The City of Urbana wants to re-examine buying IAW:
Prussing added she would welcome a discussion of pursuing public ownership with Champaign officials, and any other local communities that might be interested.
But Schweighart said he's worried about the potential costs of such a move.
Illinois American Water would undoubtedly fight any eminent-domain move by the cities, he said, and that would mean a multimillion-dollar legal battle. Buying the system itself would cost tens of millions of dollars more, he said.
"I don't see a possibility of it happening," Schweighart said. "I don't know where we'd get the money to fight. You know they'd fight it.
"I'm willing to listen to all the arguments, but I'm not in favor of buying it," he continued. "And I don't want to hire anybody to look into this."
The experiences of Pekin and Peoria in unsuccessfully pursuing public ownership have made him wary, Schweighart said. Pekin attempted to use eminent domain to buy its water system from Illinois American and saw that effort rejected by the ICC in January 2004. Peoria pursued public ownership, but then backed away when the price tag for the water system was set at $220 million.
Using a back-of-the-envelope valuation of the water system for Champaign-Urbana-Savoy at $100 (based on Peoria's being worth $220 million), what would the annual debt service be just to pay off the bonds required to purchase?
As I go bumping, dodging and weaving my way down the University Avenue obstacle course to the courthouse, I think "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if this was the group that ran my water system, too."
And then I read that Champaign wants to raise the tax on those pesky ambulance companies a hundredfold, and I think "what a great outfit to be setting my water rates."
And then I think of the growing number of Green candidates running for city posts and I think "They would be really good at running a business."
Any way you look at it, it's a can't lose proposition.
John
Well said, Mr. Bramfeld, well said.
I would like to see the figures so that a plan could be reasonably considered. Schweighart isn't basing his rejection of the idea on any specific figures, nor have I heard specifics from Prussing. I wonder if this whole thing would cost much at all once you figure in the value of the system after purchase and the revenue in perpituity from it. The purchase money would be borrowed against future income which is guaranteed.
I am absolutely fed up with the local water company raising rates massively in order to pay for treatment and delivery to other cities. Water is an essential service and it makes sense for it to be municipally owned. I applaud Prussing for continuing to push this and hope that Champaign will keep an open mind.
Dear Curious,
I am interested in your proposition that it makes sense for essential services to be municipally owned. Please make that case. Also, consider how your argument might apply to electricity, gas, ambulance service, food, drugs (medicinal), abortion clinics and photosynthesis.
John
"I am interested in your proposition that it makes sense for essential services to be municipally owned." It is cheaper with local control on this essential life commodity than having a foreign corporation. CU is the exception as most city water supplies in this country are local government owned. I would not want Schweighart or Prussing or any other elected official in either city running the water supply. So just to dispel the foolish posts on this probability, it cannot happen. There are very clear Federal and State regulations with oversight on who and how a public water supply as well as quality requirements which have to be met.
They keep saying they want to own the water system. Ok, great. Where are the numbers? Where is the math to make it work?
All they keep doing is trying to appeal to the hearts of the voters but repeatedly not a single politician has come forward with any numbers or mathematics of how they plan to make this all work.
Until there is a plan and some real numbers for the public to look at then it is a non-starter.
Politicians, please have a little more respect for the intelligence of your taxpayers. If you think you can make this work, prove it. With mathematics.
"It is cheaper with local control on this essential life commodity than having a foreign corporation."
At this point, without knowing the numbers, we don't know what is cheaper.
What I do know is that municipal ownership will result in users paying a monthly fee that will have to cover both normal monthly usage/maintenance and debt service on the bonds used to purchase the system. I don't know how much that debt service will be per user.
Debt service would be enormous. My guess is the local system is in excess of $300,000,000 and it already has problems, do we want to buy those problems? See below about reserves.
Every fire hydrant you see is about $6,000 and remember it is not just Champaign and Urbana, but Sydney, Tolono, Philo, Philo, St. Joseph. Eminent Domain required fair market value, including the material and the land owned and easements.
Most Cities that own their systems, constructed the systems. That is a HUGE difference. Additionally, large companies have reserves that can be used should something go terribly wrong and they have individuals that know what they are doing. Socialism does not work, if you do not construct the infra structure at the start.
Thank you for your courtesy, time and effort for reading my comments
Rex Bradfield
"I am absolutely fed up with the local water company raising rates massively in order to pay for treatment and delivery to other cities."
