Laserfiche WebLink
<br />VII-6 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Based on an evaluation of the alternate financing plans available at <br /> <br /> <br />this time to the District, the plan where Colorado Water Conservation <br /> <br /> <br />Board and F.H.A. loans are used appears to be the most feasible. <br /> <br />The conventional method of general obligation bonds is too costly for <br /> <br /> <br />the District. When included with the yearly 0 & M expense, the total <br /> <br /> <br />yearly expense of the District, based on this system of financing, is <br /> <br /> <br />approximately $38,175/year. This figure is excessive in that the monthly <br /> <br /> <br />service charge would be approximately $25.80 and would be an unreasonable <br /> <br /> <br />burden to the District user. It is doubtful that a service charge of <br /> <br /> <br />this magnitude would ever by approved by the District residents. <br /> <br />Using a Farmers Home Administration direct loan over a 40-year repayment <br />period with a 5 percent interest rate is also very difficult because of <br />the resulting high monthly service charge. This is based on a $5,450/yr. <br />o & M expense and a debt service repayment of $18,725/year, giving a <br />total yearly expense of approximately $24,175. The resulting monthly <br />service charge would be approximately $18.25. A substantial F.H.A. <br />grant would be required to result in a feasible project. <br /> <br />If the project were financed by a combination of Colorado Water Conser- <br />vation Board and F.H.A. funds, it would result in a total yearly expense <br />of approximately $21,040. The service charges would be set at $15.00/mo. <br />for year-round users and $12.00/month for seasonal users. Using minimal <br />growth projections, Table VI I-B demonstrates project feasibility under the <br />assumed financing conditions. Note that the Emergency Reserve Fund is <br />establ is'hed during the ini tial year primari Iy by the tap fee income. <br />