Why Should We Vote YES on the Bond Resolution?

[John Cunningham]

If I were still serving as WPCA Treasurer (or even just as a board member), here is the presentation that I would have prepared and advised our leadership to present to the members. 

I have:

1. Attached a PDF version
2. Hosted a public version online here
3. Hosted my financial model online here

Bottom Line:

• Voting NO is a self defeating choice based on a false economy
• Voting YES enables us to get actual cost information through the bidding process while minimizes our risks through process protections embedded in the resolution and avoiding continuing an adversarial stance with no leverage against the state.
  

 Thank you for your consideration in reviewing these materials.

[Michael Riggio]

 Mr. Cunningham

Appreciated the clear explanations. 

Please confirm that an EDU is an existing building, and not a taxable lot. I was surprised we had 193. 

Who will bill the  home owner's the assessed fees? Can we make it a local tax? If so, that will produce a tax deduction for those of us who itemize deductions on our Federal tax returns.

Thank you,

Mike Riggio

[John Cunningham]

Note - I posted my original response under the admin account by accident and am correcting the record here.

Michael,

An Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) is a standard measurement used primarily in the context of water, sewer, or utility systems to quantify the demand or impact of different types of properties on infrastructure. It represents the typical water usage, wastewater generation, or utility demand of a single-family residential dwelling. Other types of properties (e.g., commercial, industrial, or multi-family units) are converted into EDUs based on their estimated demand relative to this baseline. For example, there are commercial properties on Hartford Ave that count for multiple EDUs on a single lot.

So, while it IS a taxable lot, it is not only a taxable lot.

When I was on the WPCA, we had an EDU count of 192 in OLSBA and 909 total between all cost sharing agreement (CSA) parties.  A new home was build on upper Billow in the past year, which brings us to 193.

I made an attempt to update the list with the 2024 appraisal numbers, but I came up with a count of 196 - which seems to exceed the number we have been using by 3 EDUs. I have not had time to try and identify whether this list has non-EDU properties included, duplicate entries, or whether our actual count is now higher than previously thought.

 The WPCA will provide a “benefit assessment”, which is a tax.  It can only do so once the system is placed in service. The mechanics of how this will be implemented has been discussed and it is a tax.  I am not a tax accountant or attorney, but it seems reasonable to me to included it as a deduction just like our other association fees.

Best Regards,

John