Onalaska committee backs moving public fire protection charge from property tax to water bill

The Onalaska Board of Public Works and Utilities voted unanimously Sept. 2 to forward a resolution to the City Council asking that the remaining portion of the city—s public fire protection charge be converted from the property tax levy to a direct charge on water bills. The board approved Resolution 21-2025 to authorize the change and asked staff to file the special application with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission if required.

A consultant from Ehlers explained why the city is pursuing the change and how it would affect customers. "It is just for the oversizing of your water system to help provide the water pressure to fight fires," said Brian Romer of Ehlers, describing the public fire protection charge as a cost tied to water-system components such as hydrants, oversized mains and storage, not to fire department personnel or equipment.

Romer told the board the PFP amount that is now on the tax levy would become a direct water-bill charge. He said that for an average assessed home (improved value roughly $289,000) the levy portion translates to about $45.89 per year now; converting that portion to the utility—s equivalent-meters direct-charge method would result in an additional direct charge of about $43.27 annually (about $10.82 per billing quarter) for the average meter size in Onalaska.

Why it matters: under Wisconsin practice the Public Service Commission (PSC) governs rates for regulated water utilities, and many municipalities are shifting PFP recovery from the tax levy to a utility charge to align cost causation with water customers and to avoid negative levy adjustments. Romer said roughly two-thirds of Wisconsin utilities already collect some PFP through the water bill and that, because the city is within five years of its last conventional rate case, the conversion can often be processed through a special PSC application rather than a full rate case.

Board action and next steps: Alder Larry Jurasic moved to approve Resolution 21-2025; Alder Jim Vanash seconded. The motion passed unanimously and the resolution will now go to the City Council for action. The board asked staff and the consultant to prepare the PSC filing and to provide the council with the PSC list of utilities that currently use direct charges for PFP so council members can answer constituent questions.

What the charge covers and who pays: Romer repeated that the PFP recovery covers only water-system oversizing and not firefighter salaries or fire apparatus. Under the change, tax-exempt properties (for example, schools and churches) would no longer have that portion covered by property tax; instead, water customers would pay the direct charge. Romer said those tax-exempt entities already paid part of the PFP through taxes and would see the shift to paying directly for their water service share.

Evidence from the meeting: the board heard the presentation from Ehlers, asked several clarifying questions about outside water customers and PSC authority, and voted to forward Resolution 21-2025. The board did not adopt the PSC application itself at the meeting; staff will proceed with the application and return with any additional documents needed by council or PSC.