• Publications
    • Essay
    • Case Study
    • Policy Study
    • Report
    • Testimony
    • Other
    • Newsletter
  • Blog
    • Daily Blog
    • Podcasts and Radio
    • Video
    • Infographics
    • Commentary / Op-Eds
    • Events
  • Events
  • Donate
  • About
    • Our Team
    • Show-Me Institute Board of Directors
    • Fellows and Scholars
    • Our Authors
    • Jobs
  • Contact
  • Explore Topics
    • Education
      • Accountability
      • Education Finance
      • Performance
      • School Choice
    • Health Care
      • Free-Market Reform
      • Medicaid
    • Corporate Welfare
      • Special Taxing Districts
      • Subsidies
      • Tax Credits
    • Labor
      • Government Unions
      • Public Pensions
    • State and Local Government
      • Budget and Spending
      • Courts
      • Criminal Justice
      • Municipal Policy
      • Property Rights
      • Transparency
      • Transportation
    • Economy
      • Business Climate
      • Energy
      • Minimum Wage
      • Privatization
      • Regulation
      • Taxes
      • Welfare
      • Workforce
Show Me InstituteShow Me Institute
Show Me InstituteShow Me Institute
Support the Show-Me Institute
  • Publications
    • Essay
    • Case Study
    • Policy Study
    • Report
    • Testimony
    • Other
    • Newsletter
  • Blog
    • Daily Blog
    • Podcasts and Radio
    • Video
    • Infographics
    • Commentary / Op-Eds
    • Events
  • Events
  • Donate
  • About
    • Our Team
    • Show-Me Institute Board of Directors
    • Fellows and Scholars
    • Our Authors
    • Jobs
  • Contact
  • Explore Topics
    • Education
      • Accountability
      • Education Finance
      • Performance
      • School Choice
    • Health Care
      • Free-Market Reform
      • Medicaid
    • Corporate Welfare
      • Special Taxing Districts
      • Subsidies
      • Tax Credits
    • Labor
      • Government Unions
      • Public Pensions
    • State and Local Government
      • Budget and Spending
      • Courts
      • Criminal Justice
      • Municipal Policy
      • Property Rights
      • Transparency
      • Transportation
    • Economy
      • Business Climate
      • Energy
      • Minimum Wage
      • Privatization
      • Regulation
      • Taxes
      • Welfare
      • Workforce
State and Local Government / Budget and Spending

Sewer Infrastructure in Saint Louis May Get More Money

By Joseph Miller on Mar 29, 2016

On April 5, voters in Saint Louis City and County will vote on two proposals for funding sewer infrastructure in the region. The first proposal, Proposition S, would impose a uniform taxing district for storm water service, with a tax (already in place) of $0.0197 per $100.00 of assessed valuation and an additional tax of $0.10 per $100.00 of assessed valuation. Should the proposal go into effect, some areas of the district would pay less in tax then they do now, while others (especially outside of I-270) would pay more. The second proposal, Proposition Y, would allow the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Division (MSD) to issue bonds to fund $900 million in sewer upgrades.

The fact that Saint Louis must make such costly repairs to its sewer system is the result of decades of putting capital improvements off into the future. Many of the pipes in Saint Louis City and County have long needed replacement, creating a safety hazard. For example, in 2014, a city street collapsed under the weight of fire truck due to aging sewer pipes. The region has been unwilling to raise water or sewer fees to the necessary level to make needed repairs, and too often there has been resistance to implementing pricing practices to better align the use of sewer services with what properties pay. For instance, MSD does not require water metering, and the region has been unable to implement an impervious surface tax.

While MSD’s policies may be questionable, the department must go forward with costly sewer upgrades, much of which is EPA mandated. Some critics of Proposition Y argue that Saint Louis should simply pay all the costs up front, instead of allowing MSD to take out bonds to make improvements. This, they argue, would eliminate any future financing costs. MSD claims that a pay-as-you-go model would require significant up-front sewer fee increases, while bonding would allow rates to slowly go up over time. That would allow those on a tight budget to adjust to the increased property taxes. In addition, interest rates are now at historic lows, meaning the cost of borrowing is at a minimum.

Whatever way residents vote on April 5, the region is going to pay more in return for long-overdue sewer upgrades.            

  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Email
  • Print
About the author

Joseph Miller

More about this author >
    Footer Logo
    Support the Show-Me-Institute
    Showmeinstitute.org is brought to you by Show-Me Institute and Show-Me Opportunity.
    • Publications
    • Blog
    • Events
    • Donate
    • About
    • Contact

    Reprint permission for Show-Me Institute publications and commentaries is hereby granted, provided that proper credit is given to the author. We request, but do not require, that those who reprint our material notify us of publication for our records: [email protected]

    Mission Statement
    Advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy.

    © Copyright 2023 All Rights Reserved