Problem Definition
AquaPure is the municipal water utility serving 1.2 million households in a drought-prone U.S. state. The system's infrastructure is severely aging, with an average pipe network age of 55 years and a water loss rate of 22% due to leaks and metering inaccuracies — nearly three times the national benchmark of 8%. Pipe failures have increased 40% over the past three years, triggering boil-water advisories in six neighborhoods that have eroded public trust and created political urgency. The state's drought cycle has intensified, making every gallon lost to leaks both a financial and environmental liability.
A private equity consortium, Clearwater Capital Partners, has offered $2.8 billion to acquire the utility outright — a valuation of approximately 4.5x annual revenue. Clearwater promises $800 million in capital expenditure over 10 years to modernize the pipe network, install smart metering, and upgrade two aging treatment facilities. The consortium has pointed to its track record of acquiring and improving water systems in three other U.S. cities. Alternatively, the city's finance department has proposed issuing $1.5 billion in municipal bonds to self-fund modernization while retaining full public ownership. A third option has emerged from an infrastructure advisory firm: a 20-year public-private partnership where a private operator would manage day-to-day utility operations while the city retains asset ownership, with $1.2 billion in combined capital investment.
The city council has hired your firm to evaluate these three options ahead of a public vote. Residents are vocally opposed to privatization, fearing rate hikes and loss of accountability, but acknowledge the system is failing. A recent survey found 68% of residents support "major investment" in water infrastructure but only 23% support selling the utility. The current residential water rate is $42 per month, well below the national average of $72. Annual utility revenue is $620 million, operating costs are $480 million, and the system serves both residential customers (92% of accounts) and commercial/industrial users (8% of accounts, contributing approximately $15 million in additional revenue). Which option should the city pursue, and what are the critical financial and operational trade-offs?
Additional InformationAsk for more dataHide data
Provide when the candidate asks relevant probing questions:
- City credit rating: AA-, enabling municipal bond issuance at 4% interest over 25 years, with annual debt service of approximately $95 million
- Regulatory environment: The state public utility commission must approve any residential rate increase exceeding 5% per year
- Customer demographics: 35% of households earn below the state median income; rate affordability is a top political concern for the upcoming election cycle
- Water loss breakdown: 60% from underground pipe leaks, 25% from metering inaccuracy, 15% from unbilled or illegal connections
- PE contract terms: The acquisition agreement includes a rate escalation clause permitting 7% annual increases; infrastructure performance benchmarks exist but carry no financial penalties for missed targets; the PE firm retains the right to reduce capex if revenue targets are not met
- PPP structure: City contributes $300 million in capital, private operator contributes $900 million; operator receives 15% of gross revenue annually; rate increases capped at 5% per year; city retains full asset ownership at contract expiration
- Current infrastructure backlog: Independent engineers estimate a minimum of $1.2 billion is required to bring the system to acceptable condition; the PE firm's $800 million commitment would address approximately 65% of the identified backlog
- Comparable transactions: Recent U.S. water utility privatizations have closed at 3.5x to 5.5x revenue; the Bayonne, NJ privatization under KKR/Suez resulted in a 28% rate increase within the first three years
- Drought risk premium: State climate projections indicate a 30% increase in severe drought frequency over the next 20 years, making water loss reduction both operationally critical and politically unavoidable
- Employee considerations: The utility employs 2,800 workers; the PE consortium has indicated potential workforce reductions of 15-20% through automation and operational efficiency, which has generated union opposition
Exhibit 1Financial Summary of Three Options
| Metric | PE Acquisition | Municipal Bonds | Public-Private Partnership |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upfront payment to city | $2.8B | -- | -- |
| Total capex commitment (10 yr) | $800M | $1.5B | $1.2B |
| Funding source | PE equity | Bond proceeds at 4% | City $300M + Operator $900M |
| Annual rate escalation | 7.0% | 3.0% | 5.0% |
| Monthly rate at Year 10 | $83 | $56 | $68 |
| Annual debt service | -- | $95M | -- |
| Revenue arrangement | 100% to PE (owns asset) | 100% to city | 15% to operator |
| Contract duration | Permanent sale | N/A | 20 years |
| City retains ownership | No | Yes | Yes |
Source: AquaPure case file
Question 1Structuring
Prompt: "How would you structure your analysis to evaluate the three options available to the city council?"
