Laserfiche WebLink
<br />William E. Green, P,E, <br />September 15, 1999 <br />Page Two <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Another technique, used in the past by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission to <br />prioritize wastewater projects under two of the finan'cing programs it oversees, involved two <br />specific financial need measures. These two measures were "ability to pay" (or annual rates as <br />a percentage of median household income) and "local burden" (or cost of the debt resulting from <br />the project per tap). <br /> <br />A project was awarded prioritization points for annual sewer rates as a percentage of median <br />household income according to the following system: <br /> <br />Over 3% <br />Over 1.5%, and up to 3.0% <br />Over .75%, and up to 1.5% <br />Up to ,75% <br /> <br />40 Points <br />30 Points <br />20 Points <br />10 Points <br /> <br />A project was awarded prioritization points for cost of the project debt per tap according to the <br />following system: <br /> <br />Over $2,500 <br />$1,251 to $2,500 <br />$750 to $1,250 <br />$500 to $750 <br /> <br />25 Points <br />20 Points <br />15 Points <br />10 Points <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />These measures were part of a larger system which also awarded prioritization points based <br />upon the severity of pollution, quality of receiving waters, regionalization, water conservation, <br />and beneficial use of sludge or effluent. The use of this point system has been discontinued in <br />recent years, However, the Division of Local Government currently has information which may <br />help you develop a similar system, <br /> <br />Finally, 1 am attaching references to several publications which we periodically consult as we <br />try to refine our credit evaluation techniques, 1 hope that you find this information helpful. <br />Please let me know if! can provide additional assistance, <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br /> <br />~~-_. <br /> <br />Barr~ <br />Local Utility Specialist <br /> <br />enclosure <br /> <br />. <br />