Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />... <br /> <br />The analysis in Table 2 indicates that the RWIS appears to be very cost effective when <br />evaluated in terms of t!je next most likely alternative, <br /> <br />FINANCIAL ANALYSES <br /> <br />The Town is proposing to finance the RWIS project through a grant of $175,000 which it has <br />received from the DLA and through a loan for approximately $344,300 at 4,0 percent for 30 <br />years from the CWCB. <br /> <br />The Town has established a fee structure for the project which requires all existing customers <br />to pay an initial, one-time tap fee of $100 and a service fee averaging $115 per year for those <br />who participate in the RWIS, Use of the RWIS is not mandatory but the fees for the potable <br />water system and for the RWIS have been structured in such a way that there is a <br />considerable cost advantage to using the RWIS in place of potable water for lawn and garden <br />irrigation. <br /> <br />The consultant's report includes financial projections under three different scenarios for water <br />user participation and use tax revenues, All three projections indicate that over a period of 30 <br />years revenues for the project will exceed expenditures, <br /> <br />Three financial indicators for the project are given in Table 3. The two debt ratios are in the <br />"Strong" category and the water rate as a percent of median household income is in the <br />"Average" category, <br /> <br /> <br />II <br />Indicator <br />Current+New Debt per Capita <br />Current+New Debt per Tap <br />Water Rate as Percent of Med. Hshld. Inc. <br /> <br />CONCLUSIONS <br /> <br />With regard to technical feasibility, we find no reason why the proposed project would not <br />function as intended, The system would be interconnected and pressurized by the diversion <br />pumps or by storage to provide a reliable seasonal water supply. Flow restrictors on <br />individual services and an every other day watering schedule would allow an adequate water <br />supply to meet the projected irrigation requirements and would encourage equity and <br />conservation in water use and reduce peak demands on the RWIS. <br /> <br />The irrigation companies in which the Town owns shares would appear to have relatively <br />senior water rights capable of providing adequate water supplies in a low runoff year. <br /> <br />With regard to economic feasibility, the comparison of alternatives in Table 2 indicates that <br /> <br />-4- <br />