How will the cities owning this make it any different? Shall they cut off service to the other areas?
Do you not think we are paying for debt service now? What is that rate? Oh and do you not think we are paying for profit now? The Cities own some of the existing systems already and are maintaining them. Most cities that own their own systems received grants to contruct, upgrade, expand and enhance their systems.
"Socialism does not work, if you do not construct the infra structure at the start." If was true DOD would never have been successful in divesting themselves of all those military facilities with all the infrastructure during the late 1980's and 1990's.
Lets do a little math. When a contractor negotiates a time and material contract with a government agency, the allowable profit is usually between 8-10%, so we should not think the water company is largely different from that figure. If you say they are, check my comment at the end of this post.
Now lets do some average monthly expenses for an average family:
Rent or Mortgage - $800
Power Bill - $200
Gasoline for auto (2) - $80/week= $320/mo.
Health Insurance - $300
Home insurance and other insurance - $150
Auto Insurance (2) - $200
Real Estate Taxes - $450
Food - $400
Misc Living expenses - $500
Automobile payments (1.5) - $600
Kids (1.5) - $200
Telephone (4) - $300
TV - $80
WATER - $45
Unexpected expenses 5% of above - $225
Income taxes (1/3 of above) - $2,350
Total income/month - $7,120 or $85,500 annual family income.
By spending $300,000,000 and going into debt we save 10% profit on our water bill or $4.50 (0.005% of our income)
AND there is no guarantee that the government will not just charge us an additional 10%, and use it somewhere else.
Jesus, what is she thinking?
Yes I know that the figures above could be up or down from what I say, but the water is obviously the best and cheapest purchase we have.
Oh, remember me saying that if you thought that profit was a little low? If you think it is high, then why not buy stock in the company, I am sure the monthly dividend will be more than $4.50 and you are not in debt or having your government control your water.
Thank you for your courtesy, time and effort for reading my comments
Rex Bradfield
Rex, just where are you getting your definition of "average" here? How many families do you think are averaging around these expenses and income levels?
-----
First of all, Jason Barickman/the Champaign County Republican Central Commitee and I have made out. - Robert Dunn on 2009-05-04 @ 4:22pm
Less than 10% of the water systems in the U.S. are privately owned and operated. There is a reason for this, it is not profitable unless you radically increase the rates. Just like roads, basic public services are not profit making ventures but they are essential for communities to function. If privatizng everything worked we would have done it and in fact it has been tried in the past. Fire fighting used to be private. It did not work. Neither do private water companies unless they get to raise rates without much interference from the users.
Wow Rex---you are right---you did 'a little math'. It did nothing to make your point. Home water usage is just a portion of the water used in a community, your 'average' income is way above normal published data for CU, the water system is not new by any streach so any basis for its purchase would be pro-rated and your 8-10% profit seems sizable to me---not so dismisable.
Your comment about the government charging above costs and putting towards something else is valid. However with government ownership we would know it---a transparency we do not have with the system owned by a German corporation. You have an engineering degree so take off your political canidate hat and ask yourself why CU has one of the highest potable water rates in the nation yet we have one of the best, most reliable, consistent, easily treated water supplies.
Public utilities should be publically owned. Considering the current service area of the water system, perhaps what we really need is a county water district, on the model of the Sanitary District or the MTD. I will be more than happy to circulate petitions. Ralph Langnheim.
hate to tell you this Ralph, but the MTD and Sanitary districts are not county districts. more like CU districts. if we give you another decade on the board, maybe you can get up to speed on such things.
Maybe Curious @ 2:30 P has a point that much more data is needed before any concrete conversation let alone a decision can be had. Just another quick and dirty internet search, I came up with the following:
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/private-vs-public/economic-failures (interesting web site)
Economic Failures of Private Water Systems by Webeditor — last modified 2008-02-20 14:53
A close look at data from more than 1,000 U.S. utilities and existing academic research reveal that private water companies are not only no better performing, but are also more expensive than publicly owned utilities.
Cities across the country have found that, despite corporate claims, private ownership of water systems significantly increases the price of water. A close look at data from more than 1,000 U.S. utilities and existing academic research reveal that private water companies are not only no better performing, but are also more expensive than publicly owned utilities.
