|
Community
|
|
Written by Bill Schanen IV
|
|
Friday, 29 October 2010 18:17 |
|
But drop in district’s equalized valuation expected to hold increase on most residents’ bills to $40
Most Port Washington-Saukville School District residents will see their school taxes increase by at least $40, according to 2010-11 budget approved by the School Board Monday.
The $14.3 million levy represents an increase of $356,130 (2.6%) over last school year.
That will result in a 6.1% increase in the tax rate, which is $9.44 per $1,000 of equalized valuation. Last school year’s rate of $8.90 was 54 cents less.
But the impact of the rate increase will be mitigated by a decrease in the equalized value of all property in the district.
For instance, if the values of homes in the district remained the same as last year, the owner of a $175,000 house would pay $94 more in school taxes under the new tax rate.
But property values in the district decreased by 3.3%. The impact the school tax rate will have on individual property owners depends on how much the value of property in their city, village or town decreased in relation to the district average.
Property values in the small portion of the Town of Grafton that is in the district decreased by only .2%, which means that these property owners will see the largest school tax increase — $91 for a $175,000 home.
But Town of Saukville residents living in the School District will see their school tax bills decrease by nearly $49, presuming they own homes valued at $175,000, because they experienced the largest decrease in equalized value — more than 8.6%.
Other communities in the district, their decrease in value and the estimated tax increase on a $175,000 home as calculated by school officials are:
• City of Port Washington, -3.27%, $40.
• Village of Saukville, -2.49, $53.
• Town of Port Washington, -4.65%, $17.
The School District, which is taxing the full amount allowed under its levy limit, was able to balance this year’s budget without eliminating educational programs, laying off teachers or increasing class sizes beyond internal standards.
In addition, the district did not use reserve funds to balance the budget.
The largest expenditure, which totals $29.7 million, is wages and benefits, which will cost $21.7 million this school year.
Among the key factors influencing the budget is the increase in per-pupil state aid, which is frozen at last year’s amount of $200 per student, and a slight increase in enrollment.
|
|
Community
|
|
Written by Bill Schanen IV
|
|
Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:26 |
But drop in district’s equalized valuation expected to hold increase on most residents’ bills to $40
Most Port Washington-Saukville School District residents will see their school taxes increase by at least $40, according to 2010-11 budget approved by the School Board Monday.
The $14.3 million levy represents an increase of $356,130 (2.6%) over last school year.
That will result in a 6.1% increase in the tax rate, which is $9.44 per $1,000 of equalized valuation. Last school year’s rate of $8.90 was 54 cents less.
But the impact of the rate increase will be mitigated by a decrease in the equalized value of all property in the district.
For instance, if the values of homes in the district remained the same as last year, the owner of a $175,000 house would pay $94 more in school taxes under the new tax rate.
But property values in the district decreased by 3.3%. The impact the school tax rate will have on individual property owners depends on how much the value of property in their city, village or town decreased in relation to the district average.
Property values in the small portion of the Town of Grafton that is in the district decreased by only .2%, which means that these property owners will see the largest school tax increase — $91 for a $175,000 home.
But Town of Saukville residents living in the School District will see their school tax bills decrease by nearly $49, presuming they own homes valued at $175,000, because they experienced the largest decrease in equalized value — more than 8.6%.
Other communities in the district, their decrease in value and the estimated tax increase on a $175,000 home as calculated by school officials are:
• City of Port Washington, -3.27%, $40.
• Village of Saukville, -2.49, $53.
• Town of Port Washington, -4.65%, $17.
The School District, which is taxing the full amount allowed under its levy limit, was able to balance this year’s budget without eliminating educational programs, laying off teachers or increasing class sizes beyond internal standards.
In addition, the district did not use reserve funds to balance the budget.
The largest expenditure, which totals $29.7 million, is wages and benefits, which will cost $21.7 million this school year.
Among the key factors influencing the budget is the increase in per-pupil state aid, which is frozen at last year’s amount of $200 per student, and a slight increase in enrollment. |
|
|
Community
|
|
Written by Kristyn Halbig Ziehm
|
|
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 19:50 |
Port aldermen OK increase despite voicing concern about impact on residents, businesses
Port Washington water rates will go up 3% on Jan. 1, the Common Council unanimously agreed Tuesday.
Aldermen, who two weeks ago tabled action on the increase after concerns were expressed about its effect on residents and businesses in the city, said the rate hike is needed.
The small increase is preferable to waiting several years and then imposing a much larger rate hike on water users, aldermen said.
