Page 1 of 1

Selling MUD?

Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 11:37 am
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.

Re: Selling MUD?

Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:09 pm
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.

Re: Selling MUD?

Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:47 pm
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.

Re: Selling MUD?

Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:52 pm
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.

Re: Selling MUD?

Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:32 pm
by BRoss
I personally think this is an incredibly stupid idea.

Re: Selling MUD?

Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:10 pm
by bigredmed
HR Paperstacks wrote:I personally think this is an incredibly stupid idea.

+1 a million times.

Re: Selling MUD?

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:34 pm
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.

Re: Selling MUD?

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:15 pm
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.

Re: Selling MUD?

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:39 pm
by jessep28
Yeah, that $2 billion for the CSO project isn't going away for the taxpayers with a sale.

Re: Selling MUD?

Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:09 pm
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.

Re: Selling MUD?

Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:19 pm
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.

Re: Selling MUD?

Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:01 am
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.

Re: Selling MUD?

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:26 am
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.

Re: Selling MUD?

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:07 am
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.

Re: Selling MUD?

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:52 pm
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.

Re: Selling MUD?

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:48 pm
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.