Households over $133,000 in value already pay an extra $10.10 per bill just because they own "more valuable property." How is this just? They may consume less water than their "poor" neighbors who squander water with dripping faucets or leaving untended faucets running all night when they are careless or their kids leave it on. However, I do believe this effort will lead to less self-pride and promote weed choked havens for many city rats to hide in. Seen your counilman lately? Just look in the weeds. Perhaps, since GM departed, the city could look for fresh revenue streams like taxing the cleaner air we are now breathing. We also could assess smokers and tokers more for exhaling additional amounts of carbon dioxide and other trace gases into the pristine Wisconsin atmosphere! We could also add another tax to air pumped at service stations, like the tax paid on gasoline. Joggers and runners could pay more for the additional oxygen they are consuming. We could also charge more tax on the "public" air waves we use for radio and TV use. Wait, you mean we the public own the airwave right of way and not the large cable companies? Do we still also, as a public own the rights to the air and water we use daily? I understand that it costs money to provide conduits to service us but at a point we have to consider exorbitance and consider the tax-shell game for what it is - thinly veiled extortion.

When are they gonna see that they are making things worse... When everyone in janesville is in forclosure?????? Lets come up with good idea's to help janesville citizen before we wind up a ghost town... Where did the janesville i loved growing up in go???

I say we conserve and don't shower for a month and go hang put in good old dan's office......

Increasing water rates for people who use more is a great idea. I would be willing to bet the people who are complaining the most also use the most. It also seems that many want something for nothing. Too bad. Water is not an infinite resource; conservation and preservation of water resources is the key to human survival, period. You all want things to maintain your quality of life, but you don't want the bill. Tree huggers will be the ones who save and protect resources for the future generations. This question is for those who don't care about conservation: How do you explain to your kids that it's OK to be wasteful, and not to concern themselves with the future of their species?

Before complaining everyone should learn the facts. And it would be nice if the Gazette included all the facts in their article.
The City was made to allow this group to come in and we as citizens have to pay the $75000 for a conservation budget and we as citizens will probably have to pay their legal bills!
And if you look at your water bill you will see the WATER portion of your bill is one of three services provided; water, sewer and storm water. The majority of residential bills will go down or stay the same!

Don_Diego--So all true patriots should "take one for the team" & commit suicide, right? That would at least show our commitment to exterminating this blight on the face of Mother Earth we call humanity!

Mr Lynch are you a member of this group? what right do they have to come in here and dictate to us. I think we need a new supervisor in the water dept. People dont let this happen. Gazette why dont you investigate this group and report the facts, you just go along with all this b___.

garyprimer says: "Seems that this will become a regressive tax on large families. There needs to be consideration for the number people in a household if this system is going to be fair. It is expensive enough to raise a family in this economy without charging a higher rate for the water in the kid's baths." Gary, the real problem with the environment is overpopulation in general. The Earth simply cannot supply the needs for an ever expanding population. People who choose to have big families deserve to pay for it around every corner. If they don't like it, they can wear condoms or get a vasectomy. The Earth will thank them.

Can someone direct me to the code on using gray water in this county?

Is anyone who is thinking about having children thinking twice about how many they want...need? How many the Earth needs? It's not only water use that we need to monitor. We need to think about the future generations, too. So, again, how can we find out about gray water use in this county? (Wastewater from tubs, sinks and washing machines.)

http://esa.un.org/unpp/

USA Population density: 1950 16/Sq Km, est: 2010 33/Sq Km, 2050 42/Sq Km. That's how many more gallons of water they'll need in 2050?

Gray Water story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...

What would it take to put Rock County people to work putting in gray water re-route systems for yard watering? Why not mobilize, treat this like the "war" we are facing by pretending it isn't happening?!

Back to the topic...if you waste water - you pay more!
Sounds like a good proposal to me. Everyone can reduce their usage and this will help encourage that.

Just because you charge more money for more water does not mean you are conserving water. Yes there are penny pinchers out there and clearly alot of people that cry over how the money is spent. Since when do the school change books every year? I've never seen it in all my 13 years in the janesville school system or in my 5 years of college. I also question where some of you are getting your facts? I think that alot of the anger stems from misinformation. I want to pay for kids to get an education, that's money well spent. I understand that I make more money then alot of people around here but that doesn't mean that it doesn't effect me. I believe that the biggest problems with wasteful spending around here are excessive parks and constantly pushing to look modern when it's not necessary.

... actually janesvillean raises a very important point.

