Wastewater Privatization: Case Studies

Posted on by Joseph Miller

As Arnold residents prepare to decide whether to sell wastewater facilities in their city to Missouri American Water, they should consider cases where privatizations of this type have already occurred. Water and wastewater privatization in Saint Louis County and Illinois provide some useful comparisons.

Increasing budget constraints and needed upgrades have pushed many cities to privatize public systems in recent decades. A Saint Louis-area example is the privatization of water services in Florissant in 2002. The city divested its water services to Missouri American Water for a total of $14.5 million. The results, as a Show-Me Institute case study on privatization in Missouri noted, were positive:

Florissant took its $14.5 million and immediately budgeted $2,758,000 for street repairs, police projects, and public works projects. It deposited $10 million into a newly created special reserve fund, which served the city for several years after the sale of the water division. The remainder was placed into the city’s existing reserve fund. According to a 2007 city memorandum, “The timing of the sale of the water distribution system was extremely fortuitous and gave the city the cushion necessary to work through the dramatic drop in revenue without correspondingly dramatic service cuts.”

Florissant officials have been satisfied with the service, and Missouri American Water continues to provide water services to large parts of Saint Louis County.

While a wastewater privatization deal has not occurred in the Saint Louis area, many cities nationally have privatized this type of utility. A nearby example is in Mount Vernon, Ill., which contracted with a private company to design, build, and operate a wastewater treatment plant for 20 years in 1986. At that time, Mount Vernon did not have the resources to upgrade its aging treatment plan, thereby running afoul of environmental protection laws and preventing new industry from locating in the city. Environmental Management Corporation (EMC) entered into a deal with the city to build a new treatment plant in return for operating the system for 20 years, retaining and even retraining the existing employees. The city has since extended the agreement to 2023.

As these cases show, privatization of water and wastewater systems can be an effective way of providing public services in fiscally constrained cities.

Free-Market Health Practitioners Get a Group

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Late last month, supporters of the newly established Free Market Medical Association (FMMA) converged on Oklahoma City for the organization’s first ever annual conference. As the name suggests, the organization is intended to bring doctors and providers together to share ideas and defend “the practice of free market medicine without the intervention of government or other third parties.” Given the sorts of reforms American health care needs these days, the FMMA’s entry onto the national stage is a welcome one.

Along with noting the FMMA’s existence, there’s also a reason worth teasing out for why the FMMA held its first conference in Oklahoma City. The short answer is “it’s where the FMMA’s organizers are based,” but a more complete answer is it’s where some very interesting free-market business models are being put into practice.

Advocacy of free market health care is the longtime passion of Dr. Keith Smith, co-founder of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma [and the FMMA]. The center began to post fixed prices for common medical procedures years ago, and has provoked widespread admiration within the medical profession for efficiency, reasonable cost and frequent support for those who are less fortunate.

At the Surgery Center, Dr. Keith Smith and Dr. Steve Lantier have established an operational structure and market-oriented billing as explicit alternatives to the third-party payer systems that now dominate U.S. health care.

The center posts online an up-front price for medical procedures in diverse areas of practice, including orthopedics, ear/nose/throat, general surgery, urology, ophthalmology, foot and ankle, and reconstructive plastics. In all, a total of 112 procedures are listed.

Translation? Transparent pricing plus direct pay works out to a pretty good business model premised on competition and service. Price transparency is huge because it’s generally pretty difficult to price shop in the U.S. health market, in part because the third-party payer system disincentivizes it, and because many providers aren’t willing to publish those prices. That makes it difficult to force prices down through competition. Posting prices should be common practice in the industry; unfortunately, it’s not.

It’s good to see folks in the movement getting organized when it comes to demonstrating that, yes, free-market reforms to health care do exist and can work. In the coming months, Show-Me readers will hear a lot more about free-market health care alternatives. Stay tuned.

Debate: Does More Government Help Or Hurt?

Posted on by Joseph Haslag

This debate hosted at the Kansas City Library and sponsored by the Show-Me Institute addressed the question: does more government help or hurt? Stephanie Kelton, Ph.D., chair of the University of Missouri-Kansas City’s Department of Economics, and Joseph Haslag, Ph.D., Show-Me Institute Chief Economist and University of Missouri economics professor debated the government’s role in the economy. Following the debate, moderator Mike Shanin of KCPT-TV’s Ruckus, led a question and answer session with the audience.

 

Arnold Wastewater Privatization: Don’t Waste the Opportunity

Posted on by Joseph Miller

There’s “gold in them thar hills,” to quote a popular expression, which dates back to Mark Twain and the California Gold Rush in 1849, “millions of dollars of it.”

Believe it or not, the same may be said of the sewers serving the 20,000-plus residents of Arnold, Missouri, located on the southern edge of the Saint Louis Metropolitan Area at the confluence of the Meramec and Mississippi rivers.

Missouri American Water has offered to purchase the Arnold sewer system for a total of $13.2 million. This is a win-win proposition for the city and its residents.

The deal not only would provide Arnold with the funds to pay off $8 million in sewer bonds, but it also would supply $5 million in additional revenue. At the same time, the arrangement with Missouri American Water would guarantee timely improvements to the sewer system and lower utility costs for residents.

Arnold currently operates its sewer system as a public utility and charges residents $24.33 per month for up to 5,000 gallons of wastewater. However, like many municipalities around the country, Arnold is not charging residents what it needs to keep the system up to date, especially with increasingly stringent EPA and Clean Water Act requirements coming into force. According to one report, by 2016 the city would need to charge $34.50 per month to provide the same services.

Facing very similar pressures, cities across the country have turned to partial or full privatization of their water and wastewater systems. Deals with private companies typically result in an upfront payment to the city, a commitment by the company to make investments in the water or sewer system, agreement on pricing, and often a stipulation that the private company must retain the existing utility staff. The vast majority of these privatizations have been successful, with more than 90 percent of cities renewing privatization contracts and 94 percent recommending privatization as a method of water and sewer system management.

To cite one example, the city of Florissant in Saint Louis County sold its municipal water utility to Missouri American Water for $14.5 million in 2002. The city spent part of the proceeds on immediate needs and put the rest in a reserve fund. More than a decade later, the privatization is still a success. The lesson from Florissant and other cities is clear: When governments set the standards and carefully manage the privatization process, private operators deliver better, cost-effective service.

If Arnold accepts the deal with Missouri American, it will reap other benefits as well. Public services, like the school district, will benefit from this proposal via the expansion of the property tax base when the assets of the sewer system go on the tax rolls after Missouri American takes control. Residents will benefit from low utility fees, as Missouri American Water has stated that they will not increase rates until 2016. Even after that date, they project they will only charge residents $30 a month, which is less than what the city is likely to charge absent privatization.

While privatization of the sewer system makes sense, Arnold must be cautious on how it crafts and implements a final deal. The city must hold Missouri American Water accountable for the quality of service and the implementation of agreed-upon improvements. Furthermore, Arnold would be wise to follow the example of Florissant by carefully spending its windfall profits.

As long as local officials perform their due diligence, Arnold has much to gain and little to lose from privatizing its sewer system. Come November, residents should not let this opportunity slip down the drain.

 

Uber Arrives in Columbia

Posted on by Joseph Miller

Last Thursday, Uber launched its service in Columbia, Missouri. The innovative and rapidly expanding ridesharing company will start by offering free rides to residents while the company works out regulatory issues with the city government.

Uber and other similar ridesharing companies have the potential to efficiently improve transportation options in midsize cities like Columbia. Low population densities and dispersed development can make it difficult to provide useful transit options without wasting public resources on underutilized routes. But with market-based ridesharing companies like Uber, Columbia residents will have more ways to get around without owning a car simply through the increased utilization of the cars they already own.

As we noted in a previous blog post, Columbia’s antiquated for-hire vehicle ordinances were written to deal with taxis, limousines, and buses; how Uber would be classified is difficult to determine, much as was the case in Saint Louis and Kansas City. But while regulators in Missouri’s two largest cities have fought tenaciously to make ridesharing expensive or illegal, Columbia’s government seems to be interested in carving out a place for Uber, with some stipulations. One city official stated:

My main concerns are the insurance that Uber drivers carry, background checks conducted by Uber and the condition of the vehicles. . . . We are going to include regulations about those aspects in the agreement.

