My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Utility Committee Agenda and Packet 2021 02 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
UTILITY COMMITTEE (pka: Water Committee)
>
2021 Utility Committee Agendas and Packets
>
Utility Committee Agenda and Packet 2021 02 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2021 12:33:07 PM
Creation date
2/5/2021 10:44:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
2/9/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
132
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
saying staff continue to focus on the recommended smoothing option <br />but will continue to include the Just -In -Time Alternative for comparison. <br />Mr. Peterson explained the modifications in the analysis for this year. <br />Rates are being calculated with current tap fees and the pervious <br />method of tap fees delayed by a year. Another modification was <br />reducing the Cash Reserves from the current 120 days to a 90 day <br />Cash Reserve. Mr. Peterson continued to the next slide on Debt <br />Issuance and the Modeled Tap Fees and stated there hasn't been any <br />change to this and that staff is confident this is a conservative approach <br />to our tap fees into the future. <br />• Page 32-33 — Water: Cash Reserve Comparison Table, Mr. Peterson <br />said we looked at the adjustment to the 90 day cash reserves which was <br />based on the old model runs where we show the 4% recommended <br />increase back in September. So when we adjust that for the 90 day <br />Cash Reserve it drops from 4% to 3.7%. Mayor Pro Tern <br />Councilmember Maloney asked if the 4% included the $2.5M down <br />payment for Windy Gap. Mr. Peterson said yes it assumed the $2.5M <br />along with the $926,000 annual payment through the model period of <br />2021-2030. Councilmember Fahey continued by asking why does the <br />percentage drop in 2027 and why it is twice as much the first six years. <br />Mr. Peterson explained the CIPs are the drivers and we know what's <br />coming where in the later years it's not as robust. So the overall cost <br />starts dropping. If and likely more projects are added there will be a <br />need to increase rates to compensate. <br />• Page 34-37 — Mr. Peterson continued the presentation with describing <br />the Budgeted Multi Year Water CIPS and said they tried to align when <br />the actual expenditure would occur as opposed to having it budgeted in <br />the first year of the project. Page 35 shows how the mutli-year projects <br />show an increase in fund balance in the first year but ultimately catches <br />back up in a year or two depending on the project. With the water rate <br />driver being the target cash reserve in 2027, the shifting of projects in <br />the next few years has no change to the overall impacts to the rates. <br />• Page 38 — Financial Planning Alternatives, Mr. Peterson explained this <br />is the 2020 rates that were approved earlier this year. He described the <br />percentages when frozen, COVID options, back to 4% and the WGFP <br />smoothing percentage which is what staff is currently recommending for <br />2021. Councilmember Lipton asked about the down payment <br />assumptions where he thought we were going to do a large payment <br />from the Utility Fund to Windy Gap. Mr. Peterson explained that the 4% <br />back in August did include the large down payment but the 2.8% we are <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.