Great Lakes Water News
  


Want to subscribe to The Water and Wastewater News? 
It's FREE!

Visit our subscription site

If you have additional questions, please email 
The Editor!

 


Hassert: Reconsider
sewage plant fees

Joilet Herald News - 8/2

A local legislator wants the state to reconsider new fees being charged to towns and other operators of sewage treatment plants.

This year's budget authorizes the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for the first time to charge fees for inspections and other aspects of overseeing facilities that discharge treated water into public waterways.

It costs the state about $6.5 million to administer the program. But the new fees are expected to rake in $25 million, with the surplus helping to offset a $5 billion state budget deficit.

A major concern is that towns didn't anticipate the charges and didn't allocate funding in local budgets to cover the costs, said state Rep. Brent Hassert, R-Romeoville. The Legislature signed off on the program because it had limited time to review Gov. Rod Blagojevich's budget, Hassert said.

"Nobody caught the magnitude of what these fees were going to do to municipalities," Hassert said.

Joliet last month agreed to pay the state $125,000 for its two treatment plants, said Dennis Duffield, the city's public works director. While other towns are paying the fees under protest, Joliet didn't contest the charges, he said.

"They're collecting more than it takes to operate the program. It's clear they need this to balance the state budget," Duffield said.

Bolingbrook Mayor Roger Claar has said his town is being billed $45,000, and that the costs likely will have to be passed along to residents because the village didn't anticipate the fees.

Hassert wants the Legislature to revisit the policy during the fall veto session. Municipal leaders have told him they understand the state's need to cover its costs of overseeing sewage treatment plants. But they object to a program that will raise by four times the costs of the program, especially since they were charged nothing in the past.

"In my opinion, it's a hidden tax that shouldn't be there," Hassert said. "I don't think the purpose was to tax municipalities."

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner.