Macon's Water Plants: The Time for Talking Is Over ...

Part Two — The $80 Million Question Is About Macon's Future ...

By R. Dominique

temporary water outage

Last Friday night I wrote about my tour of Macon's drinking water treatment plant and what I saw inside a facility that has been serving this community for more than 60 years. I wrote about the quality of the water we receive, the people who keep that aging facility operating and the statement made by MMU General Manager Dana Ulmer that Macon is already at full water-treatment capacity during the summer months. I also wrote about what that limitation could mean for economic development, because you can't bring new businesses into a community if you don't have the utilities necessary to serve them.

Since that article was published, I've had a chance to look more closely at information MMU has prepared concerning the proposed $80 million revenue-bond issue. I also managed to get my hands on several pages of a question-and-answer document that were being distributed at the City Council meeting. Those pages answer many of the questions I believe citizens are going to have when they begin looking at this proposal.

After spending the last several days looking at the plants, talking with the people who operate them and studying the information that has been made available, I've reached a conclusion that I want to state plainly: Macon needs these two new treatment plants, and we need to get moving.

That doesn't mean citizens should blindly approve an $80 million project. Quite the opposite. People should ask questions, examine the numbers and understand what they're being asked to approve. But there is a difference between asking legitimate questions and continuing to put off a problem that has already been studied for years.

The $80 Million Didn't Come Out of Thin Air

One of the first questions addressed in MMU's material is where the $80 million figure came from. According to the document, the number is an estimate from MMU's engineers for the design and construction of both plants if the work is completed in the near future.

That matters because this isn't somebody sitting around a conference table picking a number out of the air. The figure comes from engineering work associated with the proposed facilities. We can debate the estimate, question the financing, examine the engineering and compare alternatives, but at least citizens now have an answer to the basic question of where the $80 million figure originated.

What Is This Going to Cost the Average Citizen?

This is probably the question that will get the most attention, and nobody likes the idea of higher utility bills. According to the MMU question-and-answer document, if the entire $80 million is borrowed, residential water bills are estimated to increase approximately $20 per month for 30 years, while residential sewer bills are estimated to increase approximately $32 per month for 30 years.

Nobody likes higher utility bills. I don't. You don't. But infrastructure costs money, and there is no magical water-plant fairy who is going to leave two new treatment facilities under City Hall one morning. The important thing is to understand what citizens are actually being asked to pay for and what happens if we don't make the investment.

The MMU material also says the rates would not necessarily jump immediately simply because the bond issue passes. According to the document, bond proceeds would be used only as needed, with utility rates increasing in steps consistent with the amount of bond proceeds actually being used.

That's information citizens need to know.

Why Can't We Just Build More Water Towers?

Another question in the MMU material asks what some citizens have probably been wondering: Why not simply add water towers instead of building a new water treatment plant?

The answer is pretty straightforward. This isn't a storage problem. According to MMU, the existing plant cannot produce enough water to keep up with demand on a few days each summer. The document says Macon needs a plant capable of continuing to produce high-quality water while meeting current needs and providing capacity for growth. It also states that the existing plant needs significant repairs and is at the end of its life.

That goes right back to what Dana Ulmer told the City Council. Macon isn't running out of places to store water. We're running up against the ability to produce enough of it. That's a very different problem, and it is one that additional water towers cannot solve.

Then There Is the Wastewater Plant

During my tour of the drinking water plant, I was able to see firsthand the age of the facility. But the wastewater plant has its own set of problems. The MMU material describes wastewater equipment being held together by ratchet straps. It also says there are days each year when the water plant barely makes enough water. According to the document, both plants need significant repairs and the signs indicate that action is needed.

That isn't exactly the description of a community with modern treatment infrastructure. And there is another clock running in the background.

Missouri's total-phosphorus requirements apply to domestic wastewater facilities with design flows of at least 1 million gallons per day. For facilities between 1 and 15 million gallons per day, the current rule establishes January 1, 2033 as the implementation date, subject to the rule's provisions for alternative dates. Macon's wastewater system will have to deal with those future requirements while operating a facility that is already more than 60 years old.

We aren't dealing with just old equipment. We're dealing with old equipment while the regulatory requirements governing wastewater treatment continue to change.

Why Now?

This may be the most important question of all. Why can't we wait another year? Why can't we wait two years? Why can't we simply repair what we've got and keep going?

According to the MMU material, the utility has been monitoring the condition and treatment functions of both plants for years. The document says both facilities are now on the Missouri Department of Natural Resources Intended Use Plan, which is described as an important step toward eligibility for grants and favorable financing opportunities. It also states that the proposed bond issue provides the lowest-cost financing available other than grants, and that failing to move forward could result in Macon falling off the Intended Use Plan and having to reapply.

The document further states that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources would guarantee the bonds through its State Revolving Fund program, with an estimated interest rate of approximately 2.95 percent compared with a market rate of about 4.5 percent.

Those numbers deserve examination, but they also raise an obvious question: If favorable financing is available now, why would Macon voluntarily delay?

And What About the $24 Million Everyone Keeps Talking About?

Another question in the MMU material addresses the rumor that the utility has $24 million sitting in the bank. According to MMU's figures, at the end of June 2026 the utility had approximately $9.36 million in cash and $11.4 million in certificates of deposit, with those figures representing all accounts combined. The document also says a $1.2 million sewer-system CD had been cashed out to provide operating money. MMU says it needs significant reserves for volatile gas and electric commodity purchases, emergencies and future needs.

Again, citizens can and should examine those numbers. But there is a difference between having money in various utility accounts and having $24 million available to write a check for two new treatment plants. The MMU material also makes the point that cash balances excluding CDs were approximately $4 million lower than they were during the same month in 2024, while reserves held in CDs were also down.

So perhaps the question isn't, "Why doesn't MMU just spend the $24 million?" Perhaps the better question is, "How much money does a utility our size actually need to keep on hand to operate safely while undertaking an $80 million capital project?" That's a question worth asking.

What Happened to All That Depreciation Money?

The question-and-answer document also addresses depreciation. According to MMU, depreciation is an accounting requirement and represents money set aside, similar to a savings account, for equipment replacement. But because both treatment plants have exceeded their estimated useful lives, any depreciation that may have been accumulated has already been spent on upgrades or used to offset rate increases.

That makes sense when you stop and think about it. These plants didn't simply sit untouched for 60 years. People have been repairing them, upgrading them and keeping them alive. The people working there have inherited equipment that was never intended to operate forever, and they've continued to make it work.

But eventually there comes a point where you are no longer simply maintaining an old plant. You're maintaining a plant that has outlived its intended life.

That appears to be where Macon is today.

What About ConAgra?

There has also been talk about whether ConAgra could leave Macon if the bond issue passes. According to the MMU document, the answer is no. ConAgra, like every other customer, needs a dependable supply of high-quality water, and MMU states that the proposed new plant would be the best way to provide that service at the lowest possible long-term cost. The document also says ConAgra needs a cost-effective method for disposing of its wastewater and that the new wastewater plant would provide that service.

There has also been discussion about supplying water to Moberly. The MMU response says the improvements contemplated in this bond issue do not include capacity for serving other communities beyond what is already under contract with Macon County Public Water Supply District and Bevier.

That is important because it addresses the concern that Macon taxpayers might be financing a massive expansion intended primarily to serve somebody else. According to the material provided by MMU, that isn't what this proposal is designed to do.

So Why Am I Supporting This?

I've spent the last several days walking through the plant, talking to the people who operate it, reading the information available and trying to look at this from the perspective of an ordinary citizen.

I'm not a water-treatment engineer. I'm not a bond salesman. I'm not a city employee. I don't work for MMU. But I have spent a considerable part of my life around machinery, electrical systems, industrial controls and infrastructure, and I know the difference between something that is old but functioning and something that has reached the point where continuing to repair it becomes a gamble.

What I saw at the drinking water plant convinced me that the people operating it are doing their jobs. What I've read about the wastewater plant convinces me that the problem isn't going away. And what Dana Ulmer told the council about summer capacity tells me that Macon is already running close to the edge when demand peaks.

Then there is something else that I learned during my tour.

Brent, the manager of the drinking water treatment plant, told me that constructing the replacement facilities and bringing them online could take approximately three to five years.

Think about that.

