The answer is simple: "Nothing." Fees and contributions may only be used to cover costs, not to generate profits.

Yes, there are. With the Local Tax Act (KAG), a federal state regulates how cities and municipalities can structure their revenues. This also includes fees and contributions. Among other things, the KAG stipulates the cost coverage requirement and the cost overrun prohibition. It also regulates the principle of proportionality of services (only costs that are actually related to a specific service may be charged), the principle of equal treatment (same service = same fee), and the principle of equivalence (service and consideration must be in reasonable proportion to each other).

By keeping our two business areas, 'drainage' and 'cemetery and burial', in completely separate accounts, known as clients. This prevents the individual costs from being mixed up. In addition, our results are also audited externally on an annual basis.

As of January 1, 2022 (after exactly 10 years).

No, not necessarily. Fees and contributions are recalculated annually and precalculated for a period of three years. However, they are only adjusted when revenues no longer cover costs. This often results in a three-year period.

The calculations are made separately for sewage and rainwater. They are based on the cost development over the past three years. Cost forecasts for the next three years are then added. A permissible return on equity is added to this and the result is averaged. The total costs determined in this way are then divided by the billed water volumes or the assessed property areas. This results in the wastewater fee per cubic meter (m³) or the contribution for rainwater per square meter.

Quite simply: fees and contributions would be reduced and any excess payments would be shown as credit in the next statement.

The fourth stage of purification is irrelevant in this context. The costs incurred by the construction may and will only be included in the calculation after commissioning.

It was not a "cost driver" either—quite the contrary. It will contribute to fee stability as planned. Although construction took longer than planned and thus became more expensive, the costs for the external co-incineration of sewage sludge have already nearly tripled in recent years, exceeding even the most extreme forecasts.