Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C) <br />~ ~ -) <br />1-& <br />en <br />c..'J <br />C,ll <br /> <br />taxes. Revenue bonda are secured by pledging revenues from the water <br />project and by taking a mortgage or lien on the actual system. Revenue <br />bonds are becoming more popular due to the difficulty of obtaining voter <br />approval for issuing general obligation bonds. <br /> <br />-. <br /> <br />In the lsst couple of years, municipal bond financing has been stymied <br />due to high interest rates and poor economic conditions. Due to high <br />rates and uncertainty over future events, many issuers obtained interim <br />or short-term funding, hoping to refinance the debt when rates came down. <br />Rates have dropped considerably in the last six months and now borrowers <br />are coming to the market in force. However, Mr. Cochran indicsted <br />continued federal budget deficits will crowd-out other institutions, <br />because-the federal government will be going to the market regularly to <br />borrow funds, causing the cost of money to rise. He also said aocial and <br />emotional pressures influence the market as much as anything. <br /> <br />He briefly described the funding program in Oklahoma, which is <br />administered by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board. This program <br />utilizes a $25 million Statewide Water Development Revolving Fund to act <br />as additional security and collateral for revenue bonds issued by the <br />Board. Such security and collateral capability should allow the Board to <br />obtain very favorable interest rates which can be passed on to eligible <br />borrowers. By leveraging the funds, around $200-$250 million in bonds <br />could be issued to assist communities with water/sewer improvements. <br /> <br />The Congressional Perspective <br /> <br />Mr. Harvey Bollinger, Executive Director of RedArk Development (an <br />Oklahoma regional organization), presented Congressman Wes Watkins' <br />prespectives on water reSource development and financing. <br /> <br />Mr. Bollinger emphasized the Congressman's interest and involvement in <br />development of the nation's water resources. He then described some of <br />the problems that have delayed Administration and Congressional consensus <br />in authorizing bills for water development proJects. He indicated that <br />the last time an authorizing bill passed both sides of the House was in <br />1976, and it was considered a very minor bill; the last time a maJor <br />authorizing bill for water resources development in this nation passed <br />both the House and the Senate was in 1972, twelve years ago. <br /> <br />Mr. Bollinger suggested that even though the cost-sharing controversy has <br />caused a stalemate between the Administration and Congress, cost-sharing <br />is not the problem--only a symptom. The problem is that we do not have a <br />nationsl water policy. This is what led Congressman Watkins to send a <br />letter in November of 1982 to Speaker O'Neil suggesting the creation and <br />appointment of a Congressional task force on water development policy. <br /> <br />Mr. Bollinger talked about the need for new financing methods. According <br />to the federal tssk force on urban water supply, over the next twenty <br />years between $75 billion and $113 billion in capital investments will be <br />needed to maintain services in urban systems alone. One alternative <br />discussed as a possible mesns to address such funding needs was a <br /> <br />8 <br />