Hint · Structuring
Build 3–4 branches that are specific to this client and question, not a generic framework. Check they don't overlap and together cover the problem.
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
A structured evaluation should compare the three options across four dimensions:
-
Total cost to residents (10-year rate trajectory): What will households actually pay under each scenario? The headline purchase price or capex number is misleading without modeling the rate escalation clauses that determine the true long-term cost to ratepayers. This must be the primary evaluation lens.
-
Infrastructure investment adequacy: Does each option's capex commitment match the scale of the problem? Independent engineers estimate a $1.2 billion minimum need. An $800 million commitment covers only 65% of the backlog. Reducing water loss from 22% to the 8% benchmark requires extensive pipe replacement and smart metering — not incremental repairs or deferred maintenance schedules.
-
Governance and risk allocation: Who bears the risk of cost overruns and missed targets? Under PE ownership, the city loses control entirely and has no financial penalties for missed infrastructure benchmarks. Under municipal bonds, taxpayers bear execution risk but retain full authority. Under PPP, risk is contractually shared but enforcement over a 20-year term requires sustained institutional capacity.
-
Reversibility: A sale is permanent — the city cannot buy the utility back at any price. Bonds and PPP preserve optionality for future course corrections. In a sector where regulatory conditions, climate patterns, and technology evolve over decades, irreversibility should be treated as a significant cost.
So What: The structuring should lead candidates to recognize that the PE offer is not a simple "sale vs. no sale" decision — it is a choice about who finances infrastructure modernization and at what cost. The rate escalation clause transforms what appears to be an investment decision into a consumer pricing decision.
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
Good Candidate: Identifies the three options and lists evaluation criteria such as cost, operational effectiveness, and political feasibility. May apply a generic cost-benefit framework. Recognizes that rate impact on residents is important but does not prioritize it above other factors.
Strong Candidate: Builds a decision matrix organized around four dimensions: (1) total cost to residents over a 10-year time horizon, (2) infrastructure investment adequacy relative to the 22% water loss problem, (3) governance and accountability mechanisms under each model, and (4) political and regulatory feasibility. Prioritizes the rate trajectory as the single most important variable because it determines resident cost burden. Recognizes that the PE offer price must be weighed against the lost future revenue stream, not just evaluated as a lump sum.
Excellent Candidate: Frames the core decision as an asset valuation problem. The city is being asked to trade a revenue-generating asset producing $620 million per year for a one-time payment of $2.8 billion. At 4.5x revenue, the implied payback period is under five years — meaning the city would be significantly undervaluing a perpetual asset. Structures the analysis around net present value to ratepayers under each scenario, not just the city's balance sheet. Probes the regulatory constraint: can the PE firm actually implement 7% annual increases when the state caps require approval above 5%? Articulates that the real question is not which option has the lowest upfront cost, but which option delivers adequate infrastructure modernization at the lowest long-term cost to ratepayers while preserving municipal control.
Decision Matrix (Interviewer Reference)
| Criterion | Weight | PE Acquisition | Municipal Bonds | PPP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10-yr cost to residents | 35% | Low (highest rates) | High (lowest rates) | Medium |
| Infrastructure investment | 25% | Low ($800M / 65% of need) | High ($1.5B / 125% of need) | Medium ($1.2B / 100%) |
| Governance / accountability | 20% | Low (no penalty clauses) | High (full public control) | Medium (contract-dependent) |
| Reversibility | 10% | None (permanent sale) | Full | Partial (20-yr term) |
| Execution capability | 10% | High (PE expertise) | Low (city must build) | Medium (shared) |
Note: The weighting above reflects the city council's stated priorities. Candidates may reasonably argue for different weights — the value is in the structured comparison, not the specific numbers. Candidates who assign >20% weight to execution capability should be challenged on whether that justifies the $1.9B cost premium of the PE option.
Question 2Numeracy
Prompt: "Using the projected rate data in Exhibit 2, calculate the total additional cost to all 1.2 million households over 10 years under PE ownership compared to the municipal bond option. What does this tell you about the economics of the PE deal?"
Hint · Numeracy
Write the formula before you plug in numbers, keep units and zeros explicit, and sanity-check the order of magnitude at the end.
Exhibit 2Projected Monthly Household Water Rates ($)
| Year | PE Ownership | Municipal Bonds | PPP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current | 42 | 42 | 42 |
| 1 | 45 | 43 | 44 |
| 2 | 48 | 45 | 46 |
| 3 | 51 | 46 | 49 |
| 5 | 59 | 49 | 54 |
| 7 | 68 | 52 | 59 |
| 10 | 83 | 56 | 68 |
| Avg (Yr 1-10) | 62 | 49 | 55 |
PE rates reflect 7% annual escalation per acquisition contract terms. Municipal rates reflect 3% annual increases to service bond debt obligations. PPP rates reflect 5% contractual cap per partnership agreement. All scenarios start from the current $42/month residential base rate. Rates are rounded to nearest dollar. Average computed as mean of annual rates across the 10-year projection period.
Source: AquaPure case file
SetupAsk for more dataHide data
The candidate should recognize that comparing the two options requires computing total cost to residents over the full 10-year period, not just comparing endpoint rates. The average monthly rates provided in Exhibit 2 are the key inputs. Strong candidates will use the averages directly rather than attempting to compute year-by-year geometric sums under time pressure.
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
Calculation
| Step | Calculation | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Average monthly rate under PE (Years 1-10) | From Exhibit 2 | $62 |
| Average monthly rate under Municipal Bonds (Years 1-10) | From Exhibit 2 | $49 |
| Monthly difference per household | $62 - $49 | $13 |
| Annual difference per household | $13 x 12 months | $156 |
| 10-year difference per household | $156 x 10 years | $1,560 |
| Total additional cost across 1.2M households | $1,560 x 1,200,000 | $1.87 billion |
Interpretation
The $1.87 billion figure is the central insight of the case. It reframes the PE deal from an acquisition question to a pricing question: the PE firm is not "investing" in the city's infrastructure — it is financing $800 million in capex by extracting $1.87 billion from ratepayers through above-market rate escalation. The net transfer from residents to the PE firm is approximately $1.07 billion over 10 years.
Stretch: PPP Revenue Share Analysis
Prompt (if time allows): "The PPP operator receives 15% of gross revenue. How much would the operator earn over 20 years, and how does this compare to the operator's $900 million capital contribution?"
| Step | Calculation | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Current annual revenue | Given | $620M |
| Average annual rate growth under PPP | 5% escalation | ~5% |
| Approximate average annual revenue (Yr 1-20) | $620M x avg growth factor ~1.65 | ~$1,023M |
| Operator annual revenue share (15%) | $1,023M x 0.15 | ~$153M |
| Total operator earnings over 20 years | $153M x 20 | ~$3.07B |
| Operator capex contribution | Given | $900M |
| Operator net return | $3.07B - $900M | ~$2.17B |
Insight: The PPP operator earns over 3x its capital contribution. While the PPP appears moderate compared to the PE deal, the 15% revenue share over 20 years quietly transfers significant value to the private partner. This should prompt candidates to question whether the PPP is truly a "compromise" or simply a slower extraction mechanism.
Why this matters for the recommendation: Candidates who identify this dynamic will understand that the municipal bond option is not just cheaper in the short term — it is structurally different. Under bonds, 100% of rate revenue funds infrastructure and operations. Under PPP or PE, a substantial share funds private returns. The question is whether the private sector execution premium justifies the cost differential.
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
Good Candidate: Arrives at approximately $1.9 billion in additional cost to residents under PE ownership. Notes that this is a large number and exceeds the PE firm's $800 million capex commitment.
Strong Candidate: Calculates the $1.87 billion differential and immediately frames it against the PE capex promise. Residents pay $1.87 billion more over 10 years but receive only $800 million in infrastructure investment. The PE firm extracts approximately $1.07 billion in excess value from ratepayers. Expresses this as a ratio: residents pay 2.3x the infrastructure benefit they receive.
Excellent Candidate: All of the above, plus three additional insights that demonstrate integrated financial thinking:
-
The municipal bond debt service of $95 million per year is roughly covered by the incremental revenue from 3% annual rate increases: the $7 average monthly increase ($49 minus $42) across 1.2 million households generates approximately $100 million per year ($7 x 12 x 1.2M), making the bonds effectively self-financing without burdening the city's general fund.
-
The $2.8 billion purchase price at 4.5x current revenue implies the PE firm expects significantly higher future revenue — the 7% rate escalation clause is the mechanism that delivers this return. The PE consortium is not offering a premium; it is pricing in its own guaranteed revenue growth.
-
The 7% annual rate increases exceed the state's 5% regulatory approval threshold, creating material execution risk. If the public utility commission denies the increases above 5%, the PE firm's entire return model collapses — yet this risk is not reflected in the offer terms.
Question 3Judgement & Insights
Prompt: "Review Exhibit 3. The PE consortium argues that privatized cities consistently achieve superior infrastructure outcomes. Based on the data, do you agree with this claim?"
Hint · Judgement & Insights
Read the exhibit title, axes and units first. Lead with the ‘so what’, then back it with one or two numbers.
Exhibit 3Peer City Water Utility Outcomes (5 Years Post-Decision)
| City | Ownership Model | Pop. Served | Starting Water Loss | Current Water Loss | Reduction (pp) | Cumulative Rate Increase | Customer Satisfaction | Median HH Income |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mesa, AZ | PE Acquisition | 520K | 18% | 9% | 9 | +45% | 62% | $72K |
| Tampa, FL | Municipal Bonds | 690K | 20% | 12% | 8 | +18% | 78% | $55K |
| Austin, TX | PPP | 1.1M | 16% | 8% | 8 | +30% | 71% | $78K |
| Charlotte, NC | PE Acquisition | 880K | 15% | 7% | 8 | +52% | 58% | $68K |
| Denver, CO | Municipal Bonds | 720K | 19% | 11% | 8 | +22% | 74% | $76K |
| San Jose, CA | PPP | 1.0M | 14% | 7% | 7 | +28% | 73% | $112K |
Data compiled from publicly available utility performance reports. Customer satisfaction measured via annual resident surveys. Water loss defined as non-revenue water as percentage of total system input volume.
Source: AquaPure case file
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
Key Insights from Exhibit 3
- Selection bias: PE cities show better absolute water loss numbers but started from more favorable positions — the playing field was not level
- Rate sensitivity dominates satisfaction: Customer satisfaction inversely correlates with cumulative rate increases, not with water loss improvement
- Income as confound: San Jose's high satisfaction reflects household wealth ($112K median) absorbing rate hikes, not structural superiority of the PPP model
- True apples-to-apples: Tampa's self-funded 8-point water loss reduction matches Charlotte's PE-funded reduction at one-third the rate increase
So What: The exhibit is designed to test whether candidates accept data at face value or interrogate the underlying conditions. PE firms present these comparisons to justify acquisition premiums, and the candidate must demonstrate the analytical rigor to deconstruct the claim. The critical application to the client: with 22% starting water loss and 35% low-income households, AquaPure's profile resembles Tampa more than Mesa — making the municipal bond precedent the more relevant comparison.