Illinois and Nine Other Midwestern States
A 2000 survey of Illinois and nine Midwest states revealed that customers of privately owned systems paid 13.65 percent more than customers of public municipal systems.4 It stated that “publicly owned systems charged an average of $1.28 per 1,000 gallons of water less than private and ancillary systems.” 5 Based on this survey’s average monthly water consump-tion estimate of 6,000 gallons, this price difference equates to an additional $92.16 paid each year by consumers in privately owned districts.6
Another interesting web site http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba659
First paragraph from the web site: "About 82 percent of Americans receive drinking water via publicly-owned water systems, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many of these municipal and regional systems operate at a loss, meaning users' fees don't cover the cost of treating and delivering the water. Many water authorities are critically behind on maintenance. They lack the capital to update their water purification and wastewater treatment plants, or to secure additional water supplies to meet expected growth in demand."
Pattsi Petrie
Also, consider how your argument might apply to electricity, gas, ambulance service, food, drugs (medicinal), abortion clinics and photosynthesis.
Two of those things are, like water service, natural monopolies. It's that aspect of the delivery system -- that only one company per municipality can hold a franchise -- which eliminates any discussion of "free market" from the debate.
I favor a municipal water service.
Moëtry in the Potion
I understand that Peoria and Pekin have tried, unsuccessfully, to acquire their water systems through eminent domain, and those efforts were shot down. I'm not familiar with the specifics of those cases. However, assuming that the cities cannot acquire the systems through eminent domain, then they'd have to persuade the water company to sell, and the water company has been clear that it's not for sale. So, as far as I can tell, all of this posturing by our local politicians is posturing about something they can't accomplish.
Arvid
I don't care about how many families, it is the relativity I am stressing, hence my
"Yes I know that the figures above could be up or down from what I say, but the water is obviously the best and cheapest purchase we have."
statement.
Halve the income and keep the water the same. 0.01%, still a bad deal.
Local,
The reason is that 50 million dollar plant west of town. I testified at the Champaign City meeting and said it was a bad idea, did you? What were people thinking when they approved that? Did they think it was going to be free? It created debt service and now we are paying for it.
Oil Man,
Hell yes they have debt service in the rate, how do you think they are paying for the $50 million dollar plant? Purchasing that plant would include money that eliminates the debt service for that new plant. Hence my saying the debt service would be enormous, we are buying that plant PLUS all the old facilities, that include all the other villages. Laurel feels like buying their debt, I don't.
Incidentally, the purchase of this company would be entirely dependent on Champaign's finances, and they ain't interested (for good reason).
I know, I know, Prussing says Urbana is "flush" with money. Her idea of flush is deficit spending or using reserves. (Reserves in Urbana are 1/2 million dollars)
Ralph,
Champaign county stepped aside and let the Water Company sidestep the only protection afforded the people with representation when the Water Company was wanting to build the new Plant. You are on the Board, why did you step aside? The only people in that meeting who could hold their representatives accountable were Champaign residents. A Water District, sure that is the reasonable way to handle it, but where does the $300,000,000 come from? Hop into the bank and say we want to secure a loan for 300 million and the security is the water company assets, we know nothing about running a water company, but we are good for it. Take some ear plugs, the bank laughter should be intense. Or sell some bonds from a new district with the same qualifications, that should get you a 1 or 2% bond rate, providing you can even sell bonds.
A Water District, that is kind of like a Park District, or a MTD District, or a School District, isn't it? Well you are right, a separate district would NEVER consider raising taxes just to meet operating expenses.
Yep, I am convinced.
A local community which I was the City Engineer at, thumbed its nose at the IEPA against my recommendation, saying we are the owners of the company and we can do what ever we want. It ended up costing them twice the amount which I told the construction would cost. Why did it happen? Because the city fathers thought they knew more about running a water company, than an professional.
How many other Mayor's are on the drown us in water company debt band wagon?
Patsi, provided some research proof that I have known all the time, this is a terrible idea.
Thank you for your courtesy, time and effort for reading my comments
Rex Bradfield
So, when questioned as to where you are getting your definition of "average", your best retort is to say "you don't care" then? Do you not see how any of this impacts the credibility of your viewpoint? Not even in the least? Haven't we been down this road before?
You're pulling semi-random numbers out of thin air, not only on how much the average family makes and spends (which you are way, way, WAY off on), but also how much this will cost. I'm sorry, but Rexonomics just don't play out very well in reality. Again. There is a reason why over 80% of water systems are publicly owned. CU should be giving this some serious consideration.
