Quote Originally Posted by Novine View Post
Your math only highlights what some people knew from the get-go which is that the debt numbers being thrown around town were overhyped and that most of the pain is going to be inflicted on pensioners and employees. The city doesn't even have to spin off DWSD to be rid of the debt, it was never an obligation of the city in the first place.
I think Novine is correct in the sense that the DWSD debt isn't dependent on funds from the general operations budget because it is being paid by revenue from the water system. And, therefore, spinning off DWSD won't affect our general fund.

The 2011 Bonds are not general obligations of the City and do not constitute indebtedness of the City for purposes of computing its debt limitations....
The bigger issue is that the employees and former employees of the DWSD [[such as my father) don't show up as a liability on DWSD, they show up on the City's general fund.

If the pension and health care budget for DWSD employees was backed by DWSD revenue, this would be a totally different story.

Alas, it is not. And that is why we're here today.