$$$

Report: Get city hand off faucet

 

The Greater Cincinnati Water Works should be removed from city government after 170 years as a city-owned utility and established as an independent water district, according to a report to be delivered to City Manager Milton R. Dohoney this week.

 

The report has not been finalized, but will recommend the establishment of a nine-member board - of which seven seats would be controlled by the city and two from suburbs - to oversee the water utility, said Lynn Marmer, who chaired the eight-member task force that studied the issue for 14 months.

 

Read full article here:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090413/NEWS0108/904130344/1055/NEWS

^It seems like any move taking the Water Works out of the direct control of the city will just enable and even hasten more sprawl.  Hopefully I'm wrong about that, though.

Water Works spinoff could yield payday for Cincinnati

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/04/13/daily30.html

 

The city of Cincinnati would receive annual payments of up to $18 million over 75 years if it spins off the Greater Cincinnati Water Works into an independent water district, according to a task force appoint to study the idea.

 

The Water District Feasibility Study Group delivered its findings to Cincinnati City Manager Milton Dohoney Tuesday, urging the manager to establish a new regional water district that would purchase the assets of Cincinnati’s water utility over time.

 

“Over a period of 75 years, depending on the agreed-upon value of the assets, the city could receive an average payment in the range of $14 million to $18 million per year,” said the report.

Council douses waterworks sale

 

A plan to sell off Cincinnati's water system drew much skepticism and little praise when it was rolled out in front of a City Council committee Tuesday.  "I have to ask, aren't we risking the quality of everything we have now?,'' said Council member Cecil Thomas in a meeting of council's economic development committee at the noon hour Tuesday. "Why would we do that?"

 

The only council member who spoke favorably of the idea was Vice Mayor David Crowley, council's sole representative on the task force that made the recommendation.  "We entered this process wondering if we were trying to fix something that wasn't broken,'' Crowley told his fellow council members. "But it became very clear that this was something we should recommend."

 

Read full article here:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090421/NEWS01/904220313/1055/NEWS

Labor groups register opposition to Water Works spinoff

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/05/11/daily22.html

 

The Cincinnati AFL-CIO Labor Council announced its opposition to the proposed spinoff of the Greater Cincinnati Water Works from the city of Cincinnati.

 

Delegates attending the group’s May 6 meeting adopted a resolution proclaiming that the spinoff would lead to higher water rates and fewer employment opportunities for union members. The group also claimed the split would destabilize the Cincinnati Retirement System and force Cincinnati taxpayers to “pay twice for a public water system they already own.”

 

A task force, appointed to study the idea, last month urged city officials to establish a new regional water district that would purchase the Water Works’ assets over a 75-year period. The group said a regional structure would better enable growth of the region’s largest water utility and produce annual payments to the city of up to $18 million a year.

 

City Manager Milton Dohoney has yet to issue his recommendation on the matter, which city council will be asked to decide in the next few months.

Dohoney: Sell Water Works

 

Cincinnati should convert its 170-year-old water system to a water district, City Manager Milton Dohoney says, as long as a clause prohibits the new public water utility from selling the assets to a private entity.

 

He also says, in a new memo today to Mayor Mark Mallory and City Council members, that he would want a change in state law that would allow water district employees to remain in the Cincinnati Retirement System. He insists in the memo - using bold type - that water quality would not change.

 

Read full article here:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090518/NEWS0108/905190308/1055/NEWS/Dohoney++Sell+Water+Works

Dohoney: Sell Water Works

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090518/NEWS0108/905190308/1055/NEWS/Dohoney++Sell+Water+Works

 

Cincinnati should convert its 170-year-old water system to a water district, City Manager Milton Dohoney says, as long as a clause prohibits the new public water utility from selling the assets to a private entity.

 

He also says, in a new memo today to Mayor Mark Mallory and City Council members, that he would want a change in state law that would allow water district employees to remain in the Cincinnati Retirement System. He insists in the memo - using bold type - that water quality would not change.

 

 

 

If approved, the new district should look into changing the rate structure from average pricing to a marginal cost pricing strategy. Not only would that more accurately reflect the true costs of these utilities (more pipes to further out regions cost more money to maintain), it would also help to discourage sprawl.

COAST and Smitherman are opposed to it, which means it's probably a good idea.

^Haha, Ain't that the truth!

I posted the following on the Cincinnati Beacon site article about the CWW proposal.

 

Second, under the Ohio Sunshine Laws, Water District are considered “Special Purpose Districts” and are subject to open records requests. The entire premise of this release - that district “will not respond to basic public information requests from citizens because the entity is now private” - is patently false. Because the district, as a public utility (as currently proposed) or a private utility (as exists elsewhere in the state), serves the public good, it is subject to requests for public information. Smitherman loses again.

 

The article can be accessed HERE and is a copy of a press release from the NAACP wherein Smitherman claims that the proposal would lead to privitazation (which it won't) and thus would not be subject to Ohio's sunshine laws regarding public records. I did some research this afternoon on the topic, and water districts are subject to the Sunshine Laws just as any other public entity is, even if they are private utilities because they serve a public good.

 

Is there anyone who can corroborate my understanding of the wording of the laws. There are some 230 pages to the set of laws and I did not read through the whole thing word-for-word.

Waterworks sale up to Cincy voters

 

Cincinnatians almost certainly will get to decide in November on whether the city can sell its 170-year-old waterworks without voter approval.  Opponents of the proposed sale – the NAACP, COAST, WeDemandAVote and other groups – collected more than 14,000 signatures on their petition to require voter permission, the NAACP announced Thursday.

 

That’s more than twice the 6,150 needed to put the issue on the ballot. So far, the Hamilton County Board of Elections has verified 5,925 – close enough to the amount to prompt NAACP President Christopher Smitherman to say voters will get their say.

 

Read full article here:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090702/NEWS0108/907030321/1055/NEWS/Waterworks+sale+up+to+Cincy+voters

So I read that earlier in the Enquirer and my draw just dropped on that last line.

[glow=yellow,2,300]“African-Americans did not have the right to vote for over 400 years in this country and now we are putting issues on the ballot,” Smitherman said. “That is history.”[/glow]

 

:-o  ...    :?

 

 

WTF??????

Why would Cincinnati want to sell its water utility?

 

Louisville owns its water company, and collects nice dividends from it.

 

Indianapolis privatized its water company management, then sold the utility, then repurchased it, then privatized management again.  It has been a completely fiasco.

 

Control of utilities is a huge lever cities have.  Why give them up without something major in return?  Don't sell your birthright for a bowl of soup.

 

 

It isn't actually being privatized. They want to transition it to a water district from a city department.

Why?  Sounds like regionalization of the utility.  Not per se a bad things but what are the suburbs giving up? 

The idea seems to be that the city would 'sell' the water works (which covers a greater percentage of the region) to a regional system and then get cash in hand for 75 years and the new water district would be a semi-independent. The sewer system already follows this model. The Water Works has long been a major patronage home and some of the folks opposing seem to think they would lose the ability to manipulate the system to get their constituents jobs.

Hmm.  I'm not sure how I feel about this.  Selling assets for cash now is similar to what Detroit is looking to do with the Windsor Tunnel.

 

I don't think per se it is a bad deal, but regionalizing a water system through a district would be something I'd be looking to leverage some type of real quid pro quo, not just money.  Something that binds the city and suburbs together tighter, rather than just letting the suburbs pay cash.  Cash comes with no moral obligation.

 

The idea seems to be that the city would 'sell' the water works (which covers a greater percentage of the region) to a regional system and then get cash in hand for 75 years and the new water district would be a semi-independent. The sewer system already follows this model. The Water Works has long been a major patronage home and some of the folks opposing seem to think they would lose the ability to manipulate the system to get their constituents jobs.

 

I have to disagree with the last sentence.  The issue comes down to this: the city owned waterworks can sell excess service capacity to other municipalities and counties.  However, they can't build any capacity to directly tap this market; rather, anything they build has to have some direct benefit for people in the City.  So, the city water works can't build a plant in northern Hamilton County in order to directly service the growth occurring in the northern suburbs, but a water district could, provided that Springfield Township or some place like that would elect to join the district.

 

The way this works is that the Cincinnati Water Works would transform itself into the independent Greater Cincinnati Water District; however, in the very beginning, the District would only be contiguous with the borders of Cincinnati.  Only after the operating agreements ended between the Water Works (now District) and the other constituencies it serves would those municipalities join the district as communities with equal status as Cincinnati.

 

What's silly about this is that Water is a core city service.  Cincinnati, through its size, intelligent past investments, etc. is able to provide this service at a much better level than other municipalities, and at a lower operating cost.  This is probably true of other core services, like police and fire and trash removal as well.  But of course, state rules prohibit cities that provide core services more efficiently from absorbing those that are less efficient.

 

They say that changing the rules to allow CWW to operate more like a business would be nigh-impossible, and require a change to the state constitution.  You know something like this fifth casino-ballot initiative we're on now.

Thanks, Lincoln.  How did Columbus overcome this?  I know they provide water service outside the annexed areas.

 

Hi - resurrecting this topic.

 

Does anyone have any links to pro/con sites for this Water Works sale?  Presumably I could go to the usual suspects for the anti-side, but would like to see the most compelling rationale from the pro side as well. Of course, additional perspectives from the insightful crew here is always welcome.

 

Letter from the City Manager: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/water/downloads/water_pdf36663.pdf

 

Water District Proposal, Executive Summary: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/water/downloads/water_pdf36404.pdf

 

More info: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/gcww/

FYI:

 

http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/11/01/cincinnati-water-works-and-the-commonwealth/

 

I'm growing very tired of these Government By Referendum ballot items that COAST keeps placing on the ballot.  I understand they can't get a majority on City Council or compete for the Mayor's seat, but this is not the way to go about things.  Put up some better candidates and work within our Representative Democracy instead of trying to find a loophole that benefits your special interests.

^ Hear, hear. Even if Issue 9 is defeated, I hope Cincinnatians for Progress sticks around and remains a force to counter the COAST/Smitherman/Haap crackpots who treat the city charter like a political playpen.

Issue 8 passed btw.

Issue 8 passed btw.

 

I don't think that's going to be as big of a deal. Even if the city had decided it was going to try to sell the WW, a judge could have forced a public vote anyway.

Issue 8 passed btw.

 

I don't think that's going to be as big of a deal. Even if the city had decided it was going to try to sell the WW, a judge could have forced a public vote anyway.

 

The bigger deal is that something from Smitherman and COAST won.

True... but there was no campaign against it either... easy to win when there is no opponent.

I didn't have any strong feelings about the waterworks proposal one way or the other, but the mere fact that Smitherman and COAST opposed it led me to believe it was probably a worthwhile idea. It's a shame that Issue 8's passage gives them something to crow about, but I don't think this will cripple the city the way Issue 9 would have.

Issue 8 passed btw.

 

I don't think that's going to be as big of a deal. Even if the city had decided it was going to try to sell the WW, a judge could have forced a public vote anyway.

 

And what does the general public know about selling public services?  That's the problem with these things.  The general public doesn't know anything about it therefore they shouldn't be voting on it.  Leave it to the people we elected to make the decisions (I'm not directing this at you).

I never understood COAST's opinion on this.  Wouldn't maximizing the efficiency of a government service by privatizing be something they approved of?

I never understood COAST's opinion on this. Wouldn't maximizing the efficiency of a government service by privatizing be something they approved of?

 

I didn't understand it either.  I figured COAST would have been in favor of privatizing services as well.

