields – all funded by you & I, the WRT taxpayer.
Mr. Woods, you underestimate the intelligence of Joe average taxpayer We get when our money is being wasted, but we moved here because we want to live in a COMMUNITY. That community needs to include trails, shopping, businesses, and utilities. We’ll pay a fair rate because we understand that services aren’t free. We just don’t like giveaway programs.
Comment made on September 10th, 2010 at 9:55 pmIt’s something, but not what I’d call a “political skill”. I’d call it larceny.
Jay Marks has never beat anyone who wasn’t up for investigation of mis-sue of taxpayer funds in an election.
Comment made on September 11th, 2010 at 10:50 amMr Murphy etal, the word community has gotten into the discussion. Your right we made the move here 26 yrs ago. All of our life has been living in suburbia
Comment made on September 11th, 2010 at 12:55 pm. If we wanted city/town living we wouldn’t be in WRT. Lets began a drive to rebuild the county structure of government. This outdated system we call county government is over 150 years old and in todays world it doesn’t work. It was put in place when you one farm after another with a county seat. If you have followed the rhetoric of the “informed ones” regarding the need for a merge it has always been that OUR county government can’t handle the suburban structure, it is in place and works well for the AG side of market.
The Gov is very much for reorganizing our county structure, also a number of our local and state representatives are interested. The commissioner sytem just won’t work today. In JOCO you have a commissioner representing over or near 50% of the population. The other 2 have the balance, but all have one vote. This is nuts. Rebuild the county structure with ONE executive, who reports to the council. It works very in other states. The point is that yes your county tax bill rise, but not to the amount of what might be experienced with ANY merger. Another are to consider with rebuilding county government is the township fire department structure, that should be like the Sheriffs department a county operation. That is what Joe and Mary are looking for, a system that works. Ed
Mr. Murphy—I’m still awaiting your response to Mr. Mellott’s question about what your accusation that he is “Fair and Unbalanced” meant. He might be “fair” or he might be “unbalanced” but he can’t be both at the same time. Please explain or alternatively plead ignorance.
Comment made on September 11th, 2010 at 1:49 pmEd, WRT is a small city/town that the county has built. The structure to properly handle WRT is town/city government.
The current issue is that it’s too expensive to self-incorporate and the merger plan with Greenwood was, in a word, a turd.
Comment made on September 11th, 2010 at 10:26 pmMr. Devoe, as a fellow Greenwood-phile, I’m not surprised at your support of Mr. Mellott. If you read, and read carefully, I said that WRCU means to be fair but has been unbalanced. Those are not contradictory at all, but incredibly consistent and possibly redundant. WRCU claims to be fair and independent, however, their record lately doesn’t support that claim. Mr. Mellott and Mr. Griffin were planning members on the merger plan, and privy to all the discussions, including those held privately in clear violation of the Public Records law.
WRCU speaks against Bargersville’s actions, yet does not protest the Greenwood actions against its own citizens, such as using sewer utility monies in lawsuits or building extensions of lines without securing assurances as B-ville did. By the way, Gwood’s sewer is really Indianapolis’ sewer system, just under contract.
G-wood also inserted a storm water utility into the merger proposal, which on further scrutiny amounts to an uncapped tax disguised as a fee, where the terms of the fee are not well defined. But it is very clever, since creation of such a utility requires a referendum vote. Combining this with the merger would satisfy that requirement while adding a MINIMUM of $600/yr in new taxes to EVERYONE in both Gwood and WRT.
Look very carefully at the merger, Mr. Devoe, before you plead your case. It poses many promises, but very few guarantees.
Mr. Woods — yes, you moved here to get away from the city. But the 40,000 people who followed amount to a city. I hate to tell you this, but you now live in one of the larger cities in the state – and one of the more affluent cities in the state. The problem is that Johnson County government allowed this to occur without providing the services of a city government. Accordingly, businesses look at the area, see a potential market, and now local municipalities are interested. Center Grove is no longer rural, especially north of Stones Crossing. If you want to live in a rural setting, you’ll need to move again. Just stating the facts – you live in an area with nearly 100000 total people (add WRT, Gwood, Bville, and the 2 Whitelands, and wait for the 2010 Census – the numbers will be large).
44% sewer rate increase, 77% water rate increase and tax increases on the upcoming ballot. Maybe its time to leave this place and let you bicker. You all seem to be really good at that.
Comment made on September 11th, 2010 at 10:39 pmThank you for your response Mr Murphy. I can only say that if anyone accused me (or WRCU) of being “Fair and Unbalanced” I would not know whether to take that as a compliment or a criticism.
Comment made on September 12th, 2010 at 11:29 amYou hold those accountable for making this deccision….It’s really quite simple..VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE. Seriously, that should not be to hard..
Comment made on September 18th, 2010 at 1:56 amOwen, many of us can’t. We have Bargersville water but live outside the town boundaries. So our option is move.
Comment made on September 19th, 2010 at 12:31 pmWith the added $20 Fire Protection Fee, my water bill increased 334% from last month. Talk about a kick in the balls when I opened my bill last night.
Comment made on December 2nd, 2010 at 9:15 amWho exactly can I call or email and let them know what a bunch of BS this is!! My water bill more than doubled. Fire protection $20…really???!!! Is that for the fire hydrant by my house with a trash bag over it because it hasn’t worked for close to 2 years!!!! How is this justified??!?!
Comment made on December 2nd, 2010 at 9:39 amScott,
I don’t like the increase either, but if your bill went up 334%, it must have been very small to begin with. I wouldn’t complain. Mine went up 40%.
Comment made on December 2nd, 2010 at 11:05 amYour water bill was only $6 prior to this new Fire Protection Fee? You should count your blessings that you are not on Indianapolis Water!
Comment made on December 2nd, 2010 at 5:45 pmLeave a Comment