My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
Ord69 1403
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Ordinances
>
1960-1969 partial
>
1969
>
Ord69 1403
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/2/2008 12:02:23 PM
Creation date
11/7/2006 3:17:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Ordinance
Date
5/19/1969
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
<br />RATIONALE FOR WATER & SEWER CHARGES AND DISPOSITION <br /> <br />REDWOOD CITY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1-64 <br /> <br />DANIEL, M<\NN, JOHNSON, & MENDENIlALL <br />DISTRICT ENGINEER <br /> <br />Included in the Financial Analysis of the Feasibility and Engineering <br />Planning Report is the application of water and sewer revenues to retire <br />District Bonded indebtedness. <br /> <br />Two methods were used in the feasibility study to determine water & sewer <br />charges. These were (1) "use of the faci li ty" technique and (2) "sep- <br />arable cost/remaining benefits" method. The first is used to cleterJ.11ine <br />allocation of repayment among various beneficiaries. The second is used <br />to allocate cost~ for repayment among the various bond facilities. <br /> <br />1. The "use of the faci 1 i ty" technique is based upon the concept that <br />repayment of the cost of facility should be based upon user benefits <br />thus "use of facility". <br /> <br />This principle underlies the rationale for issuance of revenue <br />bonds. Revenues produced from charges levied against users are <br />used to repay bonded debt. <br /> <br />Whereas the benefits from other facilities can be allocated on <br />the basis of the relative assessed value of the property of the <br />beneficiaries, water and sewer charges usually cannot. A heavy <br />water user with high waste disposal requirements, such as a heavy <br />industrial firm, will in most cases have less assessed value per <br />acre than single family residences which require substantially <br />smaller service connections, use less water and discharge sub- <br />stantially less waste. Therefore, the use of only ad valorem <br />tax levies to repay water and sewer facilities costs usually are <br />not equitable. <br /> <br />As stated above the "use of the facility" method, based upon the <br />general concepts of revenue bonding, was used in the feasibility <br />study. However, revenue bond financing, per se, at least in' the <br />early years of the project, was not considered appropriate for <br />t\vO reasons. <br /> <br />a. For revenue bonds to be saleable, buyers usually require <br />that revenues exceed debt retirement by 50 percent (1.5 <br />to 1.0 debt coverage ratio), requiring higher charges to <br />users. <br /> <br />b. Since revenue bonds are not usually backed by tax base, <br />interest rates usually are much higher and amortization <br />periods shorter, requiring higher annual debt service <br />charges. <br /> <br />,.. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.