I have seen several posts referring to an impending financial disaster for KC because of the need to replace aging sewer lines.

That concern is overhyped. Real but overhyped. Sewer lines last 50 to 75 years and can be financed at very low interest rates, because there is a dedicated secure revenue stream available to pay off the bonds, i.e. utility rates.

For example, if KC spent $1 billion and financed it a 5.3 percent (a ball park muni bond rate), the annual amount of revenue needed including depreciation would be about $60 million a year (and that doesn't take credit for operating and maintenance savings resulting from having a much more modern system).

Assuming a combined 300,000 residential and business customers, that is a $200 a year increase in sewer/water bills to the average customer, or $17 a month.

There have been many many electric or gas rate increases over $17 a month. This will not drive people out of the city, or cause a financial crisis for the city.

i think the biggest problem is that city has refused to confront this issue with homeowners/voters. and while the cost of the upgrade seems doable when isolated, it's far more problematic when you consider the entire balance sheet, which is chock full of debt financing.

We have sewers much older than the 50-75 years you mention.  Downtown has some wooden sewers dating back to the Civil War, or 150 years old.  $1 billion is the lowest estimate I've seen.  Some folks have said it could go be $2 billion or more.

$17/month might not be a lot to you, but it would double some people's sewer bills.  A huge percentage of the folks in the combined sewer area are either poor or on fixed incomes.

You also need to factor in related costs and consequences.  For example, how much tax revenue will be lost and how many small businesses will close when we dig up the streets and cut off access to those stores?  How much money will it cost to repave every street between the river and 85th Street?  And will we really get such a favorable rate after we've already added a few billion in debt over the last five years?

I agree that digging up streets is a problem. However, I would expect this work to be stretched out over a long time so not all the streets would be dug up at one time. These types of infrastructure projects are inevitable in cities. It doesn't seem to have killed off other cities.

Municipal owned water companies can have credit separate from the cities that own them. They have a dedicated revenue source. The only way to get out of paying a sewer/water bill is to basically abandon the building. The bond rating agencies are very knowledgable. If they desire greater separation of the city's credit from the water department, I guess that KC could spin off the water department as a separate legal entity, but I doubt if that would be necessary to protect the city's bond rating. The key thing is the ability to raise water rates to pay off the bonds.

Yes it would create a financial hardship for people living off of $800 a month social security check. But so do increases in other utility bills. Some sort of lifeline rate could be developed for those who qualify.

The total cost could vary significantly depending on the scope of work. I suspect the "could cost as much as $2 billion" figure that has been floated includes a lot more work than the bare minimum needed to satisfy the federal government regulations.

Before the dot-com and telecom implosions, there were a few companies (e.g., CityNet) that ran broadband through sewer lines. I wonder if any cities ever gave them a sweetheart franchise deal in return for helping pay for sewer upgrades. That would be one way to reduce the expense for taxpayers.

$200 a year would be a huge burden for a lot of people.  That's assuming your figures are accurate which is open for debate.  We also have to think about how the costs will be spread.  Then there's the issue of time, and potential fines.  If, but more likely when the EPA sues Kansas City, they will put a deadline in place for compliance that won't allow for such generous financing options.

Ask Louisville what happens when you continually ignore the Clean Water Act.  Change "Louisville" to "Kansas City" and "Ohio River" to "Brush Creek" and you can see why people are getting worked up about the EPA knocking on doors here in KC and asking to inspect people's basements for sewer backups.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.ns ... enDocument

yea, this is not a surprise problem at all. They've known about this for years and years, and they keep delaying doing anything, and the problem kept growing and growing.  I can't see them doing anything in the hopes of forced compliance coming after their time in office.  No one wants to be the city official(s) who gets blamed for the cost!

This is where having the most roads per capita really shafts us... If we didn't have so many roads and weren't so spread out, maybe it wouldn't cost so much...

Huh?

Maybe along the outside of the pipe, but not inside.  Just think of what would happen when a line is augered out.  But when the sewer lines are dug up for repairs just think of how many broadband lines could be damaged. 

KC has not ignored the combined sewer issue.  It's expensive, and folks are generally opposed to having their yards, streets, alleys and lives disrupted for extended periods of time. Until it rains that is, and their basements flood. The Brookside combined sewer overlay project, is a test case for how the city will manage repairs throughout the city and is now preparing for phase 5. Current discussions regarding the Brookside sewer project is whether to tear up Brookside Blvd., or the Trolley Track Trail. Not an easy decision. Monies allocated from PIAC for this project, means less money for curb and sidewalk projects, parks projects, street resurfacing etc. 
Here's a link to the project
http://www.kcmo.org/water.nsf/web/default?opendocument

Believe it or not, some (most?) of the systems run the cables inside the pipe. Here's one example from a few years ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3452733.stm.

Broadband-over-gas-lines also has been trialed and deployed. The difference there is that they're using wireless -- usually ultrawideband (UWB) -- rather than snaking cables.

I'm good with the EPA filing a lawsuit against KC.  And it sounds like you'd rather wait for the leadership of KCMO doing something.  Good luck on that.

I think something that could help the city is the deannexation of about 70-80 square miles of relatively unused space that won't be developed for another 30-40 years (at least, it likely won't be)

If the EPA comes in, that's more or less what will happen.  They set up a credit system.  No new hookups or extensions are allowed until you accumulate so many credits by bringing your existing system into compliance.  Every project that disconnects sanitary from stormwater lines would generate so many credits that can be used elsewhere.  It's pretty much a "nothing new until you show you can fix what you already have" system.

It has the same effect as de-annexation because it severely limits greenfield development.

I personally think it's a good system, but not one we could implement without federal intervention.

So some other city can annex the area and KCMO can have further competition for development.  That city may just develop it faster than KCMO

Isn't Kansas City being fined $1 million dollars a years for not having up to date sewer system by the Government?

If it is the not up-to-date sewer system being talked about is not in the annexed portions of the city people want to dump but in the older parts of the city where there are combined sanitary/storm sewers.  These combination sewers are the type that dump into Brush Creek.

council received a presentation during today's business session. the EPA found no major flaws in the city's conceptual plan, but it's expected to cost above the 2% of median income threshold for user-fee funding that's considered "affordable". the mayor is seeking volunteers (they only have 10 of 15 spots filled) for the task force that will look into alternative funding sources.

KC did ignore it for years.  Only recently have they begun efforts to deal with the issue.  In part due to what the EPA will do to them limiting potential growth and fines.

If KC would have tried to tackle the problem about 10 or 15 years ago, the federal government was offering up quite a bit of money to cities to help cover a large chunk of the costs.  KC's leadership opted to wait and now that money is gone.  One of the many boneheaded moves by past leaders in KC (a list of leaders nobody wants to start - but you get the picture).

Sam S.

why not go back to the days of old and dump all our sewage in the local streams and rivers?