8.0. SR 04-26-1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

yr4-t:t ~ 'P))t . The computer runs show that for a 30 year necessary improvements based on a 4% system, that immediate improvements can be of ways. - One extreme would be no WIF, no increase in the WAC, and the bonds being repaid through using 1/3 of the available operating profits and future WAC. On the other side of the coin, improvements can be financed with no money from rates, no increase in the WAC, and from the existing $700 WAC and a new $500 WIF. - In between these two extremes, the improvements can be financed through a 20% allocation from the annual profits and a modest increase in the WAC from $700 to $1,000 in 1998. This increase of the WAC from $700 to $1,000 in 1998 is equivalent to a WIF of $250, so therefore, the system improvements can also be financed through a $250 WIF, no change in the WAC, and 20% from the annual profits. bond for the three growth in the water financed in a number . As discussed earlier, and as the Commission and Council can see, the immediate system improvements can be financed and it now becomes a question of what method is best. All of these options allow for a substantial percent of the annual operating profit from the rates to be saved for emergencies, system repairs, future improvements, and for new rules and regulations enforced upon the water system. It is at this point that Bill and I offer different recommendations on the preferred solutions. ISSUES TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION Before a recommendation is offered, a number of side issues need to be reviewed and discussed. Like the WWTS, I believe that the City has a certain responsibility to provide and finance the infrastructure for urban development. Typically, only minor expenses are charged to developers for the utility infrastructure. Developers are typically charged for the pipes and the rates paid by the new consumers provide revenues for additional expenses. If the City is to develop in an urban manner according to the comprehensive plan, then the City and the Utilities have a responsibility to provide for the municipal system. A great deal of discussion has related to the developer expenses for the water system. There should be no mistake that any expense charged to the developer is passed on to the homeowner. The homeowner always pays for the utility system in one way or another. . The City is constantly being accused of being anti-development. An issue that cannot be ignored is that a WIF relates to the new rules, ordinances, more administrative work, and a perpetuation of the belief that the City is anti-development. On the other hand, the WAC is already in place and if additional revenue is needed, a WAC increase is a relatively easy mechanism to provide revenues without a great