UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN‐MADISON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND DECISION‐MAKING: IS IT TIME FOR CHANGE?
The Changing U.S. Water Industry
AGENDA
1. Industry Challenges
2. The Rising Cost of Water
3. Where will the Money Come From?
4. Industry Solutions
5. The Trend of Regionalization
6. Is Private Investment Coming to Water?
2
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
INDUSTRY CHALLENGES
INDUSTRY CHALLENGES
Reports based on industry‐wide surveys
More than 1,200 industry respondents
State of the Water Industry Report
• 56% Utility Professionals
• 44% Non‐Utility Professionals
Strategic Directions Report
• Respondents are Utility Organization Professionals
Survey Completed Late 2012
Survey Completed Early 2013
3
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
TOP 10 MAJOR TRENDS
TOP 10 MAJOR TRENDS
Industry Issues
Rank State of the Water Industry Report
Strategic Directions Report
1
State of water and sewer infrastructure
Aging water and sewer infrastructure
2
Lack of public understanding of the value of water
Managing capital costs
3
Capital costs and availability
Managing operational costs (energy, chemicals, etc.)
4
Water supply and scarcity
Funding or availability of capital
5
Aging workforce/talent attraction and retention
Aging workforce/talent attraction
and retention
Increasing/expanding regulation
Increasing/expanding regulation
6
Drought
Information technology
7
Customer, constituent and community relationships Treatment technology
8
Cost recovery
Aging workforce
9
Regulation and government oversight
Water scarcity or availability and/or conservation
10
Emergency preparedness
Water loss (non‐revenue water)
4
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
AGING WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE
AGING WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE
American Society of Civil Engineers 2013 Report Card on America’s Infrastructure
ASCE estimates 240 000 water main
240,000 water main breaks/year in the U.S.
Capital investments Capital
investments
for wastewater and stormwater systems estimated to total $298 billion – a number that will likely rise with increased regulatory
increased regulatory requirements
5
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
THE COST OF WATER AND WASTEWATER THE
COST OF WATER AND WASTEWATER
INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR
AWWA Report, “Buried No Longer”
$1 Trillion for potable water pipe networks
USEPA Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment
USEPA
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment
$127 Billion for water treatment, storage and source
ASCE Report Card
$298 Billion for wastewater and stormwater
$298 Billion for wastewater and stormwater
TOTAL… $1,425,000,000,000
6
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
7
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
8
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
“INFRASTRUCTURE
INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL AND RENEWAL AND
REPLACEMENT ARE MORE FINANCIALLY CHALLENGING THAN TECHNICALLY DIFFICULT”
DIFFICULT
Rank State of the Water Industry Report
State of water and sewer infrastructure
of water and sewer infrastructure
1
Lack of public understanding of the value of water
2
3
Capital costs and availability
Industry Issues
Strategic Directions Report Aging water and sewer infrastructure
water and sewer infrastructure
Managing capital costs
Managing operational costs (energy, chemicals, etc.)
4
Water supply and scarcity
l
d
i
Funding or availability of capital
5
Aging workforce/talent attraction and retention
Increasing/expanding regulation
6
Drought
Information technology
7
Customer, constituent and community relationships
Treatment technology
8
Cost recovery
Aging workforce
9
Regulation and government oversight
Water scarcity or availability, and/or conservation
10
Emergency preparedness
Water loss (non‐revenue water)
9
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
REVENUES VERSUS COST OF SERVICE
REVENUES VERSUS COST OF SERVICE
Yes, rate revenues cover cost of service and needed capital improvements
Yes, rate revenues cover cost of service, but do not cover needed capital improvements
No, there is a large gap between rate revenues and cost of service
No, there is a small gap between rate revenues and the cost of service
4.0%
6.8%
I don’t know
29.5%
53.8%
5.8%
Source: Black & Veatch
Respondents were asked if revenues generated under their utility's current rate structure fully cover the cost of providing water and/or wastewater services, as well as necessary capital improvements.
10
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
REVENUES COVER COST OF SERVICE
REVENUES
COVER COST OF SERVICE–
BY ORGANIZATION TYPE
No, there is a small gap between rate revenues and the cost of service
i
Yes, rate revenues cover cost of service, but do not cover needed capital d d
it l
improvements
Yes, rate revenues cover cost of service and needed capital i
improvements
t
1
1.2%
8.6%
30.6%
31.8%
5.9%
4.6%
2.4%
6.6%
No, there is a large gap between rate revenues and cost of service
60.0%
 Municipal utility commission/authority
p
y
y
48.3%
 Municipal department
p
p
I don't know
Source: Black & Veatch
Respondents were asked if revenues generated under their utility's current rate structure fully cover the cost of providing water and/or wastewater services, as well as necessary capital improvements.
11
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
FULL COST OF RECOVERY
FULL COST OF RECOVERY
28%
20%
22%
19%
7%
4%
Not at all Able
Fully Able
NA
Source: AWWA 2013 State of the Water Industry Report
Utility personnel were asked if they thought their utility was able to cover the full cost of providing water service, including infrastructure replacement and expansion needs, given what customers currently pay.
12
AGENDA
1. Industry Challenges
2. The Rising Cost of Water
3. Where will the Money Come From?
4. Industry Solutions
5. The Trend of Regionalization
6. Is Private Investment Coming to Water?
13
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
RATE INCREASES NEEDED TO RATE
INCREASES NEEDED TO
RECOVER COSTS
5% to less than 10%
than 10%
10% to less than 15%
I don’t know
17.5%
17.5%
15% to less than 20%
Less than 5%
6.3%
20% or more
29.4%
24.4%
5.0%
Source: Black & Veatch
Respondents who indicated that current rates do not cover cost of service and necessary capital improvements were asked to select the range in which rates needed to rise to cover the cost of providing services and implement necessary capital improvements.
14
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
50 LARGEST CITIES WATER/WASTEWATER 50
LARGEST CITIES WATER/WASTEWATER
RATE SURVEY
• Prepared by Black & Veatch’s Management Consulting Division
• Focuses on top 50 U.S. cities determined by population
• Survey has been completed 6 times since 2001
Survey has been completed 6 times since 2001
• The 2013 Survey results reflect rates in effect as of April 2013
y
yp
• Survey focuses on residential, commercial and industrial typical bills
15
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE TREND
WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE TREND
RESIDENTIAL 7,500 GALLONS TREND
$45 $40 WATER
$35
$35 SEWER
$30 $25 $20 $15 2001
2002
2003 2004* 2005 2006* 2007 2008* 2009 2010* 2011* 2012* 2013
WATER $17.0 $17.3 $17.7 $18.6 $19.5 $20.4 $21.2 $23.4 $25.6 $27.4 $29.1 $30.9 $32.7
SEWER $21.9
$21 9 $22
$22.3
3 $22.9
$22 9 $24
$24.5
5 $26.1
$26 1 $27
$27.4
4 $28.7
$28 7 $31
$31.2
2 $33.8
$33 8 $36
$36.4
4 $39.1
$39 1 $41
$41.8
8 $44.5
$44 5
Source: Black & Veatch 2013 Rate Survey
* Survey results for these years are extrapolated based on the average of the preceding and following year.
16
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE TREND
WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE TREND
COMPOUND ANNUAL INCREASE IN SURVEYED TYPICAL BILLS 2001 ‐ 2013
6.1
5.6
2.4
Water
Sewer
CIP
Source: Black & Veatch 2013 Rate Survey
17
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
50 LARGEST CITIES WATER/WASTEWATER 50
LARGEST CITIES WATER/WASTEWATER
RATE SURVEY
Residential Customers ‐ 7,500 Gallons Billable Water Usage
Community Water$ Rank
Sewer $ Rank Combined $ Rank
Atlanta
54.96
47
139.49
50
194.42
50
S
Seattle
l
61 43
61.43
50
116 50
116.50
49
177 93
177.93
49
Milwaukee
23.56
10
44.94
31
68.50
21
El Paso
20.93
5
19.21
3
40.14
2
p
14.74
1
12.72
1
27.46
1
Memphis
Source: Black & Veatch 2013 Rate Survey
18
AGENDA
1. Industry Challenges
2. The Rising Cost of Water
3. Where will the Money Come From?
4. Industry Solutions
5. The Trend of Regionalization
6. Is Private Investment Coming to Water?
19
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
FINANCING PROGRAMS
FINANCING PROGRAMS
 Adopted already  Considering for the coming years  Not adopted or considered at all  I don’t know
General obligation or revenue bonds
70.6%
State revolving funds
9.2%
54.2%
Alternative rate structure
29.3%
Energy performance or service contracts
13.2%
25.2%
18.7%
11.5%
21.1%
11.5%
28.8%
18.4%
16.7%
37.6%
25.4%
Public‐private partnerships
15.9%
Alternative tax structures
5.4% 4.9%
58.3%
31.3%
4.9%3.4%
61.2%
30.5%
Regional tax sharing
0%
10%
19.0%
20%
30%
42.8%
40%
50%
60%
8.7%
22.3%
70%
Source: Black & Veatch
Respondents were asked what finding sources they are suing or plan to use to finance capital programs.
80%
90%
100%
20
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
PAST DECADE OF MUNICIPAL PAST
DECADE OF MUNICIPAL
BOND FINANCING
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
Millionss
$10,000
$0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Considering the $1.425 trillion dollar need, current municipal bond funding will require a 40­year replacement period.
Source: Bond Buyer
21
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
ASCE REPORT CARD ASCE
REPORT CARD – FUNDING GAP
FUNDING GAP
(IN BILLIONS OF 2010 DOLLARS) Total Estimated Funding
I f t t
Infrastructure
S t
Systems
N d Funding
Needs
F di
G
Gap
$1,723 $877 $846 Surface Transportation
126 42 84 Water/Wastewater Infrastructure
736 629 107 Electricityy
Airports
134 95 39 Inland Waterways & Marine Ports
30 14 16 Dams
21 6 15 H
Hazardous & Solid Waste
d
& S lid W t
56
56 10
10 46
46 Levees
80 8 72 Public Parks & Recreation
238 134 104 Rail
100 89 11 Schools
391 120 271 TOTAL 2020
$3,635 $2,024 $1,611 ANNUAL INVESTEMENT
$454 $253 $201 Source: ASCE 2013 Report Card
Notes: Total needs estimated through 2020
22
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND WATER
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND
INNOVATION AUTHORITY (WIFIA) • Proposed in 2012 by U.S. Representative Bob Gibbs, chair of the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment • Funds from U.S. Treasury at Treasury Rates
• Intended to fund large (> $20 million) water, wastewater and stormwater projects
Proposal considers a May 2011 comparison:
• Treasury rate – 4.04%
• Municipal market –
M i i l
k
5 4% l
5.4% plus underwriting fees
d
ii f
• Anticipated 16% debt service savings on 30‐year loan
23
AGENDA
1. Industry Challenges
2. The Rising Cost of Water
3. Where will the Money Come From?
4. Industry Solutions
5. The Trend of Regionalization
6. Is Private Investment Coming to Water?
24
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
INDUSTRY SOLUTIONS TO THE INDUSTRY
SOLUTIONS TO THE
CAPITAL/FUNDING GAP – VALUE OF WATER
CUSTOMER UNDERSTANDING OF COSTS VERSUS RATES
Little
understanding
No
understanding at all
8.9%
Neutral
No gap exists between rates between
rates
paid and cost of service
Understanding
Full
understanding
49.6%
14.0%
11.2%
1.3%
15.0%
Source: Black & Veatch
Respondents were asked how well their consumers understood the gap between current rates and the cost of providing safe reliable water and/or wastewater services.
25
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
TRENDS
IN UTILITY BILLS
TRENDS IN UTILITY BILLS
TRENDS IN AVERAGE MONTHLY UTILITY BILLS
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
2001
Water Residential ‐ 7,500 gallons
Bundled Cable
Energy
2006
2013
Sewer Residential ‐ 7,500 gallons
Cell Phone
Sources:
Bundled cable (internet, cable and phone) – The Wall Street Journal, December 29, 2011
Cellular phone data from CTIA industry survey and uses 2.7 mobile phones/household
Average energy bill data from EIA
26
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
CUSTOMERS WILLINGNESS TO PAY CUSTOMERS
WILLINGNESS TO PAY
INCREASED RATES
Probably will
Probably will not
Neutral
Definitely will
I don’t know
Definitely will not
2.0%
23.7%
19.4%
41.8%
7.8%
Source: Black & Veatch
Respondents were asked whether or not they believed customers are willing to pay increased rates to support capital spending requirements.
5.3%
27
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
INDUSTRY SOLUTIONS TO THE CAPITAL / INDUSTRY
SOLUTIONS TO THE CAPITAL /
FUNDING GAP – ASSET MANAGEMENT
 Current stage
50%
44.1%
 Three years from now
47.4%
40%
28.8%
30%
24.9%
18.2%
20%
10%
3.8%
1.4%
0%
Limited understanding
understanding of asset management and not sure where to start
3.8%
Basic understanding f
of asset management
18.9%
4.3%
1.3%
3.1%
Good Very good Excellent understanding understanding; understanding; of asset
of asset Good practice
Good practice Leading the
Leading the management; asset way in Implementation management is development of is in progress
integrated and asset applied management throughout the concepts and g
organization
ideas
I don't know
Source: Black & Veatch
Respondents were asked to select the response that best describes the level of asset management maturity within their organization today and what they expect it to be in three years.
28
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
INDUSTRY SOLUTIONS TO THE INDUSTRY
SOLUTIONS TO THE
CAPITAL/FUNDING GAP – ASSET MANAGEMENT
43%
21%
22%
10%
2%
Not at all Satisfied
2%
Fully Satisfied
NA
Source: AWWA 2013 State of the Water Industry Report
Respondents from utility personnel regarding how confident they are that their utility’s asset management strategy adequately identifies all repair and replacement needs plus future expansion requirements.
29
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
INDUSTRY SOLUTIONS TO THE CAPITAL/FUNDING GAP INDUSTRY
SOLUTIONS TO THE CAPITAL/FUNDING GAP –
ASSET MANAGEMENT
BENEFITS OF ASSET MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
 No benefit  Some benefit  High benefit 
g
I don’t know
Prioritizing infrastructure replacement 1% 12.8%
Effective CIP development and 0.3%
implementation
84.7%
21.1%
1.5%
46.6%
2.0%
Better asset condition and remaining life 1.3%
26.3%
70.9%
1.5%
Justification for project financing and rate increases 1.0%
27.4%
70.3%
1.3%
Improved asset inventory data 1.8%
27.2%
70.0%
1.0%
Capital and operating cost efficiencies 1.8%
31.9%
64.8%
1.5%
Ability to understand and manage risk 1.3%
32.4%
64.8%
1.5%
Operational optimization 3.6%
Operational optimization
3 6%
46 7%
46.7%
Knowledge transfer & interdepartment communication 3.6%
49.0%
Determining level of service goals 4.1%
0%
48 2%
48.2%
1 5%
1.5%
44.4%
3.1%
51.5%
10%
20%
30%
40.8%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Source: Black & Veatch
Respondents were asked to rate the level of benefit an asset management improvement program will have on each of the listed activities.
3.6%
90%
100%
30
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
INDUSTRY SOLUTIONS TO THE CAPITAL / INDUSTRY
SOLUTIONS TO THE CAPITAL /
FUNDING GAP – ASSET MANAGEMENT
TOOLS & SYSTEMS USED TO SUPPORT ASSET MANAGEMENT
Currently in use and supports all asset Currently in use and requires Planning to implement within the management needs
t
d
i
improvement to fully support the needs
t t f ll
t th
d
t2
next 2 years
 Not currently in use and no plans to implement  I don’t know
GIS system
37.4%
CIP prioritization
36.9%
Hydraulic models
33.9%
48.0%
20.9%
49.0%
Condition assessments and inspections
20 2%
20.2%
50 3%
50.3%
Mobile applications
15.1%
11.0%
Enterprise management Enterprise
management
software 10.5%
Dashboards 7.4%
7.9%
2 0%
2.0%
0%
10%
32.7%
26.3%
22.0%
14.3%
40%
50%
8.2%
13.8%
22.3%
18.8%
19.6%
45.0%
30%
4 1%
4.1%
5 6%
5.6%
11.5%
18.9%
30.3%
17.6%
5.6% 7.1%
19 9%
19.9%
27.3%
28.3%
20%
5.4% 6.1% 6.6%
17.3%
38.0%
23.9%
Deterioration models
9.7% 4.1% 3.3%
46.1%
Computer maintenance management systems
Paperless work order management system
5.1% 3.1% 2.8%
51.7%
27.4%
60%
70%
80%
Source: Black & Veatch
Respondents were asked to select the current usage and/or plans for any of the following tools and systems used to support asset management within their utility.
90%
100%
31
AGENDA
1. Industry Challenges
2. The Rising Cost of Water
3. Where will the Money Come From?
4. Industry Solutions
5. The Trend of Regionalization
6. Is Private Investment Coming to Water?
32
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
WHAT IS DRIVING REGIONALIZATION?
WHAT IS DRIVING REGIONALIZATION?
• Increased efficiency through economies of scale
• Access to water resources and integrated water resources management
resources management
• Centralized operation and governance
• Enhanced professional capacity in larger scale of Enhanced professional capacity in larger scale of
operation
• Access to finance or/and to private sector participation
• Cost sharing between higher‐ and lower‐cost service areas
33
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
REGIONALIZATION SPECTRUM
REGIONALIZATION SPECTRUM
Least Risk Sharing and Potential Benefits
Most Risk Sharing and Potential Benefits
Inter‐Governmental Cooperation
Special Service "Authority/Agreement"
Authority/Agreement
Utilizes operating agreements, wholesale contracts, basic service contracts or joint service agreements between entities
Pros:
• No loss of control
• May not have to expand plant
• More efficient use of resources
• Eliminate duplication of facilities
• No voter approval required
One entity operates treatment All systems combined under Essentially the stronger one legal operating entity that entities buy the weaker facilities; all members buy entities
reduce or eliminate the from treatment authority
autonomy of local systems
Cons:
• Very little economic benefit
• Very little risk sharing
• Not lowering the combined system costs
• Temporary solution Temporary solution
(possibly)
Self Contained Authority
Self‐Contained Authority
Pros:
Pros:
• Each entity maintains control • Total sharing of risk
of distribution • Cost savings optimized system/growth
through economies of scale
• May have economies of scale • Provide for more permanent from combined capacity
from combined capacity
solution to supply problems
solution to supply problems
• Risk sharing only on • Larger entity can seek wider treatment range of financing sources
• Can spread large capital expenditures over a larger customer base.
Cons:
Cons:
• Typically only benefit from • No control except through wholesale rate path
voting rights negotiated by • Potential loss of control over entities
capacity/treatment plants
• Can be most difficult • No economies of scale on No economies of scale on
because of system valuation
because of system valuation
collection/distribution
• Voter approval required
Merged Utility Entity
Merged Utility Entity
Pros:
• Acquired entity not burdened with system maintenance
• Potential economies of scale for a larger system whereby
for a larger system whereby acquired entity may benefit
Cons:
• Loss of control for acquired entity only
• Potential loss of revenues for acquired entity
• No risk sharing;
No risk sharing; acquiring acquiring
entities bare all the risk
34
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SEWER REGIONALIZATION STUDY
BACKGROUND
BENEFITS / INSIGHTS
• Charlotte suburb
• Savings of more than 20% of total costs
• Textile impact
Textile impact
• 15 entities considered • Small system discharges
• Lower rates for customers
• Reduced source point discharge
• Large system capacity
• G
Governance selection l ti
challenges
• Some ongoing inter‐
governmental cooperation
• Identification of regional cooperation opportunities
cooperation opportunities
• Two Rivers Water Utilities
35
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
GASTON COUNTY SEWER CONSOLIDATION
36
AGENDA
1. Industry Challenges
2. The Rising Cost of Water
3. Where will the Money Come From?
4. Industry Solutions
5. The Trend of Regionalization
6. Is Private Investment Coming to Water?
37
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PRIVATE INVOLVEMENT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PRIVATE INVOLVEMENT
Least Risk Sharing Least
Risk Sharing
and Potential Cost Benefit
Private Contracting Private
Contracting
Private Provision for Operations and
for Services
Maintenance
Outsourcing Outsourcing direct
support operations, operations
such as laboratory, meter reading, billing, etc.
Most Risk Sharing Most
Risk Sharing
and Potential Cost Benefit
Design‐Build‐
Operate (DBO)
DBO can include long‐term operating contracts or private ownership
IOU
Conversion to Investor Owned Utility
40% of water systems claim to utilize some degree of private involvement
38
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
WATER OWNERSHIP CONVERSION IN WATER
OWNERSHIP CONVERSION IN
ENGLAND AND WALES
• Water and wastewater service moved to the private sector in 1989
• Governmental strategy, also encompassing telecom and energy
Prior to privatization, water and wastewater were public water authorities
• Prior to privatization, water and wastewater were public water authorities
• Contributing factors:
• Limits on public sector borrowing
• Funding challenges for asset maintenance and improvement
Funding challenges for asset maintenance and improvement
• Cost of meeting water quality directives set by European Union
• Formation of the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI)
• OFWAT created to control water bills and set service levels
• First six years following privatization, £17 billion investment
p
p
y
• Compared to £9.3 billion in the prior 6 years
39
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
WHAT’SS DRIVING PRIVATE INVESTMENT?
WHAT
DRIVING PRIVATE INVESTMENT?
What industry factors could lead water systems to consider private investment?
• City/county funding needs
• Utility capital funding needs
• Willingness/unwillingness of stakeholders to increase rates
• Ability/inability to prosecute needed capital projects • Regulatory drivers
• Reduce operating expenses
Operational technology challenges
• Operational technology challenges
40
THE CHANGING U.S. WATER INDUSTRY
17 October 2013
CHANGING OWNERSHIP
CHANGING OWNERSHIP
The question of changing ownership has many valid answers; however, is largely dependent on a communities specific situation
situation. Pros and Cons of Private Investment
Pros:
• Cash Influx
• Funding for other community di f
h
i
services
• Avoid Regulatory Issues
• Avoid Rate Increase Debate
A id R
I
D b
Cons:
• Control
• Private Owner vs. Customer Interest
• Service Expansion
• Environmental Factors
41