IBJNews

Indiana OKs 26-percent Indianapolis water increase

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Regulators have approved a 26-percent rate increase for customers of the Indianapolis water system, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission announced Wednesday.

The rate is less than the 33.4-percent increase the city's waterworks department requested. In a press release, the IURC said the utility's average customer will pay about $6 more per month.

The increase is on top of a 10.8 percent emergency rate increase that the IURC approved in mid-2009.

Indianapolis officials say they need the new money for about $111 million in infrastructure projects and upgrades, and to provide more financial stability.

“More than 75 percent of this increase is attributable to capital expenditures, specifically investments that will assure the integrity of the system and the quality of the water now and for future generations,” said IURC Commissioner Larry Landis in a written statement.

Landis said one out of every four dollars being spent on the capital projects are needed for the city to comply with "environmental mandates handed down by the federal government.”

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Tapped out
    When are the citizens of Indiana going to wake up and revolt against this madness? They were already approved for an increase and now our water will have incresaed by more than a third?!?

    Duke went up as well as did Vectren. When are we going to realize then average person is one utility bill away for a shelter?
  • They Got All They Wanted
    We get hosed! The numbers story indicates that of the most recent increase, 75% is for capital expenditures and 25% of that is for Federal mandates. I want to know what the 10.8% emergency increase was for, and what the remaining 25% of the latest 26% increase is for. In addition, I hasten to remind IBJ readers that 26% on top of 10.8% is not 36.8%. It is 39.61%. This appears to be another very cozy relationship between regulators and the regulated. The IBJ and that other big newspaper in town need to do some very thorough investigative reporting.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT