Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />-.; <br /> <br />BUREAU LOAN <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />......,~ <br />f,t. <br /> <br />The PR WCD entered into a 70-year contract with the Bureau in 1967 for repayment of <br />$6,435,600 in project costs. The current balance on the loan is $5,626,007. Annual'payments to <br />the Bureau vary from about $20,000 to $140,000 per year and average $94,000 per year. The <br />formula for calculating the amount of the annual payments is complicated but is essentially based <br />on the percent of a full water supply available in any given year. <br /> <br />The Bureau has indicated that it may be willing to discount the loan and allow the District tq <br />retire its obligation. The actual amounJ of the payoff is unknown at present but would probably <br />be somewhat less than $1.5 million based on the current yield of the 30-year Treasury Bond. <br />Actual authorization to allow the payoff would have to come from Congress or from the <br />Commissioner of Reclamation. The District may be able to contribute as much as $200,000 <br />toward the retirement of the debt. <br /> <br />FINANCIAL ANALYSIS <br /> <br />The District obtains revenues from a district-wide mill levy , from assessments for operations and <br />maintenance expenses, and from assessments for payments on the Bureau loan. Table 1 gives <br />the District's total revenues, operating expenses, and USBR loan payments as taken from the <br />three most recent auditor's reports for calendar years 1993 through 1995. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />'-) <br /> <br />Table 1. PRWCD Financial Analysis <br /> <br /> <br />peratlng <br />Ex ense <br />$206,615 <br />$181,240 <br />$247,203 <br /> <br /> <br />Year <br />1995 <br />1994 <br />1993 <br /> <br />otal <br />Revenues <br />$334,835 <br />$314,048 <br />$277,805 <br /> <br />As Table 1 indicates, the District had an annual deficit in each of the three years ranging from <br />about $7,000 to $52,000. In each year, the debt service coverage ratio (a measure of the ext~nt to <br />which revenues are adequate to cover debt service) was less than one, which is considered the <br />minimum level of coverage. <br /> <br />Table 2 gives an analysis of the estimated impacts on the District of a 30-year and a 40-year <br />Construction Fund loan for $1.5 million at 3.75 percent (the Board's agricultural lending rate for <br />1997). The table shows the estimated reduction in the amount of the annual payment, the annual <br />deficit for the District, and resulting debt service coverage ratio ifthe Bureau loan were replaced <br />by a Construction Fund loan in the years 1993 through 1995. The table indicates significan~ <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />) <br />': .....,;,.~' <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />e <br />