How many people know that Waukesha (!) surrounded by lakes, ponds, and streams is essentially out of water? This has been an issue for well on 20 years and there is still not satisfactory resolution. As the city is outside of the immediate Lake Michigan watershed, it is not allowed to receive Lake Michigan water for drinking.

This is starting to stall economic growth in the area. Some of you will likely knee-jerk blame environmentalists and "tree huggers" for preventing the use of lake water... but think critically for a few minutes about some of the root causes that can cuase a medium-sized city, in a rather rainy and snowy state, to run into the limits of the local water table.

Drill, baby, drill indeed...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/373...
and literally tens of thousands of other editorials, newspaper articles, journal articles, conference proceedings...

This is an important move for Janesville to make to promote sustainability, so that the water table is still here for residents, industry, and agriculture in 150 years. The incentives should never have been skewed toward depletion in the first place.

I agree that the free market is better than big government; however, I also hold that there is a balance to be struck between the two.

When I built a home in the countryside, I paid directly for everything (land, contractors, well, septic, electric hookup from the street, ...) except the road and basic protection (Rock County sheriff and rural fire).

When I (sigh, unfortunately) moved to a suburb, it was not quite the same. The developer paid for the streets by taking advantage of a tax credit; in many large municipalities, developers take advantage of tax incremental financing or other tax breaks... so, yes, very often new subdivisions (especially large ones in large cities) receive significant subsidy on the expectation of future gains in area property values.

Seems that this will become a regressive tax on large families. There needs to be consideration for the number people in a household if this system is going to be fair. It is expensive enough to raise a family in this economy without charging a higher rate for the water in the kid's baths.

Are the water & sewer treatment facilities enterprise funds, having rates that cover the cost of operations? If not, they should be. Secondly, where I live, residents are charged quarterly, with 6000 gallons as a minimum - seniors (age 65+) get a 10% discount - not sure how gallons equate to cubic feet - charge increases per gallon over the 6000 min. We have a 4% automatic increase annually in rates with the option for the council to increase that amount more if the operation need warrants it. Water conservation is handled by allowing residents to water only on even or odd days, depending on their street number.

Unbelievable... Just what this city needs. More taxes. I as a citizen, of this garbage, city of trailer "park city", will not sit idle. This is something to be debated, not pulled over our eyes. Every politician in this city should be fired.

Pete - the free market is the answer. What's the question ? Someday, when our friendly big government neighbors are paying 70-80% of their hard earned money in taxes, maybe, just maybe, they'll agree.

Clean Wisconsin is also big on Cap and Trade. They are focusing on your electricity use. And as Obama said, under his cap and trade plan... "electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket".

brwe - Obama had as much to do with this decision as he did with what you chose to eat for lunch.

Learn some history. If you want to "blame" anyone for letting "treehuggers" get their way, blame President Nixon...

"The Nixon Administration, although preoccupied with an unpopular war and a recession-ridden economy, took some stopgap action on the environmental front in 1969. In May, President Nixon had set up a Cabinet-level Environmental Quality Council as well as a Citizens' Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality. His critics charged that these were largely ceremonial bodies, with almost no real power.

"Stung by these charges, President Nixon appointed a White House committee in December 1969 to consider whether there should be a separate environmental agency. The President had already asked Litton founder, Roy L. Ash, to take a sweeping look at organizational problems throughout the government."

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15...

> I am present a plan to Janesville on Monday to eliminate property taxes, and move to a user pay for service program.

So, when your house starts burning... do you prepay the fire department before service is rendered?

Look, the dirty truth is that no one likes to pay taxes but generally speaking, they improve the quality of our lives.

Let's say we go to a user pay system as you suggest.

You decide to move into a brand-new subdivision. Instead of through taxes, you will directly pay for the roads, sewer, electric lines, etc. Now, you're on the edge of town and your house starts to burn. Does the fire department get to charge not only manpower and water costs but the mileage to reach you? Suppose one of the firefighters is killed while trying to save your house. Would you personally be liable for his death since you are directly contracting with said fire service?

Think through the many implications of what you are suggesting, Pete. Public services (police, fire, schools, ...) and utilities (water, trash, ...) exist for the benefit of all. Everyone pays into the service because although you might not need it this year, or the next, you might someday rely on that service.

Welcome to the Obama Nation--where the tree huggers make the rules!

The city needs the money for a new ice arena.

Well I guess I'll be using "If it's yellow let it mellow if it's brown flush it down" conservation method. I'm counting down the days until I can get the bleep out of this life sucking city.

a higher tax disguised as part of the green movement. can we blame it on global warming???????????????? i wish i could get out of town.

