Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA006 - Memo to Mayor and Council dated September 18, 2001 I Memo City Manager's Office e raring People Quality Programs Fweptiorml Service TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Steven L. Schainker, City Manager DATE: September 18, 2001 SUBJECT: Halletts Quarry Project Funding With the notification from the Vision Iowa Board that the City will receive $1,500,000 over two years for the Halletts Quarry project,,the maximum amount of General Obligation Bonds that will needed to fund this project is $4,970,000. However, many of you have suggested we consider the use of Water Fund monies to partially finance this project since the proper development of this area will serve to protect a secondary water source for our city. It is extremely difficult to identify the exact amount of Water Fund monies that could be justified for this project. I would suggest the following options for your consideration: A. No Water Fund Support-- The quality of water in the quarry is jeopardized due to urban and rural storm water runoff. Since the City has traditionally financed major storm water improvement projects with G.O. Bond financing, it could be argued that these improvements should also be paid for entirely with G.O. Bonds. B. $300,000 Support From the Water Fund -- This option would assume that if the City does not have this body of water available during drought conditions, we would need to develop at least one other well to meet our customers' demands. The cost to construct a well and provide connecting piping averages $300,000. C. $500,000 Support From the Water Fund -- This option is derived from our Halletts Quarry Watershed Study that indicated that one alternative to preserve the water quality if the private sector continues to own the property would be for the City to reestablish an open channel to the south of the water body to allow storm water runoff to bypass the quarry. The estimated cost to construct this 4,400 foot channel along with the acquisition of land for a pump station would be approximately $500,000. 2 If you decide to utilize Water Fund revenues, I would offer the following observations: 1. In preparing our budget and C.I.P.,our Water Utility rates, expenses, revenues and fund balances were projected out over the next several years. It is currently anticipated that we will not need a water rate increase until 2007. In relative terms, our water rates compared to other cities are higher than our property tax rates compared to of er cities. My recommendation,if you choose to pursue WaterTunds, woul&te of any acce era ion of the next water rate increase. 2. After the books were closed on 2000-01,the ending Water Fund balance was approximately$300,000 higher than anticipated when this year's budget was adopted in March. This amount,therefore, could be used to help acquire and develop Halletts without negatively affecting our water rates. I should note,however,that uncertainty remains over the current year's ending balance,since there are still nine months remaining in this fiscal year. This approach would require the issuance of$4,670,000 of G.O. Bond debt. 3. Another possible strategy is to identify funds by delaying projects approved in the existing Capital Improvements Plan for 2001-02. The adopted budget appropriates $600,000 this year for water distribution system improvements. Of that total, approximately $200,000 for 4" main upsizing could be delayed and redirected to this project. The addition of these funds would reduce the bond issue by $500,000 and require a bond issue of$4,470,000. 4. If the City Council would prefer to reduce the bond issue by more than $500,000, another strategy would be to issue G.O. Bonds for the total project and then to have the Water Fund"pay back" some predetermined amount over a twelve year period to help abate the debt. The table below describes the property tax impact of these three alternatives, and includes both debt service and operational costs for the project. Total Local Water Fund Net G.O. Bond Residential Tax Commercial Industrial Tax Cost Contribution Cost per$100,000 1 Tax/$100,000 per$500,000 $4,970,000 $ 0 $4,970,000 $ 21 $ 38 $ 189 $4,970,000 $ 300,000 $4,670,000 $ 20 $ 36 $ 178 $4,970,000 $ 500,000 $4,470,000 $ 19 $ 34 $ 171 The quality of the water in the quarry is in jeopardy because of urban and rural storm water runoff. Since the City finances major storm water improvement projects with G.O. Bond financing, it could be argued that 100%property tax support through G.O. Bonds is justified for this project. However, if you believe some level of support should be provided from the Water Fund, then I have provided you with two other alternatives. Assuming that we finish this fiscal year in line with our financial projections, neither option should accelerate the need for a water rate increase in advance of our current plan.