-----
First of all, Jason Barickman/the Champaign County Republican Central Commitee and I have made out. - Robert Dunn on 2009-05-04 @ 4:22pm
There is a reason why over 80% of water systems are publicly owned. CU should be giving this some serious consideration.
Prove why. Using facts and math. Someone needs to display an ability to show taxpayers the real dollar numbers on the situation--or there is no serious consideration to be made.
Prove why. Using facts and math. Someone needs to display an ability to show taxpayers the real dollar numbers on the situation--or there is no serious consideration to be made.
Did Pattsi's post above disappear from view for everybody, or just for you? The one where she cites a few sources and uses basic math to show how private systems cost around $92/year more per person? Granted, not only is it from a quick and dirty search (something you didn't bother to do to support your point, it seems), but it's also from a LLLLLLLLLLLLLIBERAL, so you know she's looking for a way to funnel that $92 away from corporate profit and hand it over to welfare moms and their god-hating, abortion-loving, arugula-eating community-organized agencies.
-----
First of all, Jason Barickman/the Champaign County Republican Central Commitee and I have made out. - Robert Dunn on 2009-05-04 @ 4:22pm
How about some numbers concerning our own local situation Arvid. Or is it not clear to you that we should run the numbers on our own situation? This should be easy for the pols pushing this to do--they could even make the mathematical case in the news-gazette for everyone to plainly see and read with their own eyes whether it is cheaper or not. Instead of throwing insults or making assumptions about my political leanings, you should actually welcome this kind of anaylsis as if your supposition is correct that it will be cheaper for taxpayers as the facts of the local situation would be laid out for all to see.
Dear anonymous, sheltered in your anonymity; If MTD and the Sanitary Districts are not uinder County oversight, why, then, are County Board Members callled upon to to vote approval of nominatiions to their governing boards: Ralph Langenheim
But Ralph Langendeim @ 12:04 P--you know perfectly well that there is absolutely no oversight by the CB on these two entities other than approving board nominations. That alone is just not oversight. The CB has no input as to budget, staffing, time meetings are held, transparency, etc.
Pattsi Petrie
Arvid,
Let me put it even simpler,
Of ALL your monthly expenses, is water near the top of this list? Do you spend 10 times as much on rent or mortgage, or food or transportation, or taxes. I agree, if water is one of your largest expenses, then howl. My I don't care is because my math example is to show the relative size of the monthly water cost compared to other expenses like taxes. Does your health insurance or car insurance or life insurance cost more than your water bill? How about your TV is it more than your water?
If you can rent for $50 per month, I applaud you, if your income taxes are less than 1/3 your income, and less than your water bill, I applaud you.
My point is, no other leadership in this area seems to want to purchase the water company, even Ralph. He wants a separate governing body, with taxing powers. Besides, the last time the County undertook a project of any magnitude, like the nursing home, Gosh, that went well, just think about how well it would go if they were building a $50 million project on something they know absolutely nothing about.
At $220 million, Peoria gave up, or does that mean anything. And for heaven's sake, stop throwing that 80% municipal ownership out without saying how many of that 80% owned them from the start. Even my small home town of Indianola owns its water company, or did. I remember them building it. You know what, they sold it, because it go too expensive to own. What do we do if Prussing is not so good at running a water company and we can't afford it? I am sure, we will get a good price for it.
I am tired of saying this. Just like Rob, I am in favor of municipal water companies, but only if they started them from the beginning and have owned and controlled the maintenance of the assets and the distribution area. Just how much administration money do you think we will be spending just to set up the means to administer such a district. How about nothing? Well, it might be a teeny bit more than nothing.
Even now, private wells, near the new plant are drying up. That is exactly the kind of responsibility I DON'T want to own, how about you? Lets buy a water company, end up with all kinds or EPA regulations and fines, and see if $4.5/month savings really worked out.
My monthly water bill is $40, and we water birds and the trees in our yard. I personally, think it is a great buy, but if you want to encourage Prussing to buy something I WILL support, try a petroleum company.
Thank you for your courtesy, time and effort for reading my comments
Rex Bradfield
Here's another approach--instead of putting the energies/concerns toward this new proposed increase, why not work toward ways/means to incentivize the use of less water. Here is what the folks in Wisconsin are thinking about
http://www.commerce.state.wi.us/SB/docs/SB-BuildingContractorDailyReptWtrEffic.pdf
Or figure out ways to capture/reuse more recycled water
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_H_water11.3f2f471.html
Pattsi Petrie
Mr. Langenheim, the County Board appoints the members of the Sanitary District and the MTD boards, but that appears to be where County Board involvement stops. When was the last time the County Board ever demanded accountability from either of them, or, for that matter, ever asked any questions? It appears that once they appoint the members, the County Board "hears no evil, sees no evil and speaks no evil."
I have said repeatedly that the benefit cost does not seem to be in line, that and the risk of having politicians control a vital water supply.
So exactly what are the significant benefits that we would get from having Prussing run our water department?
Saying we want to make sure a company does not make profits seems pretty shallow, besides if they are, why not invest in them rather than buy possible headaches for reductions those profits? What are the significant advantages?
Efficiency, Lower cost, better management, less government involvement, what are the reasons?
Thank you for your courtesy, time and effort for reading my comments
Rex Bradfield
So Urbana has decided that they need to spend 10K to recycle batteries because the market no longer supports free recycling services. This kind of 'do it regrdless of the financial efficacy of it' thinking is not how I want things run.
"...risk of having politicians control a vital water supply."---given your comments on public owned utilities and your switch to the political arena, yes this is a risk.
Oil Man
?
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Are you suggesting that Laurel Prussing knows more about water supply than any engineer or hydraulic professional?
My question was, just exactly what are the significant advantages, and if you are suggesting that having politicians run the water company, I will mark that as your thoughts on advantage. Anyone else have any advantages?
Thank you for your courtesy, time and effort for reading my comments
Rex Bradfield
It is most unjust that the hunger (thirst) of one's own fellow-citizens should be a source of profiteering for anyone.
~Antistius Rusticus
Not that justice has anything to do with, of course.
~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
-----
Rex, yes and I protested the granting of the land for developement at the zoning meeting as well. However, that battle was lost. So address what I said yesterday-----"Your comment about the government charging above costs and putting towards something else is valid. However with government ownership we would know it---a transparency we do not have with the system owned by a German corporation. You have an engineering degree so take off your political canidate hat and ask yourself why CU has one of the highest potable water rates in the nation yet we have one of the best, most reliable, consistent, easily treated water supplies."
As for Prussing running a water system as far as I know she is not a certified water treatment plant operator--are you?
I am a PE, we design systems. We make the O&M manuals for the water treatment plant operators to use.
"The reason is that 50 million dollar plant west of town."
No one seems to be answering my questions
02:37 "So exactly what are the significant benefits"
05:34 "My question was, just exactly what are the significant advantages"
Seem like reasonable questions to understand why we are wanting to spend that much money.
Thank you for your courtesy, time and effort for reading my comments
Rex Bradfield
FLUORIDE IS POISON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Look up what fluoride does to the body and how IL has some of the highest levels of fluoridation in the country. I draw a bath and it smells like a pool. We have, supposedly, very clean underground water. Why add all this stuff.
"Hey dumb guy, its for our teeth and to kill bacteria and virus' etc.."
Ever hear of fluorosis? And great, even though it isn't, its good for our teeth but why are we swallowing it - taking it internally. Research the origins of water fluoridation. And dead bacteria and chlorine are just as bad as just bacteria.
Just thought I'd add this to the mix even though de-fluoriding the water will never happen. I know I'm crazy, but once you research it from neutral sources you'll see its pretty detrimental to our health.
That's funny, I don't remember driving under a bridge this morning....
HG
02:37 "So exactly what are the significant benefits"
05:34 "My question was, just exactly what are the significant advantages"
It is most unjust that the hunger (thirst) of one's own fellow-citizens should be a source of profiteering for anyone.
~Antistius Rusticus
You need to pay closer attention.
~My Mother
As a PE, who has designed both water and wastewater treatment systems authoring operation manuals for both, I am not certified to operate either. Since you did not say you were a certified operator, I assume you are not just as I assumed Jacobson is not. When you state; "So exactly what are the significant benefits that we would get from having Prussing run our water department?", you are deceiving the public as Prussing does not run the water department just as other mayors don't run their city systems It does not take a lot of effort from a certified operator to get funds to keep an operation going. The elected officials cave pretty quickly when public safety is being compromized by politicians.