The same official indicated that regulatory changes would be ready in November.

If Columbia’s government can limit its regulations to safety concerns, and not control pricing and entry, residents will be able to benefit from the increased transportation options Uber and other ridesharing companies can provide. Whether Columbia ultimately will follow through, and choose innovation over regulation, remains to be seen.

That’s Why We Need More School Choice

Posted on by James V. Shuls
Lorrine and Naomi Goodloe. Photo by Robert Cohen, rcohen@post-dispatch.com
Lorrine and Naomi Goodloe. Photo by Robert Cohen, [email protected]

As someone who studies the issue of education policy quite closely, I can tell you there are many compelling academic reasons for supporting school choice. Studies consistently show that school choice programs save taxpayers money. Moreover, students who utilize school choice programs tend to benefit academically. Although I have read tomes on the value and benefit of school choice, none have made the argument for school choice as clearly and succinctly as the recent St. Louis Post-Dispatch piece by Jessica Bock, “After Troubles at Normandy Middle, a Return to Francis Howell.”

Bock tells the story of Naomi Goodloe a seventh-grade student in the midst of the drama surrounding the interdistrict school choice program in the Normandy School District. Goodloe attended sixth grade in the Francis Howell School District. However, enabled by the State Board of Education, Francis Howell elected to not allow transfer students to return this year. Thus, Goodloe was relegated back to school in Normandy. As Bock writes:

Lorrine Goodloe believed it might be better in Normandy schools this year, and told her daughter so.

But barely two months into the school year, Naomi Goodloe has left Normandy again, bruised and now behind in her seventh-grade studies.

The path back to Francis Howell wasn’t easy. In fact, it only came as the result of a court order.

After weeks of asking to go back to Saeger [Middle School in Francis Howell], Lorrine Goodloe made phone calls and determined Naomi might still be able to get back to Francis Howell. Attorneys hired by the Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri, a school-choice organization financed by investment banker Rex Sinquefield, would go to court for Naomi’s right to return, as they have for others. The judge granted the orders based on his ruling in August that the state board had violated rules when they changed Normandy’s accreditation.

When Naomi returned to her Francis Howell school, she was greeted warmly by her friends. “Everybody gave me hugs, and they dragged me around the school, letting everyone know ‘Naomi’s back!’” she said. She is now receiving the education that she desires and the education that she deserves.

Families should not have to be passive consumers of whatever their local school is offering. Parents should be equipped to choose the school that is going to meet their needs. That is the beauty of school choice, and that is why we need to expand options for all of Missouri’s school children. If you haven’t already, read Bock’s entire piece.

 

Who Pays When a Private Toll Road Goes Bankrupt?

Posted on by Joseph Miller

We have written in support of financing highway improvements through public-private partnerships (PPPs) before, most recently in regard to the bankruptcy of the privately leased Indiana Toll Road. In that case, a private international consortium paid $3.8 billion in upfront lease payments to operate the Indiana Toll Road for 75 years. Although the company failed, it would be hard to argue that Indiana residents did not come out ahead.

However, many opponents of PPPs on toll roads point out that if the projects are funded through federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans, a bankruptcy means that federal taxpayers are on the hook. While this concern is legitimate, a broader view of TIFIA shows that it promotes limited government spending and is no argument against leasing toll roads.

TIFIA, originally passed in 1998, was designed to provide gap financing for large ($50 million-plus in most cases) transportation infrastructure projects that have a dedicated funding source but would have difficulty getting full financing without federal backing. The program allows projects to receive a line of credit of up to 33 percent or a loan of up to 50 percent of the project budget.

TIFIA provides partial financing only for infrastructure improvement projects. Typically, PPPs for highway improvements consist of multibillion-dollar construction plans that are financed through a mix of private equity, state highway funds, toll revenue bonds, and TIFIA loans. This means that the act of leasing a toll road (as was the case in Indiana) could not be financed through TIFIA.

