I read the MOU last week. It's fairly concise, and I'm making a list of questions. I will post them later. Thanks for the opportunity–I'm going to send them to my CCC member as well. But here are a few thoughts that supercede the MOU and its execution:

1. The Violia arrangement: will it continue? If so, can their operations be strengthened? They aren't very accessible, they're arrogant, and they don't have an excellent track record.

2. The IURC has no statutory authority over the city's proceeds from the sale, only the fiscal health of the operating entity. But your point is well taken: what will happen with the money? Specifically…I want to know. A list of the exact projects and their cost. Mitch did that with the Major Moves money. This is an historic oppotunity…let's not shroud it in secrecy.

3. The IURC is a weak sister at best…their Office of the Utility Consumer Counsellor is especially weak. Maybe we can take some of the proceeds from the sale, set it side, and use the interest to perpetually fund a small staff of attorneys/utility experts, who will oversee the utility better than the state would. Whenever rate cases go to the IURC there's never enough staff or money to fund opposition research. Now, we have the chance to set aside a small portion of these proceeds to fund that research in perpetuity. Let's do it.

This deal might not be bad. It has the potential to be very helpful into our children's futures. Let's not become another Carmel, where the mayor has big dreams, and a few years into them, cannot fund them properly.

Your observation about the sewer infrastructure is potent. If we'd had the political will to solve that problem when it was raised in 1976, it would've cost a tenth of the money. But that could've meant small tax increases, and we propped up Republican city government for 40 years with sacrifices to the “No New Taxes” gods. Expensive projects, like CSO and the jail overcrowding, got pushed back. Can kicked down the road.

Worked real well, huh? Sometimes, problems delayed are problems amplified. Sometimes, we need to find money for expensive projects, and yes, that can and should include cutting budgets as well as potential tax increases.

The thing that concerns me is that the “analysis” of all of the options is cloaked in darkness. Somebody in the Administration is asking of all us to just trust in their abilities to analyze their way out of a wet paper bag. That expectation has a very, very poor track record in my experience.

Considering my opinion of local government, I can't just blindly trust any of these people to do so – on faith alone.

Sure, maybe this deal is the best thing available, but since I can't judge that for myself, I am leery of the entire process.
If I were allowed to read over all of the documents returned from all of the RFIs, then perhaps I would agree with the Administration's conclusions. But, I can't, so I won't.

You expect me to provide an alternative or shut up? That is just cheap. Why? I'm not the one entrusted with (or paid to) “analyze” whatever options the Administration received. Further, I couldn't do so even if I cared to (remember, no info – the MOU hardly counts).

All I know is this. The more the Administration tries to fog the process, the more they act indignant about criticism, then the more I will be suspicious about the whole “deal”. If that includes further criticism (which is a sure as sunshine), then so be it. If the Administration can't stand the heat, then they should get out of the kitchen.

To be honest, I haven't heard any indignation regarding suggestions or criticism.

I want to try to be more global about this thing: it is a rare opportunity. And over my lifetime, almost five decades, I've watched closely when utility rate cases go to the IURC.

The IURC is packed with hacks. Always has been, always will be. Hell for years Vi Simpson's husband, a former state senator, was on the IURC, and he had zero experience in the field. Nice guy, attorney…but no experience. Govs. Bowen and Orr were notorious for putting pro-utility guys on the (former) PSC. And after their IURC service, guess where they go to work?

And every single time I delved into a rate case, there was one common thread: the utilities were well-prepared, with million-dollar lobbiysts, consultants and attorneys…and the Utility Consumer Counselor was like a limp noodle. It's not always just rate cases. Sometimes it's a construction issue–think Marble Hill. It is almost impossible for a poorly-funded Utility Consuemr Counselor to provide adequate arguments.

If this is truly a citizens' corporation, I think we have the chance to properly fund a good UCC of our own, on the local level. Five percent of the sale proceeds would be about $23 million. Properly invested, that would return $1-1.4 million a year. Enough for a handful of good staff persons and consultants. And we'd never touch the principle.

We wouldn't even be in this mess if they would have done the right thing and put the Water Company in the trust back when NIPSCO was forced to sell them. But Peterson was to busy vacationing in Paris twice in a (well that was right after the contract with Veolia was chosen) in a summer and SerVas was trying his best to donate his land next to the Water Company and and the Water Company land to IUPUI. Did I forget the building with his name on it along with a generous tax break.

Guy, chill out. It's 2010. We've all, uh….moved on.

Guy, chill out. It's 2010. We've all, uh….moved on.

Abdul, you do know don't you, that your blog server is all hoped-up on espresso or something….? The first post today was something you posted a week ago, and comment sections ahve bene blank, or freeze up my screen

Not for me, TA. Your browser might be on the fritz?

I was using iPhone and my office computer…both were similar

it's OK now tho

Abdul, had we not been screwed over so many times by the city's elite, perhaps we would not be conspiratorial. How many black eyes does a person have to suffer without flinching? I'm thinking the library, the airport, Lucas Oil, our school systems, and the CIB.

I don't trust this on the surface because I don't trust our government to put our interests first. Had they put our interests ahead of their own, we would not be here now for the sewers would never have been allowed to get into this state of emergency.

But hey, we've got that Oil Can playground for the politicians' favorite billionaire, Ir$ay.

In particular I don't like citizens gas and their outrageously high “service and delivery” fees which aren't based at all in reality.

Further, I don't like it that city council president Ryan Vaughn is pushing for this deal when he works for Veolia's law firm which stands to make a lot of money should they have to oversee the paperwork for their client.

Melyssa, Jim Irsay is wealthy, and we're all partly responsible fo rit, but you've inflated his net worth. Hugely.

And, for whatever it's worth, Veolia has givne a large chunk of business to B&T. But they've farmed out different matters to all the large firms. The reason? Protection. Lots of firms do it. If I want to oppose Veolia, and hire a lawyer, and if I had unlimited resources, I could not hire one of the big firms. Conflict of itnerest.

Which is why I want 5% of the net proceeds put aside for a Marion County Office of Utility Consumer Counselor. A properly-funded professionla office, with money for rate case consultants/ analysts and extra lawyers, would give me a much better security blanket.

The state OUCC is well-intentioend, but woefully under-staffed.