I gave you a significant advantage of public ownership, transparency, which is not available with the current German ownership. Another significant advantage is future control over system expansion and therefore community growth. I pushed for public ownership in the past when NIW had the system up for sale. It didn't happen then due to the narrow short sighted public officials. I saw another generation of the same short sighted public officials approve a 50 million dollar water treatment plant which the area could use but is way beyond the needs of CU. During the water plant meeting I actually thought you were different.
Your comments now tell me you are becoming short sighted as well as the politicians you so want to be a member of. The communties of CU provide very few services to their citizens for the taxes they collect due to this deficiency. Having lived and served as an engineer in a community which provided public services beyond those here in CU, like water, sewer, garbage pickup, stormwater drainage, bus service & recreation facilities. The lack of these in CU show evidence on just how short sighted people in these two communities realy are. Maybe its the past prejustices which caused two communities initially just moderized. If you were paying attention you would also have seen in at the Anderson plant, Zoning Board, Water plant public meetings. Not a pretty thing to witness.
I get really confused reading this blog. I thought it was populated mainly by conservatives. I always thought one main conservative idea was that private industry should be allowed to operate as unfettered as possible, and I have read, over and over, "show me one single instance where the government has run things better than private industry" or words to that effect.
Now it seems that it would be better to :nationalize" or more properly, "localize" an industry, being the production and transportation of potable water.
Is this some exception to conservatism, or merely fear of rising prices so "someone has to do something about this"?
IIRC, when governments run businesses or services, someone has to pay for it, and it is almost always by raising taxes, or euphemistically, "fees".
Doesn't sound like the government should run much of anything to me, but what do I know, I'm just a lifelong conservative.
This is actually a very good site if you're interested in the deleterious effects of fluoride--none of that Kevin Trudeau hokum.
http://www.nofluoride.com/
"I get really confused reading this blog. I thought it was populated mainly by conservatives. I always thought one main conservative idea was that private industry should be allowed to operate as unfettered as possible, and I have read, over and over, "show me one single instance where the government has run things better than private industry" or words to that effect.
Now it seems that it would be better to :nationalize" or more properly, "localize" an industry, being the production and transportation of potable water."
What you're realizing is that there is very little consensus among conservatives on many issues, and that there's a wide spectrum of ideologies represented among the people who write and comment on this site.
Local,
The water system which you alluded to, was it owned by the City from the start?
Ok Transparency and controlled growth of the area are your benefits?
What can the present water company do for the production of potable water that is not transparent to the IEPA cities and other controlling government bodies? What corners can they cut that will make the quality of our water supply less suitable? When they make supply changes, don't they have to have IEPA approval? Are the IEPA permit records available to the general public? If a Utility asks for a Rate Hike, aren't all the documents and the hearing open to the public? Aren't the Hearing Boards Appointed by the Governor? What more protection could you have for transparency. These are all in place and do not cost hundreds of millions.
Why would Urbana be better? The News Gazette had to file a Freedom of Information Request just to find out the Mayor's Travel Expenses.
Controlled growth. Correct me if I am wrong, but if a developer needs to have potable water, he is responsible for the cost and design of the service lines, no matter the size. But if the size is necessary for future development, the water company will pay the difference between the necessary size and the increased future service size. Usually development controls the expansion rate and it is not necessary for the construction of trunk service lines until the development dictates so. Why would this be any different with city control.
Sorry, as Charlie S. so nastily stated in a letter to the editor, "The Mayor of the City of Urbana runs Urbana and any appointed employees are under her direction". Sorry in Urbana, she runs the show, unless of course Charlie S. was incorrect.
"It does not take a lot of effort from a certified operator to get funds to keep an operation going."
I only wish that were true, and like you before I have done the recent things I have done, I thought that to. Nothing could be farther from the truth, politicians will posture, citizens will be outraged at costs or the lack of costs and the entire administration process will be a sham and take years to get efficient. That operator will be dealing with individuals who put the details first before they worry about the big picture, This is particularly true in Urbana, look at the very qualified staff that have jumped ship for Champaign.
If you were at the last ISPE meeting it should be very clear who runs the show in Urbana.
I will say it again, I am all for public water being public, but not if we have to buy a used system at fair market value. I won't go into all the pit falls associated with existing problems and how expensive they are to repair, especially if local experience technical leadership is not with the company. The present company fired Barry S. and all we engineers know how that worked out. They had to hire him back,because of his familiarity with the system.