However, the federal government takes on some risk; typically, 10 percent of all loaned money must be budgeted to cover possible default. However, this is not a situation of moving from no federal financing to massive federal financing, but rather from a situation in which the federal government is expected to provide 80-90 percent of all funding to a situation where it provides 50 percent or less of financing. That fact, coupled with the necessity that all non-TIFIA senior debt for a project be investment grade, means TIFIA encourages more economically sound highway projects with fewer taxpayer dollars.

Assume Missouri decides to rebuild I-70 (a $3 billion project) as a toll road, using TIFIA loans to finance a PPP. If I-70 generates sufficient toll revenue, the federal taxpayer dollars would not be used. If revenue falls short, private investors lose their investment and the federal government may lose some money in debt restructuring. But the alternative (I-70 were rebuild as freeway) requires the federal government to provide 80-90 percent of the funding, with the rest coming from state taxpayers. If such a project were funded at all, it would likely require tax increases in Missouri.

This thought experiment demonstrates that PPPs, financed in part through TIFIA, may provide more transportation infrastructure at much lower taxpayer cost.

A Lesson for Missouri: Indiana Toll Road Bankruptcy Highlights Privatization Advantages

Posted on by Joseph Miller

Policy Researcher Joseph Miller writes in the Columbia Tribune:

Here’s a story we’re familiar with in Missouri: Government officials propose a multimillion-dollar project. They sell the plan to taxpayers as a way to meet future needs and generate substantial economic growth. After the project gets built and the contractors get paid, it turns out rosy projections were dead wrong and the local residents are left holding the bag.

But what if the situation was reversed, so that when the project fails to meet expectations, the contractors are left holding the bag. Impossible? Well, it just happened in Indiana — thanks to privatization.

Recently, the Indiana Toll Road Concession Company (ITRCC), which operates the Indiana Toll Road, declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The ITRCC is a 50-50 partnership between Cintra SA (an international toll road operator) and Macquarie Infrastructure Group (an Australian investment bank). In 2005, those partners paid the state of Indiana $3.8 billion for the right to operate the Indiana toll road for 75 years. As part of the agreement, ITRCC had to make significant capital improvements to the toll road; from 2006 to the present the company invested $458 million.

ITRCC investors expected steadily rising highway traffic to generate returns that would exceed these upfront costs and justify the many stipulations under which the company had to operate the toll road. However, post-recession highway utilization has made the original traffic projections, and hence the debt repayment plan, untenable. This is what forced the company to declare bankruptcy.

While it is unfortunate to see any company fail, Indiana taxpayers have made out like highway robbers on the deal. The state invested its $3.8 billion windfall in a 10-year, statewide transportation improvement plan. The privatized toll road received $458 million in upgrades courtesy of ITRCC, making it a better road now than when Indiana privatized it. And even though ITRCC has declared bankruptcy and must be restructured, the investors, not the taxpayers, will take the hit for overly optimistic traffic projections.

When the highway was privatized in 2006, critics in Indiana and other states, including Missouri, were apprehensive of a foreign, private consortium buying state infrastructure. One Indiana legislator said that Cintra-Macquarie “got a heck of an unbelievable deal. We got a bad deal.” Now that it appears the results are exactly the opposite, infrastructure privatization critics argue that ITRCC’s bankruptcy shows privatization does not work.

But in reality, private toll companies already are succeeding in the United States and internationally, a prime example of which is the Chicago Skyway. Moreover, the important lesson for Missouri from this bankruptcy is not the inability of Cintra-Macquarie to recoup its investment, but rather that privatization can tap into significant capital for infrastructure improvements and transfer risk to the private sector.

In the case of Indiana, we can retrospectively say that the buyer overpaid, but that was (and still is) a risk investors are willing to make when there is a reasonable prospect of profit. Indiana residents did not share the investors’ risk, but they have benefited from more than $4 billion of investments to their transportation infrastructure. With the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) slowly running out of the money necessary to maintain the Missouri state highway system, the fate of Indiana’s highway privatization deal should not make Missourians wary. It should make them jealous.

 

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging