https://www.americancityandcounty.com/wp-content/themes/acc_child/assets/images/logo/footer-logo.png
  • Home
  • Co-op Solutions
  • Hybrid Work
  • Commentaries
  • News
  • In-Depth
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Podcast
  • Resources & Events
    • Back
    • Resources
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • IWCE 2022
    • How to Contribute
    • Municipal Cost Index – Archive
    • Equipment Watch Page
    • American City & County Awards
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Service
American City and County
  • NEWSLETTER
  • Home
  • Co-op Solutions
  • Hybrid Work
  • Commentaries
  • News
  • In-Depth
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Podcasts
  • Resources/Events
    • Back
    • Webinars
    • White Papers/eBooks
    • IWCE 2022
    • How to Contribute
    • American City & County Awards
    • Municipal Cost Index
    • Equipment Watch Page
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Cookie Policy
    • Privacy Stament
    • Terms of Service
  • newsletter
  • Administration
  • Economy & Finance
  • Procurement
  • Public Safety
  • Public Works & Utilities
  • Smart Cities & Technology
  • Magazine
acc.com


City chooses private manager for its water utility

City chooses private manager for its water utility

Privatization advocates are encouraging cities throughout the U.S. to privatize their municipal water utilities to increase utility efficiency. Opponents
  • Written by Bret Schundler
  • 1st March 1997

Privatization advocates are encouraging cities throughout the U.S. to privatize their municipal water utilities to increase utility efficiency. Opponents of privatization contend that the divestment of a money-losing water utility may assist a city’s budget in the short term, but only at a steep cost to consumers once the city’s rate-setting ability is transferred to a private buyer. In reality, both sides are right.

Privatization can increase efficiency, but turning a public monopoly into a private monopoly is not always the best way to maximize public benefits from a utility. Rather, looking for areas where competition can be introduced to enhance productivity is the preferable route.

Jersey City, N.J., recently established a public-private partnership with United Water Resources, Harrington Park, N.J. The city will maintain ownership of its water utility facilities while contracting with the water company to manage these assets. The agreement offers an example of how municipalities can liquefy the un-tapped (pardon the puns) budgetary potential of their water utilities without giving up their public ownership and control.

Under municipal management, Jersey City’s water assets — pipes, purification plants, reservoirs and significant quantities of surplus water — had never really been used to their fullest potential.

For instance, the city had long wanted to sell its surplus water on the open market to generate recurring, non-tax revenues, but it had never succeeded in doing so.

The water utility has also had higher operating expenses than necessary, although that had been difficult to tell in a non-market situation. In spite of the best efforts of several administrations and water directors, operating costs continued to rise.

Delivering water to Jersey City had been an even bigger problem, as one-quarter of the city’s water had been leaking from the pipes carrying it from suburban reservoirs. Transporting water great distances is a significant engineering challenge, and the city, for all the reasons that typically trouble public enterprises, had found it difficult to stop these water losses.

The city also encountered difficulty with accurate billing. Unlike the private telephone and energy utilities, which send out their bills every month like clockwork, the municipal water utility had too often mailed bills at irregular intervals. In addition, the bills were sometimes based on estimates of consumer usage instead of actual meter readings. This situation could result in huge bills once an actual reading was made, because estimates in prior billing periods had been too low.

Finally, bill collection had been a problem. Because the water utility’s collection rate had been lower than the norm at private utilities, the city charged higher water rates to cover the losses caused by non-payers.

Although the city’s new water director made substantial progress on all of these problems in recent years, the utility still underperformed its private counterparts.

The privatization option was not new to the city, as many other government operations, such as traffic signal maintenance, have been privatized to improve service delivery while reducing costs. In the case of traffic signal maintenance, the city has the option of changing vendors or resuming responsibility for maintenance if it does not receive quality services or the vendor suddenly wants to increase prices.

Selling a public entity like a water utility can take away such options. If the quality of service subsequently declines or the vendor seeks to raise rates, that is basically tough luck for the city and its ratepayers. Price guarantees written into the document of sale are valid only for the term of their duration. And expecting protection from state regulators can often lead to disappointment.

Therefore, competitively contracting for a public utility’s management, rather than selling the utility, may best serve the public’s interest.

In Jersey City, a working group that included the city council and administration personnel was formed to evaluate options. The city then sent out an RFP for a consultant, which would in turn help the city write the RFP for a water management company. This step may seem unnecessary, but the city wanted the help of an expert to fully protect its interests during the selection process.

The city decided on a relatively short-term contract of five years in order to keep pressure on the vendor to maintain high-quality services. It included performance clauses to ensure appropriate recourse in the event of sub-standard performance or maintenance from the vendor.

Jersey City also decided to retain control over, and responsibility for, capital investment to prevent the private manager from under-investing in infrastructure to maximize short-term operating profits. The city included employee protections to ensure that public employee unions would support the deal.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the city made it clear that it wanted to retain control of rate setting and wanted all bids to be submitted on the basis of a zero rate-increase assumption. This point was critical in order to ensure that bidders did not offer overly aggressive concession fees to the city in exchange for future rate increases.

The water company now guarantees the city a minimum of $19 million in surplus water sales, $16 million in operational savings and $2.5 million in up-front concession fees. And, by stanching water leaks and improving billing and collection, it projects $20 million to $35 million in additional revenue to the city and the local sewerage authority, for which the municipal water utility does billing and collection. The total economic benefit should fall between $58 million and $73 million over five years — or as much as $14 million per year. This is an enormous impact for Jersey City, which had a FY ’96 property tax levy of $88 million.

Citizens also stand to gain through improved service, as the water company’s technology will decrease the frequency and inconvenience of water main breaks. The company will install computerized “Hands-Off Meter Reading” equipment that will allow the company to conduct monthly readings by telephone line, avoiding the hassle of home visits and the aggravation of estimated bills.

In addition, with the support of the state’s department of personnel, the city and the water company will be pioneering a new concept — the “leasing” of public employees. The employees will, for all practical purposes, become employees of the vendor, but legally they will remain city employees, retaining their current wages and benefits and their place in the public retirement system. The vendor expects to decrease the total number of employees retained to operate the system, but has committed to do so through attrition and early buy-outs, rather than through lay-offs.

Jersey City’s public-private partnership safeguards the advantages of public utility ownership, while providing the economic and quality-of-service benefits produced by competitively bid management. In forming this partnership, the city has set a course that will keep its head above water in the long run.

This article was written by Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler.

Tags:

Most Recent


  • Seamless Cooperative Experience Saves Indiana City Exponentially in Time and Money
    Significant new responsibility in an unfamiliar spend category didn’t intimidate Jasper-Dubois County Public Library Director, Christine Golden. What could’ve been an overwhelming furniture project for a state-of-the-art, 67,000 square-foot new facility turned into a seamless, stress-free experience through a cooperative purchasing strategy. “Stress-free” may sound like an exaggeration, but it’s the result that cooperative purchasing […]
  • 10 best large cities for fishing
    Across the United States, Americans of all backgrounds—from both urban and rural settings alike—enjoy a mutual pastime: fishing. But while there are plenty of cities that feature lakes and rivers, some large metro areas are better fishing communities than others.  A list created by Apartment Guide considers all U.S. cities with a population of more […]
  • public sector
    Generational differences present an opportunity to reinvent public sector service delivery
    As major technology companies have transformed the ideal customer experience into instantaneous “one-click” services, the public sector has been challenged to keep pace. As a result, government organizations must meet the changing expectations of Americans with faster, simpler, 24/7 services. Government is ingrained in the fabric of our lives, including the water we drink, the […]
  • Report: Local and state governments are facing a retention crisis; the worst could be yet to come
    When the pandemic struck in 2020, public retention was hit hard: jobs in local government plummeted by 8.5 percent; state employment dropped by 4.4 percent. Two years later, local and state government jobs have rebounded by about half—to 4.1 and 1.9 percent below pre-pandemic levels respectively, according to a new report from Mission Square Research […]

Leave a comment Cancel reply

-or-

Log in with your American City and County account

Alternatively, post a comment by completing the form below:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Content

  • Public procurement can be transformative for stakeholders in a community
  • The 10 Most Sustainable Large U.S. Cities
  • How local governments can get ahead of the infrastructure wave: Strategies to mitigate risk
  • Rebounding from Message Fatigue: Emergency Alerting in a Post COVID World

White papers


How to Assemble a Rockstar Website Redesign Steering Committee

7th June 2022

Hand Hygiene: Compliance Matters

23rd May 2022

What it Takes to Build a Winning Esports Program

23rd May 2022
view all

Events


PODCAST


Young Leaders Episode 4 – Cyril Jefferson – City Councilman, High Point, North Carolina

13th October 2020

Young Leaders Episode 3 – Shannon Hardin – City Council President, Columbus, Ohio

27th July 2020

Young Leaders Episode 2 – Christian Williams – Development Services Planner, Goodyear, Ariz.

1st July 2020
view all

Twitter


AmerCityCounty

Seamless Cooperative Experience Saves Indiana City Exponentially in Time and Money dlvr.it/SSxp95

27th June 2022
AmerCityCounty

10 best large cities for fishing dlvr.it/SSxbSZ

27th June 2022
AmerCityCounty

Generational differences present an opportunity to reinvent public sector service delivery dlvr.it/SSxbN7

27th June 2022
AmerCityCounty

Report: Local and state governments are facing a retention crisis; the worst could be yet to come dlvr.it/SSnmS7

24th June 2022
AmerCityCounty

Amid an unprecedented increase in federal spending, cities and counties stand to benefit from partnerships dlvr.it/SSkGBn

23rd June 2022
AmerCityCounty

Governments using technology to harness data and improve decision-making dlvr.it/SSk3H0

23rd June 2022
AmerCityCounty

Infrastructure highlighted by city leaders as top priority in analysis of 60 mayoral addresses dlvr.it/SSgBck

22nd June 2022
AmerCityCounty

Oklahoma City puts the focus on employees when implementing changes in office technology dlvr.it/SSfyns

22nd June 2022

Newsletters

Sign up for American City & County’s newsletters to receive regular news and information updates about local governments.

Resale Insights Dashboard

The Resale Insights Dashboard provides model-level data for the entire used equipment market to help you save time and money.

Municipal Cost Index

Updated monthly since 1978, our exclusive Municipal Cost Index shows the effects of inflation on the cost of providing municipal services

Media Kit and Advertising

Want to reach our digital audience? Learn more here.

DISCOVER MORE FROM INFORMA TECH

  • IWCE’s Urgent Communications
  • IWCE Expo

WORKING WITH US

  • About Us
  • Contact Us

FOLLOW American City and County ON SOCIAL

  • Privacy
  • CCPA: “Do Not Sell My Data”
  • Cookies Policy
  • Terms
Copyright © 2022 Informa PLC. Informa PLC is registered in England and Wales with company number 8860726 whose registered and Head office is 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG.
This website uses cookies, including third party ones, to allow for analysis of how people use our website in order to improve your experience and our services. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the use of such cookies. Click here for more information on our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.
X