I'm all for "use tax" I think we should change more to this style - such as interstate - Toll roads. This might make it be a little easier on seniors and unemployed. If you or I dont "use" a service why should we all pay for it especially roads that are used by thousands of non taxpayers to WI. That being said though, the numbers presented in this article dont make sense. Per my latest bill we now pay $1.08 for the 1st 100 CCF & $.85 for the next 1,900 CCF. This proposed change would then be a deduction.

I also have a real problem with the revenue being down from GM & passed on to us. Why? if revenue is down 6% so what - so is output of water - this requires less water treatment chemicals etc. This makes no sense.

I am a huge proponent of water and electric conservation, but this "agreement" is what it is. If the city of Janesville needed to raise rates to pick up the slack for GM's departure, then say so. Clean Wisconsin wears designer rose colored sun glasses, and is always more than willing to tell everyone else in Wisconsin what to do. They are based out of Madison, yet I did not see Madison on the listed cities already doing this. Clean Wisconsin is always ready with a sermon, as long as they are immune to their preaching. Janesville was going to ask to raise rates regardless, so the Clean Wisconsin "agreement" is as negotiated as agreeing with the sun to come up every morning. I truly feel for Janesville residents, I think this is the beginning, and until commercial and industrial businesses can be drawn into this area, the residents will shoulder more and more of the load.

not like we can afford to pay anymore than we do. thank god i'm getting out of this town in a year.

Okay, the wastewater part is the expensive part. The water on my bill IS around $40, but the total is closer to $110.

wait, wait, wait... GM leaves and usage drops (kind of like what happens when people conserve - usage drops) and they ask for a rate increase?!?! Explain this logic (this ought to be entertaining :)...
.
Second...why in the heck is the water utility making agreements with an "environmental group" - this is profoundly disturbing...
.
Lastly...$40 a quarter... LOL. For a 1BR efficiency apartment - maybe then...

I have conserved water for many years so I'm all for higher rates for those who water their lawns, wash their cars in the drive, have lots of kids, fill their pool, and otherwise use a lot of water.
My WATER ONLY portion of the bill is less than $40 per quarter, with a total of $57.
justint...you are correct, the bill includes sewer and fire protection charges. Not just water

Have we considerd selling our water service to an outside, private company? There are many communities which have done so. They are able to reduce cost, improve infrastructure and usually get a large payment upfront. This upfront payment can be used to fund schools, police and fire and Janesville can get out of the water business.

My experience has been whenever a tax and spend liberal starts telling you how a fee or tax is going to "promote responsibility" or that it will "only apply to a select few", you'd better bend over and assume the position because brother that "select few" is you.

I don't know about you people but my water bill includes water and sewer charges. These are two separate charges. They are talking about water here, not water + sewer. Before you start complaining right away why don't you look at your bill.

Just me and my bill runs about $65.00 and working its way up tho I use less.

My water bill is usually around $100. Don't water the lawn or waste water. Do wash a lot of clothes though.

It's not just water. The electric company wants to raise your rates to make up for lost GM revenue too. I guess you'll all have to start new jobs defrauding the state of wisconsin through the child day care subsidy scam. Keep writing your senator and congressman and maybe we'll get rid of Medicare, Medicaid and Badger Care too.

well isnt that nice. GM leaves town and causes alot of people to lose their jobs. so people have less money now days. so ive got a good idea lets charge more for water when the people have less money now. poor water company doesnt have as much money coming in now and the big cheeses dont want to take any kind of pay cut theirselves. kinda odd GM isnt here so less water is being used now? so there should be less cost to the water company now also? its all about greed on their part.

So what happens when everyone starts conserving and water usage goes DOWN. That means less revenue. Will they want to raise the rate then? You can bet on it. California towns have been raising water rates for the last two years because all this preaching about saving water has resulted in less water being used and less revenue to each utility.

Well, my quarterly water bill was about $40 several years ago. My last bill was nearly $70, my wife & I don't use a lot of water. Only 8CCF on the last bill

1) Why does Janesville cater to Clean Wisconsin?
2) Why would implementing inclining rates for non-residential customers cause residential customers to subsidize them?

Me thinks Dan Lynch is a moron, $40?????? I average $100 a quarter for my wife and I. We don"t water our lawns, we don't waste water, we just live normal lives. I feel sorry for those households who have a family of 4 or 5. Way to go City of Janesville, you just screwed your residents again.....

Average quarterly residential water bill is $40?! Apparently, everyone in Janesville lives alone and hardly ever bathes. I wish my quarterly bill was $40.