Selling MUD?

The Political decisions of Omaha.

Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss

Post Reply
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033296
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Selling MUD?

Post by Brad »

How to pay for sewer project and pensions? Sell MUD, state senator says

http://www.omaha.com/article/20131231/N ... 39820/1685
Cody Winchester / World-Herald staff writer wrote:
Lautenbaugh said privatizing MUD could bring in $3 billion. Assuming the sewer project will cost $2 billion, the rest of the proceeds could be used to pay down pension liabilities and upgrade technology and security in Omaha Public Schools, he said.
User avatar
Omababe
Planning Board
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:47 am
Contact:

Re: Selling MUD?

Post by Omababe »

One thing that kind of surprised me about Nebraska is that most all utilities are public here.

I found the rates here, when compared to Con Edison and Brooklyn Union Gas (now Keyspan or whatever they are calling it these days) to be very reasonable by comparison.

I would think that by privatizing MUD we, as ratepayers, would see an impact in rising rates to cover the ROI and such.
User avatar
jessep28
Planning Board
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:10 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Selling MUD?

Post by jessep28 »

Something like this would likely trade rate hikes for reduced sewer taxes. This is assuming that a MUD sale would fully fund the separation project, pay down any debt currently issued for it, and sewer taxes would go down since there's no CSO debt to service.

Since Lautenbaugh's pushing for this, any extra money left over from a sale after paying off CSO should go towards DUI prevention.
Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum
bigredmed
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Selling MUD?

Post by bigredmed »

MUD is a public utility and we enjoy better fees and local control of our system. No benefit in selling to a private firm where we would lose control. Lautenbaugh is wrong here.
User avatar
BRoss
IT Director
Posts: 10002757
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: West Central Omaha

Re: Selling MUD?

Post by BRoss »

I personally think this is an incredibly stupid idea.
bigredmed
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Selling MUD?

Post by bigredmed »

HR Paperstacks wrote:I personally think this is an incredibly stupid idea.

+1 a million times.
HskrFanMike
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1212
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Selling MUD?

Post by HskrFanMike »

I see this as nothing more than an attempt to shift the bill. By privatizing MUD, we'll increase our utility rates. Big property owners who don't use a lot of gas/water will benefit, while smaller property owners who already struggle with their gas/water bills will have their problems exacerbated.

And I suspect that over the long run, the long term cost to consumers will be far higher by going this route.
bigredmed
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Selling MUD?

Post by bigredmed »

HskrFanMike wrote:I see this as nothing more than an attempt to shift the bill. By privatizing MUD, we'll increase our utility rates. Big property owners who don't use a lot of gas/water will benefit, while smaller property owners who already struggle with their gas/water bills will have their problems exacerbated.

And I suspect that over the long run, the long term cost to consumers will be far higher by going this route.
Without a doubt. Can't believe that anyone who can read numbers and compare utility costs in Omaha to those in CB would even think of such a thing. These guys need to quit trying to get some "too clever by half" way out of the tax bill and get on with the building and we should just pay it and be done.
User avatar
jessep28
Planning Board
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:10 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Selling MUD?

Post by jessep28 »

Yeah, that $2 billion for the CSO project isn't going away for the taxpayers with a sale.
Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum
User avatar
Seth
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1437
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood

Re: Selling MUD?

Post by Seth »

Ask Chicago how selling off public infrastructure to private companies is working out. It's great for the first few years when you can spend that lump some on whatever feel-good projects that ask nicely (more money for schools? Sure, here you go!), but once the money is spent (which is quickly), we're all left with a decades of paying higher utility rates, tolls, parking fees or whatever fees associated with the public property that was sold off.

At it's effective level, this is just borrowing from the future, only it passes the financing cost directly off to the utility customers. It's no different than the boom of P3 (Private-Public Partnerships) contracts in infrastructure. The government has gone from paying as we go for infrastructure, or issuing it's own bonds (at low interest rates), to passing that borrowing directly to private institutions, which demand a higher rate-of-return.

The problem is, 2, 4, and 6-year election cycles encourage this short-sighted thinking.
User avatar
TitosBuritoBarn
Planning Board
Posts: 3032
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Selling MUD?

Post by TitosBuritoBarn »

Seth wrote:Ask Chicago how selling off public infrastructure to private companies is working out.  It's great for the first few years when you can spend that lump some on whatever feel-good projects that ask nicely (more money for schools?  Sure, here you go!), but once the money is spent (which is quickly), we're all left with a decades of paying higher utility rates, tolls, parking fees or whatever fees associated with the public property that was sold off.
Not to mention a shoddy product. I've had more power outages here than I had for probably a decade in Omaha.
"Video game violence is not a new problem. Who could forget in the wake of SimCity how children everywhere took up urban planning." - Stephen Colbert
TLGJames
Home Owners Association
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:38 am
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Selling MUD?

Post by TLGJames »

This sounds a lot like every privatization. Private prisons cost states more in the long run... This will cost consumers more in the long run.

Legalize Marijuana, use first years profits on infrastructure. Problem solved.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10374
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Selling MUD?

Post by iamjacobm »

What about MUD selling water to Lincoln?

https://www.omaha.com/money/is-there-en ... e47d2.html
Lincoln’s future looks thirsty. Nebraska’s second-largest city, home to 280,000 people, is fine now but lacks a significant local source of freshwater.

Residents splash their gullets, lawns and businesses with treated aquifer water piped in from 25 miles away, along the Platte River in Ashland.

Omaha’s future looks flush with water. Nebraska’s largest city is flanked by the Platte and Missouri Rivers. Residents get water from both.

A new study sought by the utilities that serve each city aims to test the possibility of the Metropolitan Utilities District selling some of the Omaha area’s excess water to Lincoln.

Utility officials in both cities say such a plan might save money for public utility ratepayers in both cities.
willyb934
New to the Neighborhood
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:59 pm

Re: Selling MUD?

Post by willyb934 »

This is an interesting topic IMO, the Platte isn't a sustainable source of water for Lincoln in the future. As the article stated Lincoln was in trouble in 2012 which was a very dry year which is bound to happen again. Something to consider is when new wells are added to a well field the depletion is increased, even in an area where groundwater quantity is good, like near Ashland, it still depletes the Platte River. This can cause a lot of problems to agriculture in the area and even upstream from that area. I think for Lincoln to continue to grow, without hurting agriculture in the state the best option would be to tie in with MUD.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10374
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Selling MUD?

Post by iamjacobm »

willyb934 wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:07 am This is an interesting topic IMO, the Platte isn't a sustainable source of water for Lincoln in the future. As the article stated Lincoln was in trouble in 2012 which was a very dry year which is bound to happen again. Something to consider is when new wells are added to a well field the depletion is increased, even in an area where groundwater quantity is good, like near Ashland, it still depletes the Platte River. This can cause a lot of problems to agriculture in the area and even upstream from that area. I think for Lincoln to continue to grow, without hurting agriculture in the state the best option would be to tie in with MUD.
The article mentioned Lincoln potentially putting in infrastructure to draw from the Missouri that could potentially cost the city over a billion. Makes a ton more sense to piggyback off of Omaha if we have the capacity. As long as MUD is planning ahead properly this sounds like a good deal for the city.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Selling MUD?

Post by GetUrban »

iamjacobm wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:52 pm
willyb934 wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:07 am This is an interesting topic IMO, the Platte isn't a sustainable source of water for Lincoln in the future. As the article stated Lincoln was in trouble in 2012 which was a very dry year which is bound to happen again. Something to consider is when new wells are added to a well field the depletion is increased, even in an area where groundwater quantity is good, like near Ashland, it still depletes the Platte River. This can cause a lot of problems to agriculture in the area and even upstream from that area. I think for Lincoln to continue to grow, without hurting agriculture in the state the best option would be to tie in with MUD.
The article mentioned Lincoln potentially putting in infrastructure to draw from the Missouri that could potentially cost the city over a billion. Makes a ton more sense to piggyback off of Omaha if we have the capacity. As long as MUD is planning ahead properly this sounds like a good deal for the city.
Plus, people in Lincoln probably wouldn’t like the idea of having their own source drawing water from the Missouri River south of Omaha, even though it would be thoroughly treated.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
Post Reply