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
Good Candidate: Observes that privatized cities (Mesa and Charlotte) achieved the largest absolute reductions in water loss — from 18% to 9% and 15% to 7% respectively. Uses this to partially support the PE argument while noting that customer satisfaction is lower in privatized cities. May mention that rates increased more under PE but does not connect rate increases to the satisfaction differential or interrogate the starting conditions.
Strong Candidate: Identifies the selection bias in the data. PE-acquired cities started with lower water loss rates (Mesa at 18%, Charlotte at 15%) compared to municipal bond cities (Tampa at 20%, Denver at 19%). PE firms appear to cherry-pick systems already closer to benchmark, where improvement is mechanically easier and faster. Adjusts the comparison for starting position: Tampa reduced water loss by 8 percentage points through self-funding, exactly matching Charlotte's 8-point reduction under PE ownership. The critical difference is cost: Tampa achieved this at an 18% cumulative rate increase versus Charlotte's 52%. The PE model delivers comparable outcomes at nearly triple the price to residents.
Excellent Candidate: Layers three distinct insights from the same exhibit. (1) Selection bias: PE firms target better-condition systems, inflating their apparent performance advantage. When measured in percentage-point reduction, self-funded Tampa matches PE-funded Charlotte. (2) Satisfaction inversion: Cities with the best infrastructure outcomes (Mesa at 62%, Charlotte at 58% satisfaction) have the worst customer satisfaction scores, while Tampa has the highest satisfaction (78%) despite the worst final water loss rate (12%). Rate affordability — not infrastructure quality — is the primary driver of customer satisfaction. (3) Income confound in PPP data: San Jose's strong PPP results correlate with $112K median household income, not the partnership structure itself. Wealthier communities absorb rate increases without satisfaction impact, making the PPP model appear more effective than it may be in a lower-income context like the client city.
Exhibit Interpretation Notes
For interviewer reference only — do not share with the candidate:
- Exhibit 1 trap: The PE offer's $2.8B upfront payment dominates attention, but the "Revenue arrangement" and "City retains ownership" rows contain the critical information. Candidates who focus on the purchase price without tracing the rate escalation and ownership implications are falling for the headline number.
- Exhibit 2 trap: The rate table appears straightforward, but the "Avg (Yr 1-10)" row is the key to the numeracy question. Strong candidates will use the averages rather than attempting to compute year-by-year totals. The PPP column serves as a middle-ground distractor — it is designed to test whether candidates can stay focused on the PE vs. municipal comparison or get pulled into a three-way analysis that dilutes their argument.
- Exhibit 3 trap: The "Reduction (pp)" column reveals that all models achieve similar water loss improvements (7-9 percentage points), destroying the PE firm's claim of superior outcomes. The "Median HH Income" column is the hidden confound — candidates who ignore it will draw incorrect conclusions about PPP effectiveness from the San Jose data point.
Question 4Synthesis
Prompt: "The city council meeting is tomorrow morning. You have two minutes. What is your recommendation?"
Hint · Synthesis
Answer first: the recommendation, two or three reasons with numbers, then risks and next steps.
Try it first, then checkShow model answerHide model answer
Possible Recommendation
"We recommend the city pursue municipal bond financing for three reasons.
First, it is the most cost-effective option for residents. PE ownership would cost households an additional $1.9 billion over 10 years while delivering only $800 million in infrastructure investment — residents would pay 2.3 times what they receive. Under municipal bonds, modest 3% annual increases bring rates to $56 per month, still well below the $72 national average, and generate sufficient revenue to cover the $95 million annual debt service.
Second, the bond option provides nearly double the capital investment at $1.5 billion versus $800 million. Given a water loss rate nearly three times the national benchmark, the scale of infrastructure failure demands the larger commitment.