I was sincere about my concerns at that meeting and I heard many inconsistent statements and certainly some issues that should have been addressed concerning the Illinois State Water Survey's objection to the proposed plant. But they did not happen, and that political manuevering is EXACTLY why the cities do not need to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on an uncertain commodity. The reward is not worth the risk.
You might enlighten the readers here with all the powers that IEPA and FEPA have concerning issues like the drawing down of existing wells in the aquifer supply area, or water hammer because of inadequate supply pipe sizes, or frequent pressure drops because of faulty system components or inexperienced personnel doing something improper. You might explain who pays for those issues now and who would pay for them if the city owned the water supply.
If you are a politician, try getting this over to the voters.
"I supported the purchase of the Water Company, and believe that will be in the best interest of the community in the long run, but presently we have realized we have unexpected costs associated with other governmental controls, and we are going to have to raise your water rates by 30% to create a maintenance fund for those unexpected expenses"
See if that will get you re-elected. It is a lot easier for politicians to put pressure on private companies, than it is for politicians to accept pressure.
I know you put this statement on your plans
"Existing utility locations and sizes are shown for reference only, the contractor is responsible for methods necessary for confirming the actual location and sizes of the utilities. Any costs associated with confirming those locations will be the responsibility of the contractor"
You might also enlighten the readers here why we put those on plans and how that would affect what we think Prussing wants to purchase actually is.
Again, I support public water being public water, but not when we have to purchase a system which we all know is aging. Enlighten the readers on how replacement water main construction affects the anchor roots of the trees in "Tree City, USA"
Thank you for your courtesy, time and effort for reading my comments
Rex Bradfield
Dear Chamaign Recently elements of the County Board tried to prevent appointment of a board member for the Southwest Champaign Transit District because they strongly opposed the operations (or lack thereof) of that District. This isn't MTD but is a similar district serving the same function -- i.e. public transportation. Also, at the time when the Terminal was being promoted, funded and constsructed a County Board majority actually appointed a MTD Board Member who was opposed to construction of the terminal. None of this prevailed, but they are instances of County Board interest and action in regard to its oversight responsibilities for public transportation districts. Ralph Langenheim
Oh boy, another mass of lazy, public employees all with mega pensions and AFSME strikes.
What do fluorine and chlorine have to do with one another?
Well, yeah. You're completely ignoring the fact that water fluoridation is a COMMUNIST PLOT!!1!
I see where the Power Company is asking for a rate increase also. Laurel is already wanting to spend money to BUILD wind turbine generators, maybe she can scrap that idea and buy the power company at the same time she is buying the Water company.
Why not? WE got OBAMA GOVERNMENT MOTORS, control of banks too. I'd look for some type of bailout for IGA soon....then we can control everything....
Laurel is already wanting to spend money to BUILD wind turbine generators, .......
please provide a citation for this
Michael Fuerst
(Click here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers.)
I always like to acknowledge when a local elected official does something which I completely agree with, from the Friday News Gazette:
Naomi Jakobsson correctly pointed out to Urbana, the proper and least expensive way to address the Water Company proposed rate hikes, namely by providing strong objection to the Illinois Commerce Commission in the form of a petition. That is a Helluva lot smarter and certainly less expensive than the Prussing Method of spending 300 million and buying the water company.
AND
I agree with Naomi's reason, but only for the Water Company (Power Company is a different set of circumstances), her quote:
"People across the state are hurting financially, and the requests to take more money from utility customers' paychecks could not come a a worse time. Both Ameren and Illinois-American Water Co. substantially raised their rates in our region over the last year and now they want more. I find it hard to believe that these companies are hurting so badly that they need to dig deeper ino the wallets of hardworking families"
I agree, and even though the proposed rate hike was a seemingly small amout of about $97/year. What is important is the consistency of responsible leadership to realize that even such a small amount taken from the consumers at this time is absolutely and completely irresponsible.
And no one will ever accuse her of being two faced for a specific issue because she firmly believes in what she is saying and voted against the proposed State Income Tax increase which would have resulted from thousands more from those same "wallets of hardworking families" she mentions above.
She did vote against it, didn't she???????????????
Thank you for your courtesy, time and effort for reading my comments
Rex Bradfield
Michael,
Got it from the mouth of a local elected official who was at the meeting with the City of Champaign, Savoy, Urbana and University of Illinois.
She was on both the Water Company and Building windmills podium.
Thank you for your courtesy, time and effort for reading my comments
Rex Bradfield