^ You all are thinking far too rationally.  Ever notice how COAST typically has two ballot issues going on at any one time?  This year it was Waterworks (although the cost and planning of that campaign was actually born and orchestrated by AFSCME, the local public sector workers union, COAST mostly just jumped on the bandwagon) and Issue 9, their main target.  Last year it was red light cameras (what constituency was going to be in favor of this?) and proportional representation (which is what the poll workers were actually pushing on election day 2008).  They have two issues every year, one that they actually push, and one that is clearly popular that they can attach their name to and claim a thereby claim success when it passes.  These guys are largely paper tigers.

Since they claim to be such libertarians, think they'll try to get Cincinnati to follow the lead of Breckenridge, Colorado and legalize pot? I'd sign that petition.

I never understood COAST's opinion on this.  Wouldn't maximizing the efficiency of a government service by privatizing be something they approved of?

 

I didn't understand it either.  I figured COAST would have been in favor of privatizing services as well.

 

The waterworks issue was essentially a tax on suburbs, and that's why COAST opposed it.  Again, if it's good for the city, look for COAST to oppose the measure.  Creating a water district and selling the proceeds to it creates an income stream for the city, where there was none before (cincinnati water works can not generate a profit).  So, where does this money come from?  It comes from the new water district of course, which means it comes from increased water rates on its customers.  But, part of the deal was to retain a lower rate for city of cincinnati residents.  Thus, the bulk of the added cost is assigned to folks outside of the city limits - essentially a nifty tax on the suburbs with the city getting the proceeds.

 

Now, I personally think that such a tax can be justified in many ways.  However it provides exactly the sort of reasons for COAST to oppose it.

 

Interesting read.... Cincinnati overwhelmingly passed last years Referendum (Issue 8) preventing the City from selling the Water Works without a public vote.

 

In Pekin, Ill., washing money down the drain?

 

 

City Manager Denny Kief has advice for communities that are tempted to sell their water systems to ease budget woes: "Be very cautious."

 

Pekin, a city of 34,000, doesn't own its water system. If it did, Kief believes, rates would be lower and extending water lines to an expansion of Pekin's industrial park and along a new bypass would be less complicated.

 

Most important, he says, owning such a crucial part of its infrastructure would mean Pekin could "control our own destiny." Kief's monthly bill at home is about $42, including about $12 in sewer fees that goes to the city.

 

cont.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was a huge battle over Lexington, Kentucky's once Kentucky-owned private water utility. The utility was charging high rates, so the current mayor at the time, Issac, made attempts to condemn the "public" utility in order for the city to take over. That saga lasted two years and ultimately failed by a narrow margin, and she lost her reelection campaign partially because of that heated, divided battle.

 

Now, it is owned by a German conglomerate who has only jacked the rates up further.

 

  "Kief's monthly bill at home is about $42, including about $12 in sewer fees."

 

  In Cincinnati, the water / sewer split is reversed. Most users pay more for sewer than they do for water.

 

 

FYI - Steve Hellman and Carel Vandermeyden (from the City of Cincinnati and the Greater Cincinnati Water Works) will be presenting on the transitioning of the Greater Cincinnati Water Works to a public regional water district at tonight's Downtown Residents Council membership meeting (6PM @ Main Library - Tower Room).

^They really need to just get them to change the laws in Columbus to give the current regimes more flexibility than go through this water district transition b.s.  After last years charter amendment the water district has even less likelihood of happening.

^ Yes, and I've heard some say that Ohio's laws concerning water districts are distinctly anti-Cincinnati, although I haven't taken the time to read up on them and confirm.. I may do a little research soon though.

 

I chanced upon this video and was startled to see how similar the older of the two old St. Louis waterworks intakes are to the old "castle" we have opposite Coney Island. 

 

 

MSD urges us to help prevent fatbergs.

 

 

Despite their name, flushable wipes are indeed not flushable and will clog up your drain.