Water World
It’s not very often I see tri-partisan support for somewhat controversial measures down at the City-County building, but by a vote of 19-10, the Indianapolis City-County Council approved the nearly $2 billion deal to transfer the city’s water and waste water facilities to Citizens Gas. All 15 Republicans, three Democrats, and one Libertarian all supported the measure.
I’ve supported the water deal for a number of reasons, it addresses two major issues. It helps mitigate the 400% anticipated rate increase while providing badly needed funds for infrastructure. And no offense to some of my Democratic friends, they never offered up a viable alternative to the deal, except for some who wanted to nothing. There are a number of things they could have done with respect to the deal, but if you’re not smart enough to figure it out, I can’t help you.
Meanwhile, here are soundbites from some of the key players from Monday night’s meeting.
Carey Lykins, Citizens Gas CEO
Joanne Sanders, Minority Leader
July 27th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Good job carrying the water for the administration on this issue, Abdul. Wait…I just made a pun.
July 27th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
In my nearly 40 years in this town, I've never, ever seen an issue of such strategic and fiscal importance rammed through so quickly, and with so much subtrafuge.
The base deal, IWC-to-Citizens, is fine. The infrastructure component is fuzzy math. Always was, always will be.
And talk about an off cast of characters. Conservative Republicans favored an inflated price which goes back through city coffers to multiple pork-barrel projects. Under the weakest mayor we've had in 50 years.
Yep. Nothing can go wrong here.
You and I had an honest disagreement about one portion of this deal, Abdul. And Mr. Coleman lost any credibility he ever had–this dealis so contrary to fundamental Libertarian philosophy that it's hilarious.
In reality, it's a hybrid experiment whose effectiveness and business sense, we'll have to wait to gauge.
So be it.
Now…on to bigger problems.
How are we going to expand the Juvenile Justice Center to keep dangerous teens inside the fence?
July 27th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Think Again, what are you talking about? What is unlibertarian about transferring a public utility to a nonprofit public trust that answers to the people, and not politicians. Why should the government own two public utilities when they have failed at their job for 7 years? A public trust is not a for-profit corporation. There are significant differences in their operations. More thoughts: http://networkedblogs.com/6g3F7
July 27th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
But, does Citizens really answer to the public? I would posit that it doesn't. It answers to the Trust, which isn't really the same thing.
July 27th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
I offered up a solution that everyone ignored. I said we needed to take inventory of every last asset the city owned and have a sale. See how much money we raise for the sale of real estate assets and start there.
We could sell the City Market with lots of strings attached to preserve its historic integrity. We could sell it to someone whose job it is to make real estate investments sizzle. Cause God knows the people at City Hall don't know how to do it inspite of countless millions thrown at the market.
Sorry, but I'm jaded. I don't trust numbers given to me by politicians anymore. I don't trust politicians at all. I don't trust the Libertarians anymore.
I do trust the numbers I read on my utility bills each month. I can barely afford Citizen's Gas with their outrageous “service and delivery” fees to cover “administration”. That outrageous line item will no doubt now be added to my water bill.
By the way, on one bill from Citizen's, my service and delivery line item was $150 on a $550 gas bill.
There was absolutely no public discourse from the Libertarian leadership about this deal. When I wrote to Ed Coleman he snottily said I'd find out about his vote after he made it and that his conscience was clear.
More than a year ago I gave Ed the keys to blog on HFFT and he said he would. We both thought it would be a good and novel thing for a city councilor at large to engage a dialogue about matters before the council. Although Ed gave me his word that he would blog, he never did. He doesn't care. But his conscience, he says, is clear.
The LP lost my membership today. I'm an independent who agrees more with Think Again than the Libertarians these days.
So much for openness, small government, and transparency. The Marion County LP sold us out yesterday.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
I'd be curious what those weekend radio guys think (“Freedom Talk”?) I think they're nuts when it comes to border security.
I see Spangle's theoretical point re going from a public utility to nonprofit public trust. However, I see “nonprofit” hospitals in this town with curiosly opulent reception areas and architecture. Facing the prospect of raised rates for neglected water or sewer maintenance is one thing. Raised rates on water and sewer to pave sidewalks or something else not specified is not the forthrightness, transparency, and simplicity in the handling of our tax dollars I'd like from a “reform” party.
The grass is always greener on the other side. I think we're facing different shades and permutations that make it clear we choose the best candidate available, and party allegiance is an exercise in disappointment.
Mr. Coleman went down a notch in my book. But, the “average” Libertarian candidate for mayor would be a delight for me compared to Ballard or Kennedy. We'll see.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Where is Mayor Hopeful Melina Kennedy on this water deal?
What happened to Democrat Mayor Hopeful Brian Williams? He seems to be the only Democrat who really studied this deal and had real problems with it's cost savings claims, structure, and governance.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
FREE TALK LIVE radio. It airs on WXNT on Saturday evenings at 7pm and it is excellent programming!
