August 5, 2018
Why I am supporting BWSD
Bond Option “C”.
At the October 15, 2016 BWSD
Board of Directors meeting, Neil Peck submitted a list of required systems
repairs for the water systems and requested that a facility plan be done to
evaluate these items. DEQ financing was
not available without the facility plan.
The system deficiencies stated by Neil are basically the same as the
ones produced by the JUB facilities plan. There were a couple on Neil’s list that
have subsequently been repaired or replaced plus one for purchase of a truck
that is no longer needed and consequently not included in the bond options. At that meeting, there were 4 of these
potential systems repairs set forth with a price tag of $1.8million.
I share this background to show
that the needed systems repairs and maintenance issues and the magnitude of their
financial impact are nothing new. The
system deficiencies set out in JUB Water Facilities Plan, were recognized by
the previous operators as critical deficiencies of our old and aging
infrastructure. Would they have
assigned different priorities and proposed perhaps a different approach to
address some of the issues? Most likely
they would have. My point here is that
we are where we are and the issues need to be addressed from where we are now with
the existing facilities plan, the favorable financing that is available now and
the bond options that we are presented now.
It took a lot of lobbying to
get a minimum option that actually addressed the critical deficiencies of the
water system at the lowest possible cost to the users=$8.27 monthly increase
(.27 cents more than the “do-nothing” option).
This included adding the rehab of the existing tank and removing the
water meter replacement to that proposed option. The rehab of the existing tank is critical, I
am not an engineer, but I believe that it will result in a remaining life
beyond the 25-30 years that is forecast. This option now allows for the meter
replacement to be budgeted and done over an extended period of time.
Many may feel that rejecting
all of the bond options is the solution to their disagreement with past actions
of the board. This is not a referendum
on the performance of the BWSD Board. A
“do-nothing” approach will ultimately burden the customer base with
extraordinary costs of system repairs and maintenance.
These on-going costs will be in
addition to the $8.00 monthly increase that will be levied to establish a
reserve fund if the bond fails. It is an
option that is unaffordable in my opinion.
In addition to the above, the
following facts were considerations upon which I based my support for Bond
Option “C”:
) The District would lose the $92,100 cost of
the Water Facilities Plan- ($45,000 will be paid by DEQ grants) the balance will
be paid by BWSD.
) DEQ financing will provide DEQ project oversight
and approval of all funds disbursed.
) To “do nothing” will result in the forfeiture
of the favorable financing terms. (1.75%
for 30 years plus up to $210,000 principal forgiveness granted by DEQ)
) The total rebuild of the system for
$2.1million is far beyond the needs of the district. The facilities plan study
indicated that potential growth of the district will result in a user base of
700-950 within 10 years. A larger and more affluent user group will be better equipped
to afford the total rebuild of the system than our present 475 fixed and low
income user base.
) There are issues with the dated
infrastructure at the sewer treatment site
which must be addressed in the near future and will very likely result in increased
fees for that system, as well.
I approached my assessment of
the bond options with the following as the stated goal of the selection
process:
“To
resolve the most critical deficiencies identified by the water facilities study
at the lowest possible cost to the BWSD user base.”
I believe Bond Option “C” is
the only option that meets this criterion.
Colleen Dahlseid
Bayview, ID
No comments:
Post a Comment