IBJOpinion

Veolia never shifted retirement costs

May 15, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Letters To The Editor

Veolia Water Indianapolis takes issue with last week’s (May 10) story on the Department of Waterworks’ (DOW) rate case, and notes with regret that the reporter neglected to contact us on what is an important public issue.

The headlines and subheads suggest that Veolia “shifted” costs to the city, including obligations for retirees. In fact, such claims are not true.

The amended agreement stipulates that the city fund retirement plans for employees eligible prior to 2005, which it did. Since then, Veolia has funded retirement plans for eligible employees and continues to do so through 2022. It should not be lost on any reader that we will continue to fund this responsibility after 2022 if we are re-awarded the contract. To state that Veolia “unloaded” the liability is frankly both incorrect and irresponsible.  

We were further disappointed by the emphasis given to the department’s retirement obligations (3.7 percent of the increases in overall operating expenses) as compared to the additional debt service funds and working capital request, which are greater than 50 percent of the increase in operating expenses in the proposed rate case. The rate increase requested is due to a $45 million revenue shortfall; the increase in operating costs related to financing issues alone since the last rate case is $46 million.

The article also includes a statement inferring that the DOW’s sale of assets to Carmel created a more favorable profit dynamic for Veolia. In fact, the revenue from these 8,800 “lost” customers flows directly to DOW, not Veolia. Indeed, even with the reduction of Carmel customers, DOW’s overall customer base increased by more than 20,000 as growth and development occurred in the service territory.

The rate case is a complex issue and it is important to keep the community well informed. We would like to bring to the attention of your readers three facts that were not included in the story.

• Veolia Water Indianapolis operates the utility for less money annually than the previous owner/operator did in 2001 without even considering inflation.

• Veolia Water has made significant investment and overall improvements in the delivery of services and water quality, as noted in the rate case testimony by the Department of Waterworks board.

• As noted by Citigroup (an expert consultant hired by the city), Indianapolis has the THIRD LOWEST combined water and wastewater rates of all major U.S. cities.

Sincerely,

__________

David L. Gadis
President, Veolia Water Indianapolis

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. With Pence running the ship good luck with a new government building on the site. He does everything on the cheap except unnecessary roads line a new beltway( like we need that). Things like state of the art office buildings and light rail will never be seen as an asset to these types. They don't get that these are the things that help a city prosper.

  2. Does the $100,000,000,000 include salaries for members of Congress?

  3. "But that doesn't change how the piece plays to most of the people who will see it." If it stands out so little during the day as you seem to suggest maybe most of the people who actually see it will be those present when it is dark enough to experience its full effects.

  4. That's the mentality of most retail marketers. In this case Leo was asked to build the brand. HHG then had a bad sales quarter and rather than stay the course, now want to go back to the schlock that Zimmerman provides (at a considerable cut in price.) And while HHG salesmen are, by far, the pushiest salesmen I have ever experienced, I believe they are NOT paid on commission. But that doesn't mean they aren't trained to be aggressive.

  5. The reason HHG's sales team hits you from the moment you walk through the door is the same reason car salesmen do the same thing: Commission. HHG's folks are paid by commission they and need to hit sales targets or get cut, while BB does not. The sales figures are aggressive, so turnover rate is high. Electronics are the largest commission earners along with non-needed warranties, service plans etc, known in the industry as 'cheese'. The wholesale base price is listed on the cryptic price tag in the string of numbers near the bar code. Know how to decipher it and you get things at cost, with little to no commission to the sales persons. Whether or not this is fair, is more of a moral question than a financial one.

ADVERTISEMENT