Third, the city retains a revenue-generating asset worth far more than $2.8 billion over its lifetime. Selling at 4.5x current revenue undervalues an asset with stable, inflation-protected cash flows and a $140 million annual operating surplus.
The key risk is execution. We recommend the city procure a specialized infrastructure operator under a fixed-fee project management contract — importing private sector discipline to the modernization program without surrendering ownership, rate control, or long-term asset value.
One final point: the PE firm's 7% rate escalation requires state regulatory approval above the 5% threshold. This creates significant execution risk for Clearwater's financial model and gives the city leverage if it chooses to negotiate — but our view is that the fundamental economics favor self-funding regardless of the regulatory outcome."
So What: The synthesis should demonstrate that the candidate can distill complex multi-option analysis into a clear, actionable recommendation with a defensible rationale. The best candidates will not merely pick an option but will construct a hybrid approach that captures the strengths of multiple models while mitigating the primary risk of the recommended path.
Case Difficulty Calibration: This case is rated Medium because the math is straightforward and the three-option structure provides clear analytical guardrails. However, the stretch numeracy question on PPP revenue share and the exhibit traps (selection bias, income confound) push toward Medium-Hard for candidates who lack experience with infrastructure or public finance cases. The case rewards candidates who can move beyond framework application to genuine commercial judgment — particularly the insight that the PE deal's rate escalation clause is the mechanism through which the acquisition "pays for itself" at residents' expense.
Stretch Areas: Numeracy (PPP revenue share analysis requires growth-adjusted revenue projection), Judgment and Insights (Exhibit 3 requires identifying three distinct analytical traps within a single data table).
Contributed by CaseDrill practice community
What the interviewer is looking forShow guidanceHide guidance
Good Candidate: Recommends municipal bonds as the lowest-cost option for residents. States that the PE offer is financially unattractive due to rate escalation. Mentions political feasibility as a supporting factor. Delivers a clear recommendation but may lack quantitative backing or risk mitigation.
Strong Candidate: Recommends municipal bonds with a structured rationale across three pillars: (1) the bond option is self-financing through 3% annual rate increases that generate approximately $100 million per year — more than covering the $95 million annual debt service, (2) it provides nearly double the infrastructure investment ($1.5 billion versus $800 million) to address a water loss crisis nearly three times the national benchmark, and (3) the city retains a revenue-generating asset producing $620 million per year with a $140 million operating surplus, preserving long-term fiscal flexibility. Acknowledges the primary risk: execution — the city must build or hire project management capability to deliver a complex, decade-long modernization program on schedule and on budget. May suggest phasing the bond issuance to reduce execution risk.
Excellent Candidate: Recommends municipal bonds as the primary path, then structures a risk mitigation overlay that addresses the city's legitimate concern about execution capability. Suggests the city hire a specialized private infrastructure operator under a fixed-fee project management contract — capturing private sector execution discipline without ceding ownership or rate-setting authority. This is effectively a "best of both worlds" approach: public ownership economics with private sector delivery.
Frames the PE offer as a value trap: $2.8 billion at 4.5x current revenue looks generous, but the utility's NPV at even a modest 3% growth rate far exceeds this price over a 40-year horizon. The PE firm knows this, which is exactly why the 7% rate escalation clause is in the contract — it is the mechanism through which the PE consortium recaptures the "discount" it appears to be offering.
Addresses the political dimension: a trajectory from $42 to $56 over 10 years keeps rates well below the $72 national average, giving the city council a defensible public narrative. With 68% of residents supporting major investment and only 23% supporting a sale, the bond option aligns with voter sentiment.
Closes by flagging the regulatory kill shot: the PE firm's 7% escalation clause exceeds the state's 5% approval threshold, meaning their entire financial model depends on regulatory approval they may not receive — a risk that sophisticated candidates will identify as a potential renegotiation lever rather than simply a deal-breaker.