Quote:
Originally Posted by twoplanekid
A vague way of saying
"The Board approved a 10% adjustment to be effective
April 1, 2023 but no future increases were approved. Without approval of additional
increases, the District cannot plan or execute a 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan
without known revenue, nor can CSU/SWCA meet debt coverage requirements. At this
time, staff is requesting NSCUDD approve rate adjustments that can be incorporated
into the FY23-24 Budget preparation process as well as preparation of a 5-Year Capital
Improvement Plan. The requested amendment to the Rule would set annual increases
of 10% for years 2 and 3 and 3% increases for years 4 and 5, effective October 1st of
each year. Page 155 of 254"
At this board meeting, we are to discuss the budget for next year which we discuss in detail and usually takes up the one whole meeting time.
And, we will discuss and maybe approve the new policy on high water usage billing charges.
Plus discuss reducing the number of board meeting per a suggestion by staff.
Then discuss and maybe approve a new water rate structure for the CSU area of operation which is CDD 9,10 and 11.
And then there is more to talk about between board members as we can only talk about board business at a board meeting!
I believe we have way too much on the agenda to properly discuss at one board meeting. But then, I am only one board member and staff sets the agenda. We, board members can only add items to be discussed.
|
Staff should absolutely be able to prepare a 5 yr capital plan. It should be based on currently approved revenue. Then, operating managers can list additional projects they would like to see, and estimated cost of each. Then the Board can evaluate and approve the projects they are willing to pay for with increased rates.
Which raises the question - when the utility was purchased from the developer, the price was based on net present value of the revenue stream. Wasn’t a fund negotiated for replacement reserve? This reminds me of the lawsuit that CDDs 1-4 brought (and won!) against the developer because no allowance for replacements was included in the purchase of amenity assets.
The wear and tear/depreciation that the utility’s assets experienced while owned by the developer should have been set aside, reducing the purchase price, and available now for capital projects.