With regard to RWMD’s securitization of a 6.7-million-dollar loan, I think we need to take a more global perspective rather than getting hung up in the weeds over the interpretation of the now infamous Ordinance 95-1.
The district was faced with a mandated capital improvement project that it could not possibly afford nor secure a loan for under current fiscal constraints, so had we done nothing we would have been relegated to remunerate this project under the “pay as you go” mechanism.
And this would be on top of any other future unforeseen capital improvement needs.
“Pay as you go” can work provided that we have intact infrastructure, but we are far enough behind the curve that we are shoveling against the tide.
So, securing these grant funds really makes sense, particularly when considering that the district is only responsible for repaying 50 percent of the grant funds, and at only a 2.5-percent interest rate to boot!
Putting this another way, had the board elected not to pursue this grant we would be responsible for footing the bill for the entire project cost over a very short period of time (if I’m not mistaken, $100 per month per parcel).
At the end of the day the problem is now going to be solved, at a much cheaper price, with the debt remuneration spread out more equitably. So, I would question looking this gift horse in the mouth.