July 27th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Taxpayer brings up a good point. “not-for-profit” does not necessarily mean frugal. You can have a not-for-profit company that provides goods and services. There's been some talks of newspaprer profit margins being so low that some are considering registering as not-for-profits.
I guess I'll just put this here as well. I put this on Chris Spangle's Fan Page for his blog, so as with TA, here are my final thoughts:
Can't say I agree with you, Chris. Citizens will have a huge, if not impossible, challenge to meet in finding efficiencies with the contracts that force them to keep Veolia and United Water on, as well as having to pay the city $263 million… AND keep rates the same for 2 years after the deal goes through.
No one on the right side of the political spectrum is against Citizens Energy Group taking over, at least as far as I've read (though many on the left side in the local blogosphere might have that view). The issue that stops me from supporting it is the $263 million price tag. The transfer of debt makes sense, since the city racked up the debt providing the utility service. But this money would be more wisely used to go back into the water/sewage utility needs to further mitigate rate increases (or even, and this is an original thought, PAY OFF THE DEBT). Using it for infrastructure is just moving money from Column A to Column B. I'm even more against the “sale” aspect of it since not all utility customers are also taxpayers/citizens of Indianapolis. And unlike other aspects of the market place, it's not like you have a choice in who your utility provider is.
Second, the contracts for Veolia and United Water. I've heard almost nothing good about Veolia's customer service, but even if it was good, Citizens, as the new owner, should find the best people for the job. And if those people are Veolia and United Water, they should be able to re-negotiate the contract on their own terms.
Third, I've been disturbed at the amount of legal fees Baker and Daniels has been charging to the city. I find it hard to believe that no other law firm was available for a cheaper rate. I'm sure the local GOP probably loved having the presumed D nominee for the mayor's race virtually silent on this issue, but some things need to go before partisan politics.
Fourth, Ryan Vaughn's continued actions on the council of not only voting on this issue, but helping push it through, have been disturbing in an obvious conflict of interest.
As for the perceived need to fix roads, sidewalks, etc…, this should be a separately discussed and separately financed issue. We could hold several public forums to see what us regular folk think needs to be cut in order to repair and add “dry” infrastructure, or discuss a need for a specific tax, or do a combination of both. But what's done here is similar to when an unrelated amendment attaches itself to a bill in the US Congress and it gets passed. It seems like our city leadership is adopting how the feds do business, and that just seems wrong to me.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
I bet you already know the answer, Question. Melina Kennedy is employed by Baker and Daniels, and BnD has been hired to represent the city in this deal.
Williams dropped out of the race and endorsed Kennedy.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
At the risk of being repetitive, having money to spend for streets and sidewalks should not be dependent upon gas or water utilities. It shoulld come from fiscal responsibility to the people first, and sports somewhere farther down the list.
Pay your bills and THEN buy your toys with what's left over. And don't float it all on your credit card(s).
July 28th, 2010 at 12:08 am
If Melina want to be Mayor, then she needs to speak up on the largest issue facing our city, or she can be a lawyer and drop out of the race for being a weak leader.
Brian Williams may have dropped out of the race, but that doesnt mean he has no opinion and can not be used as an expert unless someone threaten him or paid him to go away with favors/promises/hush money.
July 28th, 2010 at 5:18 am
There was no Democratic support for this hidden tax increase. · 3 Democrats voted for it and watch carefully in future to see how they are rewarded for selling out……..i suggest that all 3 officially become republicans and let the voters in their districts decide if they deserve re election.
July 28th, 2010 at 11:44 am
You obviously don't understand the public trust Chris. It's “public” in name only. Citizens also has a for-profit arm, whose antics weren't even discussed at the public meetings I attended. They spend millions on Pacers tickets and Likens-marketing. Hardly necessary.
The unLibertarian part of this whole fiasco is the overpayment by $435 mil, and using that money for a non-related expenses. It's checkbook politics, purely and simply. On a Pentagon scale. Who do you think ultimately pays that money? And we're told, simply, that we're avoiding future rate increases. That's our mayor's response. Tell me–what's Libertarian about the extra cash, Chris?
Did you check your Libertarian credentials at the door?
July 28th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Relax Ramon.
July 28th, 2010 at 11:48 am
We never have a choice in utility provider. I'm OK with that. The tremendous infrastructure cost is overwhelming, and wouldn't likely produce fair competition anyway.
But the overwhelming reason to oppose this deal, was the extra cash. Period. Citizens is OK…they need reigning in, on marketing expenses, especially.
Another concern I've got is the documents. if City CorpCounsel had anything to do with any of this, given their quality of work, we're in for a screwing. I'm only hoping that all the lawyering we paid for, went to a good cause.
July 28th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
An 'nonprofit' is an unfortunate choice of words. As a whole, yes, individually for the folks operating it, hardly.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Councillor Nytes seems to know her vote will have consequences, and, even though I disagree with her, I will take her at her word with her comments here.