“I had a lot of complaints when this came up, people saying ‘You shouldn’t be doing this to me,’” Ald. Jim Vollmar said. “It’s very personal when people are having difficulties.”
The utility needs to continue to seek efficiencies and additional customers to help bring down the water rates, he said.
Ald. Paul Neumyer said he spoke to a number of his constituents, particularly senior citizens, and they were of a like mind.
“They don’t like the idea of an increase,” he said, but they prefer the small increase to a large one.
There are two main reasons for the proposed increases, officials said. Although revenue is decreasing, costs continue to climb. The utility’s customers are also using less water, and the number of major industrial users is declining.
The rate hike is expected to increase the water utility’s revenue by $77,000, said Ald. Tom Hudson, chairman of the Finance and License Committee.
Even with the additional revenue, the water department will run a deficit next year of about $108,000, he said.
That increase would allow the utility to build its reserve fund and save for future projects, Hudson said. That would help the city avoid borrowing for future water projects, eliminating interest charges that are passed onto customers.
Communities are allowed by the Public Service Commission to impose an across-the-board 3% rate increase without a formal hearing and case study, a process that would cost the city considerably more money to prepare, Hudson noted.
Although some aldermen had suggested the city impose a smaller rate hike, that is not allowed under the simplified process, he added.
With the rate increase, the average residential customer is expected to see his bimonthly bill increase about $1.95, City Administrator Mark Grams said.
The average bimonthly water bill — which includes charges for both the water and wastewater utilities — is about $120, Grams said. About $70 of that amount is for water.
Several aldermen expressed concern about how the increase would affect businesses such as Kleen Test Products when the rate hike was proposed two weeks ago, suggesting that the city consider a smaller
increase for business users.
Water Supr. Dave Ewig said he and several other officials visited Kleen Test officials, who indicated the increase is not a major concern for the company.
Kleen Test Products, the city’s second largest water user, is expected to pay $59,900 for water this year, Ewig said.
We Energies is by far the city’s largest water user, using 20% to 30% of the 1.3 million gallons pumped each day, he said. The utility is expected to pay $280,000 for water this year.
The Port Washington-Saukville School District is the third-highest user and will pay an estimated $48,500 for water in 2010. |
|
Community
|
|
Written by Kristyn Halbig Ziehm
|
|
Wednesday, 13 October 2010 17:54 |
Court-ordered manager will oversee repairs of downtown Port structure left in disrepair by investment company
Ozaukee County Circuit Judge Tom Wolfgram was expected to appoint a receiver Wednesday afternoon to handle work on the former M&I Bank building in downtown Port Washington landmark.
“Hopefully we can move forward after this and get the building fixed,” Mayor Scott Huebner said Tuesday. “I wish we could have had this done a long time ago.”
Wednesday’s court hearing was sought by the City of Port Washington after Port Harbor Investments LLC failed to repair the dilapidated building at 122 N. Franklin St. by a Sept. 23 deadline set by Wolfgram.
The city filed a civil suit against the company last year after repeated attempts to get the firm to fix the building’s partially demolished facade failed.
Before filing the suit, the city spent more than a year trying to get Port Harbor Investments to do the work, first using pressure, then orders from its building inspector and later through the lawsuit.
In May, the company and the city signed a stipulation and order aimed at getting the building repaired and ending the lawsuit. That agreement, which was approved by Wolfgram, called for the building to be fixed by July 16.
“They’ve given us no indication they’re ever going to do anything,” said Huebner, noting the city has given Port Harbor Investments numerous opportunities to fix the building. “They’ve talked for years and nothing’s been done.
“I just want to move forward. Hopefully, the judge will appoint a receiver who will make the improvements that need to be done to the building.”
There have been a number of people interested in the building in the past, Huebner said.
“Hopefully, there are still some interested parties and we can get a viable business in there,” he said.
Port Harbor Investments burst onto the scene in late 2007 when it purchased the former bank and announced sweeping plans for a multi-million-dollar development that was to encompass not only that building but several other prominent downtown buildings.
The firm planned to raze the former bank and construct a new structure that featured some of the architectural elements of the existing building.
However, the firm has been unable to complete any of its other planned real-estate purchases and early renovation attempts left the bank building dilapidated.
After numerous complaints from downtown businesses and residents, officials called for the building to be repaired, saying the structure had become an eyesore and safety hazard.
The building was in such bad shape last summer that the city was forced to make some exterior repairs after pieces of mortar, brick and other debris began falling from the structure. The firm had been ordered to
make these emergency repairs but failed to do so.
|
|
