06/23/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Backgrou In the CPi many of ti WATER AVAILABILITY CHARGES (W.A.C.) By: Sandra Ashley Helling, Finance Officer Case #7 !rse! of surveying other cities as to utility charges, it was noted that ie ~urrounding cities have a W.A.C. charge for the purpose of funding future infl~str~ucture replacements. This charge is in addition to the S.A.C. (Sewer Al'ailability Charge) cities are reponsible for collecting and remitting to the MetropOlitan Waste Control Commission. Although a full rate study has not been !performed for the City of Ramsey's utility district, we can say with certainty; !thai the City of Ramsey's rates do not provide for future infrastruct~re;!replacement. This apparently was an oversight when the rate structure Was! first established. If a W.A,~. Charge of $725.00 had been in place, the City's Infrastructure Replacement ~=und balance as of December 31, 1991 would be approximately $380,000, icu'r~'ently the City does not have an Infrastructure Replacement Fund and the fo[llo~ng original costs have been incurred: Water tower $61 0,980 T anN! cO~qtrols 17,076 Well il #1 I 272,642 Well #2[ 1 34.940 [ To!tal $1,035,638 Tax incre~enti revenue has paid for the above expenditures, but this will no longer be ~ reFenue source at time of replacement. For comp~isoh purposes, attached is a recap of permits and fees (including the S.A.C. ~ndiW.A.C. charges) charged by surrounding cities on an $80,000 home served by~mr~nicipal utilities. Ramsey's total charges for permits and fees (including t.he ;W.A.C. charge) would compare as follows: ~ [ TOTAL W.A.C. City Champlin $2,837.50 $1,050 City i~f E!k River $2,568.25 $300 City ~bf Andover $2,523.50 $1,070 City [~off Rarnsey $2,5 0 6.5 0 $725 City bf Blaine $2,397.50 $613 CitY ~f /~noka $2,194.50 $500