If Macon waits until the existing plants are in serious trouble before moving forward, we've already lost the race. You don't replace a 60-year-old water treatment plant overnight. You don't design it overnight, finance it overnight, obtain all the necessary approvals overnight, manufacture every piece of equipment overnight or construct two new treatment facilities and bring them online overnight.

The five-year figure wasn't my estimate. It came from the man responsible for operating the plant I had just spent several hours touring.

That's why I believe the time for Macon to act is now.

There Is Something Else Citizens Need to Understand

I took some pages from the city's question-and-answer material at the council meeting because I wanted to study them for myself. I also noticed something else that puts the current public discussion into perspective.

The material dealing with Missouri law explains that city resources cannot be used to encourage citizens to vote in favor of a bond issue and that paid city officials and employees cannot promote its passage. It says citizens can organize a political action committee to conduct promotional activities, subject to Missouri Ethics Commission requirements.

That is important context. It means there is a difference between educating the public about a bond issue and campaigning for the bond issue. The city can provide facts. Citizens are free to form their own opinions. Citizens ultimately get to decide whether the project is worth the price.

I don't need Dana Ulmer to tell me how to vote. I don't need the mayor to tell me how to vote, and I don't need a council member to tell me how to vote. I've gone inside the plant, talked to the plant manager, looked at the information and asked questions. I've reached my own conclusion.

Now It Comes Down to the City Council

This is where I believe the City Council needs to stop kicking the can down the road.

I'm not asking the council to spend $80 million Monday night. I'm asking the council to allow the citizens of Macon to decide whether they are willing to undertake this project.

Put the proposal on the November ballot.

Let the citizens see the numbers. Let them examine the financing. Let them ask about the engineering. Let them hear the arguments for and against it. Let them decide whether approximately $20 more a month for water and $32 more a month for sewer, under the assumptions presented by MMU if the full $80 million were borrowed, is a price worth paying for modern treatment infrastructure.

But give them the opportunity to make that decision.

If the council votes to move the proposal forward, then the citizens will have their opportunity in November. If the council doesn't, the citizens don't get to decide this November, and Macon could find itself waiting for another election cycle while the existing plants continue aging, repairs continue and the clock continues ticking.

Meanwhile, the water plant isn't going to get younger. The wastewater plant isn't going to get newer. The regulatory requirements aren't going to stop changing. And businesses that need additional water capacity aren't going to sit around indefinitely waiting for Macon to decide what it wants to do.

That is the part of this situation that concerns me the most.

Macon has been dealing with these two treatment plants for more than 60 years. We've repaired them, upgraded them and kept them going. The people operating them deserve credit for that. But there comes a time when maintenance becomes postponement, and there comes a time when another repair isn't a solution.

There also comes a point where a community can slowly lose its future without realizing it is happening.

A business looks somewhere else because there isn't enough water. A young person leaves because there isn't a job. A family doesn't move here because there aren't enough opportunities. An industry doesn't expand because the infrastructure isn't there to support it. One decision doesn't destroy a community, but years of those decisions can slowly drain the life out of one.

That is what I call complacent extinction.

It doesn't happen overnight. There isn't a headline announcing that Macon has ceased to exist. It happens slowly, quietly and one missed opportunity at a time while everybody keeps saying, "We'll deal with it later."

I don't want to see that happen to Macon.

We need water to live. We need wastewater treatment to protect our community and meet the regulations that govern it. We need capacity if we want new businesses. We need businesses if we want jobs. We need jobs if we want our children to stay here, and we need our children to stay here if we want Macon to remain a viable community for the next generation.

Without water, we have nothing.

That may sound dramatic, but after walking through that plant, talking with the man responsible for keeping it running and seeing just how much work goes into producing the water that comes out of our faucets every day, I don't believe it is dramatic at all.

I believe it is simply the truth.

The people of Macon deserve the opportunity to decide their own future.

Put the fresh water and wastewater projects on the November ballot. Let the citizens decide.

Regards Maconites,

R. Dominique - Editor

maconmoonline.com

Citizen Of Ward 2 Macon, Mo.

This is Part Two of an ongoing Macon Missouri Online investigation into Macon's drinking water and wastewater treatment infrastructure, the proposed $80 million revenue-bond project, regulatory requirements, financing, economic development and the future of the community.