March 19, 2014 Introduction This presentation is a follow up to a - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presentation on Financing Alternatives for Unserved and Underserved Areas – Follow Up Presented by Members of Subgroup of the Bi-County Infrastructure Financing Working Group March 19, 2014

Introduction  This presentation is a follow up to a presentation made to the Commissioners in November 2013.  The Commissioners requested additional information on the magnitude of the issue in Prince George’s County.  This brief presentation includes the updated information as well as a restatement of the magnitude of the issue in Montgomery County.  Presentation will be followed by a motion of acceptance and transmittal of the Subgroup’s findings. 2

Definition of Unserved and Underserved Areas  Generally, unserved and underserved areas are those properties served by wells and/or septic systems (i.e. not connected to WSSC water and sewer systems) 3

Magnitude of Issue: Prince George’s County 4 4

Magnitude of Issue: Prince George’s County (cont.) 5 5

Magnitude of Issue: Montgomery County 6

Magnitude of Issue: Montgomery County (cont.) 7

Findings Concerning Current System  Original system was designed to pool large and small extensions and allocate costs over a large number of connections which made extensions affordable  Current front foot benefit system does not work for small- scale extensions  Current system has significant policy challenges including affordability, financial sufficiency, equity, and participation 8

Roadmap from Current System to “Improved System” Total Extension Costs • On-site costs • Off-site costs •Direct and indirect costs Cost to be Paid by Homeowner • What’s affordable? • WSSC Health hazard subsidy Policy considerations:  Financial sufficiency Funding Gap (Total Extension Costs –  Affordability Cost to be Paid by Homeowner  Equity  Participation Sub-districts • Counties design and designate • WSSC implements and executes Do nothing option = current system which is flawed. Public Subsidies Not a universal solution for all situations. • Rationale • WSSC Ratepayers • County Taxpayers 9

“Improved” System – Subdistrict Concept E "IMPROVED" SYSTEM X (all properties participate equally, at the same time) I S T I N 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 G R <-100 ft-> S 15 (failed E NEW SEWER EXTENSION septic W system) E R 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 M A I N 10

Motion 11