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. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT