IBJNews

Private water, sewer utilities propose sale to Cumberland

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

Indianapolis’ water and sewer utilities aren’t the only ones with a “sale pending” sign out front.

Privately owned Gem Utilities Inc. and Gem Water Inc. have proposed selling their sewer and water operations to the town of Cumberland for $6 million.

Greenfield-based Gem serves more than 550 homes and businesses in an area mostly east of Mount Comfort Road and on both sides of U.S. 40.

Gem’s most visible structure is the “Look up to Jesus” water tower just south of U.S. 40, whose paint job would surely be secularized under municipal ownership.

The town of Cumberland, which straddles Hancock and Marion counties, has asked the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to approve the deal, to allow it to impose Gem’s existing water rates, and to allow it to issue up to $2.1 million in waterworks revenue bonds.

Cumberland already has a sewer service but wants to extend sewer and water service, particularly farther east into Hancock County.

Improved utility service “is essential in these difficult financial times to position the town to effectively compete for economic development opportunities as they may arise,” Cumberland Town Manager Jeffrey Sheridan told the commission.

Sheridan said the deal should benefit Gem customers because Cumberland can issue tax-exempt debt that the private owner cannot.

It’s the reverse scenario for big brother Indianapolis, where Mayor Greg Ballard is trying to sell the city’s water and sewer utilities to Citizens Energy Group. Ballard touts the deal as a way to depoliticize the systems, bring efficiencies to the utilities, and to reduce city debt and generate $450 million for capital projects.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT