-------






X™*
'O
(U
3
G
•H
4-1
G
O
CJ



CN
w
ffl
^
E-i

















E-i
U
&4
S
H

«c
o
W
H
fa

Q


O
2
H
2
2
d
ft
(-3
rfC
H
C_)
2
2
H
fa











cing Assumptions
G
3 3
PQ *rl
< fa
ced by South Milwaukee with 20 yea:
bonds at 7%; 0% grant funded.
G
id •
G O
•H •
fa CS
E-i
H
U

1
w
fa
§

co

H
Q
O
•^ _
H -P
EH T-j
D r-l
ft. -H
5J O
O id
CJ fa
•P
D C

U
0)
c
G
8

G
Q
C
id
e
M
0)
o
o
fd
^
o
5 1
•s?
3
W 4-1
•H C
M
rQ dP
id o
73 -P
CD id
O
c w
C G
•H Q
fa .M











Q

§

5

c
0
-r-l
4J
O
CD
C
C
O
U
td
w
•H
>
J>^
T3
^
(d
CJ
ced by Theinsville with 20 year G.<
at 7%; 0% grant funding.
G M
id T3
C G
-H Q
fa r3











Q

S
S
4?

G
0
-H
4->
^
G
C
O
O
0)
H
r-H
•H
S
C
0!
•H
£
EH
d
d
rd
o> •
G
O -rt
CN T3
C
J= 3
4-i M i
•r(
3 4J
0 id
Cn M
M dP
3 0
S
i-Q r**
-------
     ft
     s
in
C
0
•H
P
O;
E
3
tn
w
p-C

tn
•r|
o
G
id
c
•H
fa
d
d
rd
0)
0
CN
P
•rH
73
i-H
CD
•H
M-l
££
0
0
rl
ffl

£*1
,O

73

0

O

e
H


^,
,£3

73
0)
U
C
rd
G
•rl
fa
t funding .
c
id
M
tn

dP
o

• *.
cN3
f^

ftf

U)
73
C
JS
d
o
SH
0)
0
CN
P
•H
0
•P
G
id
c?
£^
0)


r>1
,J3

73
a)
0
G
id
C
fa
t funding .
c
rd

0i

dP
O

I*.
dP
r*-.

id

o)
73
G
j3
SH
rd
0)
0
CN
x:
4-1
•rH
tn
rH
rH
rd
fa
CD
CD
C
O
s
o
c
(D
a

K*1!
i-Q

^
0)
u
C
rd
C
• H
fa
grant funding .
dP
O

...
dP
f-^

P
id

tn
73
G
i*5

•
o
d
in
1
d
d
id
(D
0
CN
•p
•rl


C
0
3

(I)
a

£>i
*Q

•8
o
G
rd

•rl
fa
C
•rl
73
C
3
MH

P
G
id
J-J
tn

dP
0
• ..
dP
p«.

P
id
•s
d
d
id
(D
0
CN
X •
4-1 01
•H C
3 -rl
73
O C
0i 3
CD MH
rX
W 4-1
a c
S id

r>1 CT1
X!
dP
73 O
O •»

id r~

•H P
fa (d
0
d
id
 id
in SH
G tn
Q)
•rl <*>
A O
EH

^i dP
X! r-

73 P
CD id
o
C 01
id 73
G G
•H 0
fa JJ
—  U  H
73  W  O
 
 Id
4-1
•H
H
•H
Xl
                                                                                 0
                                                                                 4-1
                                                                                 G
                                                                                 id






^i
CD
3
0)
w
rH
rd
U
3
c
w o
rH -H
rH P
rd id
fa p
•H
CD rH
CD -H
G XI
O id
e A
0 CD
C CS
CD
s
c
0
•H
p
id
P
•rl
rH
•rl
XI

CD
05

SH
CD
3
0)
W

rH
id
o
3

c
o

tr*
CD
S
                  O
                  •rH
                  4-1
                  rrj
                  4J
                  •H
                  e-H
                  •H
                  X!
                  Id
                                                                                                                                    Id
                                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                      0
                                                                                      S1
                                                                                     A;
                                                                                      Ul
                                                                                      3
                                                                                     a
                                                                                                       G
                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                      •H
                                                                                                      4-1
                                                                                                       id
                                                                                                      •p
                                                                                                      •H
                                                                                                      r-f
                                                                                                      •H
                                                                                                      XI
                                                                                                       id

                                                                                                       cu
                                                                                                      05
                                   0)

                                   
                                                   CN
                                                                                                                                                                     Q
                                                                                      11
-------
MMSD Model

"The MMSD Model is more complex than the Local Plant
analysis and therefore requires more explanation.  It
is a mathematical simulation of the accounting system
now used by the District and Milwaukee County for
calculating the charges to sewerage service users.

Capital Charge

"The first basic assumption is that the County (Milwaukee
County) will sell bonds annually to finance the local
share of the MWPAP capital expenditures and that proper-
ty owners within the County will be taxed to pay the
amount by which the County's annual debt service re-
quirement exceeds the total payment received from
contract communities.

"The model adds the existing debt service on MMSD bonds
to that anticipated from financing the Pollution
Abatement Program to obtain the total capital charge
that must be allocated among users each year until all
debt is retired.  (The model also tracks and compares
the County's total outstanding debt and legal debt
limit.)

"The capital charge to communities outside Milwaukee
County is calculated by use of a formula agreed upon by
the District (MMSD)  and the affected communities. This
contract formula first calculates the District's
theoretical revenue requirement as the sum of a 7.5
percent return on the book value of all fixed assets in
service and a 2 percent depreciation allowance on all
depreciable assets.  The value of construction in
process is not included in the rate base.  Dividing
this revenue requirement by the total annual sewage
flow treated by the MMSD yields the dollar per gallon
rate used to calculate the capital charge to each
contract community.  A community's total flow is the
sum of base flow plus infiltration and inflow.

"The model uses the same flow and wasteload projections
for each community that has been used for sizing all
sewerage facilities.  Total system flow and wasteload
in any one year is calculated by summing over all com-
munities served in that year.

"Each year the total capital payments from contract
communities is subtracted from the County's debt service
requirement for the MMSD for that year to obtain the
total sewerage service costs that must be recovered via

                         12
-------
property taxes within the County.  Dividing by the
total equalized value of all Milwaukee County Communities
served by the District results in the $/l,000 tax.
Equalized valuation of each community is projected
through 2005 by deducting line A property items, which
become tax exempt by 1981, and then assuming a real
growth rate based on SEWRPC projections of the number
of acres of residential, commercial, and industrial
property.  In a given year, the same $/l,000 tax rate
is applied to all property within the County to cal-
culate the tax for each community and the tax for each
user class.

User Charge for Operation and Maintenance

"The second major assumption used in the model is that
the District will continue to allocate its operation
and maintenance costs among communities by the User
Charge system now in effect.  Estimates of District O&M
from now until the treatment plant improvements are
completed in 1986 have been obtained from District per-
sonnel.  Preliminary engineering estimates are used
thereafter.

"The total O&M expenses are allocated to the four cost
parameters as follows:

       Flow                26%
       Biochemical Oxygen
        Demand (BOD)       18%
       Total Suspended
        Solids (TSS)       51%
       Connections          5%

                          100%

"The percent of total costs allocated to each parameter
is the same as that projected by the District (MMSD) in
its 1979 operating budget.  The cost of treating wet
weather inflow is assigned to the connection charge.
Dry weather infiltration is assumed to be clear water,
and its treatment costs are allocated to flow.

"For each year the cost allocated to each parameter is
divided by the total amount of that parameter that the
District is projected to treat, to yield annual unit
costs in the following form.

        Flow                $/l,000 gallon
        BOD                 $/pound
        TSS                 $/pound
        Connections         $/connection

                        13
-------
     "These unit costs are the same for all users and are
     the basis for the charge to each community and to each
     user class.

     Summary

     "The model projects the annual charges to each community
     for purchasing sewer service from the MMSD.  For those
     communities with the option, the model also projects
     the annual cost of building and operating a local
     treatment system.  A summary of required bond issues,
     total outstanding county debt, legal county debt limit,
     and debt service requirements is provided by year to
     aid county financial planning."

PROJECT FUNDING

Federal and State funding for municipal sewage treatment
projects, such as the MWPAP, is controlled and allocated by
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources on the basis
of a formal priority list.  This list, the Project Priority
List (PPL), is prepared according to Wisconsin's federally-
approved priority system, Chapter NR 160 of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code (NR 160),* and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency  (EPA) regulations.  The PPL is used to determine the
distribution of Federal Construction Grants and Wisconsin
Fund grants.

The priority system assigns priority values and ranks projects
on the basis of a six factor formula described in NR 160.
Individual projects are assigned scores for each of the
following factors:  (1) river basin,  (2) health hazard,  (3)
assimilative capacity factor,  (4) phosphorus control,  (5)
population, and  (6) project category.  The scores are then
added to form the priority value, and the projects are
ranked in a descending order.  The 1980 PPL values and
rankings for MWPAP projects are shown in Table 3A.  The
1981 PPL for MWPAP projects is presented in Table 3B.

Federal Funding

Federal funds are administered by the EPA, and appropriated
to the State, as part of the Construction Grants Program of
the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments.
This program authorizes 75% federal funding of total costs
for eligible projects.  The Construction Grants Program
divides water pollution control projects into three steps of
development:  facilities planning  (Step 1); facilities
*NR 160 is currently undergoing revisions, which at this time
 are projected to be applicable to the 1982 PPL.
                             14
-------
W
r-5
        CO
        E-i
        2
        H
        2
        O
        cu

        §
        o
        rt
        o
        fa

        EH
        CO
        H
        H
        rt
        o
        H
        rt
         C
         0
        •H
        •p
         ft
        •H

         O
         tn

        a

co
H
2

O
•p

G
0

4->
8
G
C
O
u


in
O)
a
tn
0)
4-1
H
•H
•p"
01

Q)
tn
id
C
(d
S

tn
•H
H
O
CO


pletion, J.I. Expansion
e
8

G
rd
rH
ft

>
4-1
i-H
•H
U
rd
fa


lief -East Branch
01
rt
0)
•a
•H
CO

4-1
W
rd
01
4-)
j^j
0
z


0)
SH
B
CO

4J
3
O
CO

•»
CO
c
o
•H
4-1
•rl
T3
S


Interceptor

0
en
01
AS
tn
3
2
l
C
•rH
rH
C
rd
rH
fa


erceptor
4J
G
H

tn
^j
0)
G

0
U
tn
01
rH
*


ranch
m
rG
4-1
^
0
S

4-4
01
•rl
rH
01
rt

H
z



SH
01
0)
CO

4->
01
01

4J
CO
4-1
in
rH
GO



CO
H
2

0
•P

C
0
•H
4-1
0
C
G
0
O
0)
en
ection to MIS
c
c
o
u

«.
(d
4J
tn
•rH
>

T3
•a
3


!H
S
ft
01
0
%
4-1
G
H

SH
0)
>
•H
rt
4-1
o
0


nterceptor
H
AS
0)
01
Jq
O

f^
o
0
S
0)
•a
G









-P
cn
£>*,
0}
M

|5
0)
co


t Interceptor
tn
rd
(*1 -C
> -p
(N rH
- O
rH Z

ft C
01 -H
4-1 rH
co A;
G
O rd
CO SH
O fa


rH
O
ft
01
u
rH
0)
4J
G
H

AS
O!
01
£

AS
cS


rH
0
•P
ft
O
rH
0)
4J
C
H

01
tn

•H
jd
4-J
rH



ermantown Interceptor Construction
o
tn
rH
rH

fa

0)
0)
G

o
c
0)
S


rH
ft
01
o
rH
0)
>P
C
H

££
0)
01
rH
°
£
rd
>i


                      >iQQQQQQQQ
                     •Pcocococococococo
                     •H  22222222

                          0)  0)  0)   OI  01  01  0)
                                            'OlOlOlOlOIOlOlOl-rl

                                          er>33333333tn
                                                           QQQQQQCQQQ
                                                           COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOrnCO
                                                           22222222  s2

                                                       rHO)0)0)0)010)01O)0)01
                                  *   5   3
                                  rH  rH  rH
                         •rl  -rl  -rl  -rl  -H
                                           §   S
                                          rH  H .   .
                                          •rl  -rl -rl
                     222222222
     010)0)010)0)0)010)


 3333333333


 SS3§3-«§SS3
1-li-HrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrH
•rH  -rH -H  -rl  -rH  -rl  -rl  -H  -rl  -rl
2222222222
        O
        pa
        1-3

        §
        ft

        o
        CO
     SH  0)

     O  3
    •rl 1-H

     iH  ITJ
    ft >
                          >i
                     •O  H
                     G   ft
                     3   ft
                     fa  <
                      rlS
                     O  0)  4-1
4J
 G
H
                                                           O

                                                           CM
                                                      IT)  CTl
                                                  (N  ^  00
                                                  rH  rH  rH
                                                                                        
-------
CQ
ro
       CO
       EH
       §
       O

       CU
        PS
        o
        co
        H
        o
        H
        OS
        CJ
        w

        §
        CO
        cn


G
0
•H
U
S-l
O
CO
0)
Q






•P
U
0)
•I—I
o
CM

C,
0
•H
•P
U
3
-P
tn
C
0
CJ
Q
CO
a

0)
V
£*
0
(Tj
^
rH
•H
a
ement
Cn
g
s
tn
tj
•rH
rH
O
CO
Q
co
a

O

CO -H
rH
A 0)
•P OS
3
0 H
CO 2
Q Q
co co
a a

0) 0)
0) (1)
^ ^
3 3
(0 (3
3 3
rH rH
•rH -H
a a
s Interceptor
minee
rH O
CU C
G 0)
n a
O 
0)
0) VH
•H -P
rH CO
0)
OS -P

W rH
2 CO
Q Q
co co
a a

CU 0)
0) 0)
^ AJ
3 3
(« (S
3 3
rH rH
•H -H
a a

c
O M
•H O
4J P
O OH
3 (1)
M 0
•P M
tn cu
C -P
O G
CJ H


 ^>
tn
G ^i
 0
•H O
OS 3
-P i
CO OS
Q Q
CO CO
a a


r^4 rX
3 3
<« (0
3 3
H rH
•H -H
a a
 M  (1)
 O  3
•H  rH
 M  fl
04  >
                                        (•OCSCNCMCNlO'JCNCNtNCNCNCNtNCNCNtNCNCNCNCNrH
                       HJ
                       U
                       CU

                       C?  >i  G
                       rH  -P  Ifl
                       OH  -H  OS

                       rH  O  -P
                       00  -H  W
                       CTl  M -H
                       H  CM  iJ
                                                                          rHrHrHrHrHHHrHrHi-ICNtNtNrvJ
                                                                      16
-------
design  (Step 2); and construction  (Step 3).  It has been the
policy of the Wisconsin DNR to provide 75% federal funding
to all eligible Step 1 and Step 2 projects, regardless of
their priority value and ranking on the PPL.  Therefore, a
substantial percentage (approximately 62% in 1980) of the
total available federal grant money is set aside for Step 1
and Step 2 grants.

Approximately 25% of the 1980 federal grant money was available
for Step 3 Cconstruction) grants, which are determined on
the basis of the PPL.  The remainder of the federal money
(approximately 13%) was set aside for various other funding
requirements.   The 1981 PPL Fiscal Summary Sheet* shows the
federal funding scenario to be basically the same as that of
1980, in both amount and appropriation.  The 1981 fundable
range is for PPL project f 1-20.  This means that the twenty
highest ranking Step 3 projects on the 1981 PPL should pro-
bably be funded when construction is ready to proceed (see
Table 3B) .

Wisconsin Fund

The Wisconsin Fund is designed as a state supplement to
federal funds, to be available to municipal projects that
are not federally funded.  It is authorized to fund up to
60% of eligible municipal sewage treatment project construction
(Step 3) costs.  Those projects that fall below the fundable
range (for federal money) on the PPL, will be able to apply
for Wisconsin Fund grants.  To be eligible for Wisconsin
Fund grants,  the municipal project must be on the PPL, and
the municipality must submit an "Intent to Apply." Those
municipalities submitting Intents to Apply form a new list
which is used to allocate the Wisconsin Fund grants. This
list is based on the priority system and, therefore, the
projects will be ranked in the same order as on the PPL. DNR
estimates** for 1980 indicated that projects between
1 and 102 on the "Intent to Apply" list would have good
potential for receiving Wisconsin Fund grants (see Table
3A) .

Funding for the MWPAP

It has been estimated that Wisconsin will receive about $66
million of federal funds in 1980, of which nearly $40 million
will be available for allocation to MWPAP projects.  The
Wisconsin Fund will have approximately $60 million of available
funds in 1980, of which approximately $20 million will be
*   Harder, July 22, 1980.

**  Harder, Feb. 20, 1980.

                             17
-------
available for MWPAP projects.  This brings 1980 funding
expectations for the Milwaukee MWPAP to approximately  $60
million  ($40 million + $20 million).  This $60 million
figure has been used as the estimate of the maximum annual
amount of available funds throughout the construction  period
of the MWPAP.  It is based on an extension of the present
funding picture.  This $60 million ceiling assumes an  unchanging
level of nationally available federal funds  ($40 million).
However, recent trends and political opinion indicate  that
the amount of available federal funds may decline in future
years.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

MWPAP Alternatives
™"™™™"""-™™^™"'"—™^"""'^^^™^™^^^^^^^—^™""           *

Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 present the annual MMSD capital
expenditures, developed by the MWPAP, required to implement
any of the five alternatives.  These annual cash amounts are
in 1980 dollars.  Seventy-five percent grant funding,  up to
an annual ceiling of $60 million, has been assumed.  The
"local share" represents the annual amounts that are not
funded and must be locally financed.  Although the percent
funded is different for any given year, the total program
cost is 36% funded based on the $60 million annual maximum.
Table 9 shows the annual cash flows of the preferred local
alternatives for Caddy Vista, Germantown, Muskego, New
Berlin, South Milwaukee, and Thiensville.

Tables 10 and 11 are MWPAP estimates of optimistic and
pessimistic funding scenarios.  It is very difficult to
predict the extent to which Congress will be funding sewer-
age construction projects in the 1980s.  Therefore, the
MWPAP has developed these two extremes to compliment the
estimated $60 million annual ceiling analysis.

Optimistic Funding

The optimistic funding scenario assumes that the federal
ceiling would be $60 million annually, rather than the $40
million assumed in the analysis.  The Wisconsin Fund
contribution is assumed to remain at $20 million per year.
The total amount maximum funding under the optimistic
scenario is, therefore, $80 million  ($60 + $20).

Pessimistic Funding

The pessimistic funding picture has been developed by
assuming that 75% of Step 1 and Step 2 of the Construction
Grants process would be funded.  For Step 3, however,  only
60% funding was assumed  (Wisconsin Fund only), with an
annual maximum contribution of $20 million.

                             18
-------
                          TABLE 4

                   NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Year

1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
Cash Flow

23,568
38,234
15,374
22,139
20,391
 5,243
%    Grant Funding    %

0          0         100
0          0         100
0          0         100
0          0         100
0          0         100
0          0         100
Local Share

  23,568
  38,234
  15,374
  22,139
  20,391
   5,243
All Costs x  10

Source:  MWPAP Model 78A
                             19
-------
                           TABLE 5

                      ANNUAL EXPENDITURES

                     - Local Alternative -

                              Grant Funding
                                       Local Share
Year
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
TOTAL
Cash Flow
$ 23,568
38,234
52,291
85,710
146,991
182,787
196,754
156,466
157,135
386,301
172,482
32,472
187
909
907
$1,633,194

%
75
75
75
70
41
33
30
38
38
15
35
75
75
75
75
36%

Dollars
17,676
28,675
39,218
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
24,354
140
682
680
$591,425

%
25
25
25
30
59
67
70
62
62
85
65
25
25
25
25
64%

Dollars
5,892
9,559
13,073
25,710
86,991
122,787
136,754
96,466
97,135
326,301
112,482
8,118
47
227
227
$1,041,769

All Costs x
Source:  MWPAP
Model 70A
                              20
-------
Year
                            TABLE 6

                      ANNUAL EXPENDITURES

                    - Regional Alternative -
Cash Flow
Grant Funding
      Dollars
                                                     Local Share
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
TOTAL
$ 23,658
38,234
53,353
89,213
162,685
234,743
270,787
239,684
210,977
188,176
112,609
32,479
187
909
907
$1,658,511

75
75
75
67
37
26
22
25
28
32
53
75
75
75
75
36%

17,676
28,675
40,015
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
24,359
140
682
680
592,227

o
25
25
25
33
63
74
78
75
72
68
47
25
25
25
25
64%
	
-UU.LJ.Cti S
5,892
9,559
13,338
29,213
102,685
174,743
210,787
179,684
150,977
128,176
52,609
8,120
47
227
227
1,066,284

All Costs x $10'
Source:  MWPAP Model 6SM
                              21
-------
Year
                         TABLE  7

                    ANNUAL  EXPENDITURES

                - Combination Alternative
Cash Flow
Grant Funding
       Dollars
Local Share
      Dollars
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
TOTAL
$ 23,568
38,234
53,255
87,816
159,285
219,929
268,360
239,062
210,915
188,176
112,609
32,479
187
909
907
$1,635,691
75
75
75
68
38
27
22
25
28
32
53
75
75
75
75
36%
17,676
28,675
39,941
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
24,359
140
682
680
$592,153
25
25
25
32
62
73
78
75
72
68
47
25
25
25
25
64%
5,892
9,559
13,314
27,816
99,285
159,929
208,360
179,062
150,915
128,176
52,609
8,120
47
227
227
$1,043,538
 All  Costs  X  $10"
 Source:   WPAP Model 61A
                             22
-------
Year
                                TABLE 8

                           ANNUAL EXPENDITURES

                        - Mosaic Alternative -
Cash Flow
Grant Funding
       Dollars
Local Share
    Dollars
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
TOTAL
$ 23
38
53
89
162
233
269
239
210
188
112
32



$1,656

,568
,234
,323
,158
,495
,652
,851
,684
,977
,176
,609
,479
187
909
907
,209

75
75
75
67
37
26
22
25
28
32
53
75
75
75
75
36%

17
28
39
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
24



$592

,676
,675
,992
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,359
140
682
680
,204

25
25
25
33
63
74
78
75
72
68
47
25
25
25
25
64%

5,
9,
13,
29,
102,
173,
209,
179,
150,
128,
52,
8,



$1,064

892
559
331
158
495
652
851
684
977
176
609
120
47
227
227
,005

All Costs x  $10"
Source:  WPAP Model 60A
                                  23
-------
                            TABLE 9
        CASH FLOWS FOR LOCAL ALTERNATIVES (0% FUNDING)


     Muskego               South                    Germantown
     NE to Land            Milwaukee                Land Application
                  A
1980 $     131             $   30                   $   115
1981       241                 55                       211
1982       837                191                       735
1983     4,797              1,091                     4,210
1984     4,116                936                     3,612
1994       858                225                       584
1995        10                  3                         7
1998       482              1,275                       580
1999         5                 14                         7
        11,477              3,820                    10,061


      New Berlin           Caddy                    Thiensville
      SE to Land           Vista                    	

1980  $    417             $   24                   $    50
1981       770                 44                        93
1982     2,676                155                       323
1983    15,332                886                     1,850
1984    13,156                760                     1,588
1994     2,581                 43                       119
1995        29                                            1
1998     1,026                                          420
1999    	12               	90                   	5
        35,999              2,002                     4,449


                         All Costs x 103

     Source:  WPAP Models:   AL101, 901, 201, 401, 601, 801
                               24
-------
Year
                            TABLE 10

                       ANNUAL EXPENDITURES

                - Optimistic Funding Assumption -

                        (Mosaic Alternative)
Cash Flow
Grant Funding
%     Dollars
 Local  Share
!>    Dollars
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
TOTAL
$ 23,568
38,234
53,323
89,158
162,495
233,652
269,851
239,684
210,977
188,176
112,609
32,479
187
909
907
$1,656,209

75
75
75
75
49
34
30
33
38
43
71
75
75
75
75
45

17,676
28,675
39,992
66,869
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
24,359
140
682
680
$739,073

25
25
25
25
51
66
70
67
62
57
29
25
25
25
25
55

5,892
9,559
13,331
22,289
82,495
153,652
189,851
159,684
130,977
108,176
32,609
8,120
47
227
227
$917,136

All Costs x 10-
Source:  MWPAP Model 65A
                               25
-------
Year

1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992

TOTAL
                            TABLE 11
                       ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
               - Pessimistic Funding Assumption -
                      (Mosaic Alternative)

                              Grant Funding
Local Share
Cash. Flow %
$














$1
23,568
38,234
53,323
89,158
162,495
233,652
269,851
239,684
210,977
188,176
112,609
32,479
187
909
907
,656,209
75
75
72
58
28
13
13
16
16
13
18
60
75
60
60
23
Dollars
17,676
- 28,675
38,383
51,586
45,960
30,917
33,913
37,335
33,592
24,447
20,092
19,495
140
546
544
$383,301
%
25
25
28
42
72
87
87
84
84
87
82
40
25
40
40
77
Dollars
5,892
9,559
14,940
37,572
116,805
202,735
235,938
202,349
177,385
163,729
92,517
12,984
47
363
363
$1,273,178

All Costs x 10'
Source:  MWPAP Model  64A
                                26
-------
Inflation

Predicting future annual inflation rates for a twenty year
period could be an extremely speculative endeavor.  Inflated
construction costs would have to be accompanied by an array
of other relevant inflation rates, such as property values,
incomes, grant funds, and others.  As an alternative, an
assumption that the relationship among these variables will
remain roughly constant has been made.  For example, it is
assumed that incomes would rise at a rate comparable to the
rate of tax increases due to inflation.  Under this assump-
tion, the percentage of household income devoted to sewerage
improvements would be unaffected by inflation.  This reasoning
has led to the conclusion that a 0% inflation rate for all
dollar amounts would allow a more representative forecast,

The County Debt

General Obligation (G.O.) bonds issued by Milwaukee County
for MMSD Sewerage improvements contribute to the Milwaukee
County debt level.  Column 4 of Table 12 illustrates the
cummulative effect on Milwaukee County's debt level when the
MWPAP debt is added to the existing debt and no other projects
are debt-financed by the County.  Column 5 is an estimate of
what the County debt limit would be in any given year based
on:  1) a .4% real annual growth rate in County property
value; and 2) a debt limit defined by state law as 5% of
the equalized valuation of the issuing municipality.  Under
these assumptions, the County debt limit would be exceeded
in 1986.  The MWPAP alone would exceed the limit by 1987.
If Milwaukee County were to float bonds to finance any
projects other than MMSD improvements, the debt limit would
be exceeded before 1986.  In addition, it must be recognized
that in accordance with state law, the County has the option
to raise capital for MMSD projects through special property
tax assessments.  This approach does not increase the County's
bonded indebtedness.

If 10% annual construction inflation for the MWPAP and 12%
annual inflation in Milwaukee County property value is
assumed, the County debt limit would not be exceeded.  Table
13 presents the results of this inflation analysis.  The
debt level approaches the debt limit in 1986 and 1987.  Al-
though the limit would, technically, not be exceeded, impacts
to bond interest rates and marketability could still occur.

Bond Rating

Implementation of the MWPAP could affect Milwaukee's bond
rating.  Municipal bonds are rated by two major rating
agencies (Moody's and Standard and Poors)  as a measure of
                             27
-------
                 3 .Q  2
                 0  1) •-«
                 O C J
o <*i GO m  f^
<^ o^ in oj  eft

r* o -v co  r-4
O i-4 i—t •—I  (N
CO 03 03 CO  03
                                                        » "-* O
                                                         CO ^
                                                         o CD
                    CO  03 O3 GO CO
co co  in en  o
r* r-  en CN  co
I*H ^  o> 03  vfl
                                                             CO CO  CO CO CO
                                                                                 m  r- — 4  tn ^
                                                                                 cocooc^^
                                                                                 CO  CD CO  CO 03
                                                                                                      in o>  CN m
                                                                                                      O ^o  m u")
                                                                                                                                    o  C -^ — t  — <
Q
Z
                 C 4J  0)
                 3 .2  >
                 o  a  o
                              10  vo O V O\
                              r>  us -H —i -H
                              •H  <^ VO -^ O
                                                                                                      CN cs oa ^0  rn
                                                                                                      OJ i—I U3 03  03
                                                                                                      03 O r* r-
r* ^ ^- ffi  in
as ON co <~i  CN
                                                                                     o  ON  M 18
M S ~"
a1^

Q£
M 5.
£
a
!^i JJ ^)
0-^ ^
^. ^
0. Q J







^a a
a) uo
31 U E
TJ 3 3
s ra 3" u
0 ra 1> O
23 H. BJ Ch
fn 2 ^ o en S S o S S i? m S S S 2 [n S In S m o — an co 2 o r? S "
n 







^ 03 m CN »"^ ^* P* ^ en o r"** ^* f**
f^mcninin car*n*ofN ^fN(N
n^^-oco iaen-O03  3
              c     —  01

              w  C  JJ  0
              w  a  ja  IM
              3  0  0)  O
              o u  Q  a
                               tnomoo     ininooo
                                                                        omoinm
                                                                                            oino
                                                                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                                                                         -o
                               O —4  (N 1*1 T
                                                   in  vo f"* 03  o>

                                                   sn  en en c^>  o>
                                         O  p-l (N (^ T
                                         eft  c\ en c" en
                                         o^  en en en en
                                                              in ^o  r^ co en
                                                              o> en  en en en
                                                              en en  en en en
                                          O r— oj  <••> •^t
                                          O O o  o o
                                          o o o  o o
                                          CN !N IN  IN (N
in ^o (^ co  en
o o o o  c?
o o o o  o
;N C^i (N (N  (N
                                                                  28
-------
                 U"t CN V kO O
                 O 03 03 O ^H
                                     oo  oo in CD  ,—t
                                         CO CN  ft tN  <"">
                                         o in  ^ r*  o\
                                         co 
    0  V  0)
   U Q  J
                                                                              *!• O O"» in  r
                                                                              CQ <—i Ch p-t
                                                                                                   ^o r* ca ^  C
                                                                                                   o o -v co
                                                                                                   in o ya co
                                                                                                                                               o  o
                                                                                                                                             \ co  r-
                                                                                                                                               tn  1*1
r- T CN ^
O o i—i ft
CO ON O —*
                                            •«• ca  co
                                            co en  m
                                                                                                      <%  CD o  <
                                                                                                      CN  \fl T
                                                                                                                                               i-^  in
                                                                                                                                             i co  &
                                                                                                                                               CN  tn
                                                                                                    •COCAOCN     *^^^^CN
   iJ     ^
   C  JJ  0)
   3  ja  >
   O  3)  OJ
   CJ  Q  J
r* OD r* co  t/i
co o CN m  vo
—4   CO
       w o
          30
          o
11 O  < ,->
CO w  >
> E-      x
-3 U  >•

Z S  S JJ
•^ ^  U  yj
   w  ft.  o
Z 2  O  U
o o  «
M y  a* FH
   rt>
   U     -*
   ^ jj  cy
   O £.  >
   U  U  ffl
   a. o  -
                    pj m r~ in
                    ^ ^- ,-H fN
                    o 
-------
the risk of municipal default.  The greater the risk, the
lower the credit rating and the higher the interest rate
that must be paid by the municipality to attract investors.
Numerous factors, such as accounting practices, financial
statements, and past budget and audit reports are used by
the rating agencies to assess the "credit worthiness" of the
municipality.

Another consideration of the credit rating agencies is the
"overlapping per capita debt" of the residents within the
municipality.   Although the annual debt service for capital
improvements may be slight, they have to be evaluated in the
context of other annual tax payments the citizen must make
(e.g., municipal and school taxes).  Milwaukee County has a
history of sound debt and financial practices and has main-
tained a triple A (Aaa) rating from both major credit
agencies.  However, on June 16, 1980, Moody's Investors Ser-
vices lowered the ratings of the County, City, and MMSD
bonds (.issued by the County) from Aaa to Aa.

The June 16th issue of Moody's Bond Survey (p. 1155)
characterized the ratings revision:  "Although current
financial position and underlying economic resources remain
strong, the magnitude of County funding required for compliance
with stringent environmental regulations detracts from
overall bond security."  The article concluded by stating
specifically,  "Inherent risks of a sewerage program of this
scale are recognized, as are the potential problems of
managing this program by a district that, as now constituted,
has neither direct taxing nor bonding authority."

It has been estimated by the MWPAP that Milwaukee County's
debt limit would be reached by 1986, if there were no
borrowing for any other County purposes.  This projection
assumes that the "non-fundable" portion of the project costs
would be financed by issuing 20-year general obligation
bonds at 6% interest, with 0% inflation, and a .4% real
annual growth rate in Milwaukee County property valuation.
Once the debt limit is reached, future projects could only
be financed by means other than general obligation bond
issues.  As the legal debt limit is approached, the County's
bond rating would tend to decline.

Even if the Wisconsin statutes are amended to allow the
MMSD, rather than the County, to issue general obligation
bonds and levy the necessary taxes, the County's bond rating
could be affected.  MMSD bonds would not contribute to the
County debt, but they would increase the "overlapping" per
capita debt.
                             30
-------
Table 14 displays the bond ratings for twenty-three counties
around the nation.  All information in the table refers to
the counties.  City names appear only for identification of
the counties.  Table 14 is meant only to provide the reader
with some additional information on other counties that
issue general obligation bonds.  The bonded debt of the
counties listed ranges from $1.4 million to $441. million.
Milwaukee falls between these extremes with a debt of $194
million.  By 1988, assuming implementation of the Mosaic
Alternative, the Milwaukee Coanty debt would have reached
$995 million.  If the bonded debts on the table remained
relatively constant, Milwaukee would have the greatest debt
of those listed in the table.  Also noteworthy, in Table 14,
is the total Milwaukee County tax levy of $89 million.  The
MMSD debt alone will average $86 million per year during the
planning period.  After contract payments are subtracted,
the County would still have a MMSD tax levy of almost $80
million. In other words, the future average annual (1985-
2005) County tax levy for MMSD debt service will almost
equal the total County tax levy in 1978.  Milwaukee County's
per capita tax levy falls about midway between the extreme
values in the table.  Assuming the $93 per capita value
almost doubles, Milwaukee County would have one of the
highest per capita tax levies.

Moody's Bond Rating Symbols

The following descriptions of the different rating symbols
refer to municipal general obligation bonds defined by
Moody's Investors Service as "validly issued and legally
binding evidences of indebtedness secured by the full faith,
credit and taxing powers of the issuer."*

Aaa- The best quality bonds carrying the smallest degree
     of investment risk.

Aa-  High quality—together with the Aaa, they comprise what
     are generally known as high-grade bonds.  Long term
     risks appear somewhat larger than Aaa securities.

A-   Considered upper medium-grade obligations.  Elements
     may be present which suggest a susceptibility to
     impairment sometime in the future.

Baa- These bonds are considered medium-grade obligations.
     Certain protective elements may be lacking or unreliable
     over time.  These bonds have speculative characteristics
*This definition, as well as all of the symbols' definitions
 are taken from p. VI of Moody's Municipal and Government
 Manual.
                             31
-------
                    HI
                    JJ
                    •-t  Si
                    o, >
                 > fl  0)
                 jj u -;
                 c
                 3 U  X
                 0 a)  IB
                 u a. r>
                    C
                    3  X
                en 0  «5
                -i O f*
                03
                              oooooooo
                              oooooooo
                              oooooooo
                                               O O
                                               O O
                                               O O
O
O
O
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo
       en
       a
       M
       E-
       Z


       8
C  it!  T3 -U
3 -U  C £1
O  0  0  a
C/ 5<  as Q
                                    ^t ^^     CO CD Q9
                                   »cocPi— *i^r^r*
                                    r** i^* en   t   i   I   co

                                                                                    CO —^ ^^ CO 03
                                                                                          en
                                  t   (^> ^4  i   ro m fn   I   !  ^-»
                                 »*   i  m ^H   I   I   I   fN ~H (*)
                                  I   (N  I   I   ^4 F* (N   t   i   I
o
f*l
 I
                                                               c" r* c'v •—* r^ --^ t
                                                               r^  I  p*» 0*1 r^ eft   i  n» r*-   I
                                                                I  I-H  i  i^  t  r^>  <-H  i   i   ^
                                                               i-^cio  I   O  t   moorn
                                                               ro  I  fn ,-H m ^H   t  n m   i
                                                                I  !N  I   I    I   I   ,     a
                 JJ <  ~4
                 C O  3
                 3 co  a,
                 o o>  o
                 U -*  a.
                 ooooooooooo
                 ooooooooooo
o
o
in
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo
                                         C a
                                         0 CT<
                                         jj O  m     01  c  >.
                                         "H .s  o  ffl •««  0 JQ
                              -t  -H  O  =  >i-^  >i u  u  a)  t!
                               3i40"53HJH)(5i a
                                                                       18  O  C -H
                                                                       s  a « 3
                                                                       O  O 4= 0
                                                                                                        O  3)
                      -   -  5i    -H
                  U  CPU  U  b Q
                            01  c
                            E  X C ,
                            IB  a) (8
                                         4J T3            O
                                         US C            Q.
                                         CiB     4JCIB91
                               <8'-tto
                                                          3      iBJ<     i^jaOiBC—*J-H
                                                          t!      «DW   •C01kJO4^O     ^J
                                                          3      ^iBfBQJJ-1              JJJJ
                                                         -i      e  s  ^  o  •«  •   •  e c **  a
                                                         •*H     -^01^^-HJJjJi8iB(8ai
                                                         S     SSOo«a
-------
Ba-  These bonds are judged to have speculative elements;
     their future cannot be considered as well assured.
     Protection of interest and principal payments may be
     very moderate.

B-   Assurance of interest and principal payments may be
     small.

Caa- Poor standing;  may be in default.

Ca-  Highly speculative; often in default.

C-   Lowest rated class of bonds.

1-   Those bonds in the A and Baa groups which Moody's
     believes possess the strongest investment attributes
     are designated by the symbols Al and Baal.

The Local System Level Alternative

The following communities would upgrade, expand, or construct
new public wastewater treatment facilities:  Thiensville,
Germantown,  Muskego, Caddy Vista Sanitary District, New
Berlin, and South Milwaukee.  Local connectors from outlying
counties to Milwaukee County would not be needed under this
plan.

Assumptions

1.   20-year general obligation level debt service bonds
     issued by local municipalities at 7% interest for
     capital improvements.  This pertains to the six
     communities listed above.

2.   2 MMSD-operated public treatment plants are Jones
     Island and South Shore.

3.   MMSD constructs all elements of plan including sewer
     rehabilitation and relief in and out of Milwaukee
     County.  However, the MMSD neither finances nor
     constructs anything in the six communities recommended
     to adopt a local solution.

4.   20-year general obligation level debt service bonds
     issued at 6% interest by Milwaukee County for MMSD
     capital improvements.

5.   Existing contract formula for connected communities
     beyond Milwaukee County.

6.   Present cost distribution methods of non-Milwaukee
     County communities (whether connected or locally

                             33
-------
     independent)  incorporated into analysis.

7.    The net amount of annual MMSD debt service (after
     subtracting contract community payments)  is recovered
     by ad valorem taxation of Milwaukee County property.

8.    Grant eligible expenditures are assumed 75% funded to a
     maximum of $60 million per year.

9.    County equalized property valuation is assumed to rise
     at a real growth rate of .4% per year.

10.  Costs are expressed in 1980 dollars and 0% inflation is
     assumed.

11.  Projected design year flows are assumed to be achieved.

Regional System Level Alternative

The Regional Alternative would entail a total regional
system operated by the MMSD.  All public treatment facilities
in the planning area, other than the Jones Island and South
Shore Treatment Plants, would be abandoned  (this includes
abandonment of the South Milwaukee Treatment Plant).  In all
other respects, this plan is identical to the Mosaic Alternative
 (MMSD Recommended Plan).

Assumptions

1.   Two MMSD-operated public treatment plants:  Jones
     Island and South Shore.

2.   MMSD constructs all elements of plan, including sewer
     rehabilitation and relief work in and out of Milwaukee
     County, and any local connectors required outside
     Milwaukee County.

3.   20-year general obligation level debt service bonds
     issued at 6% interest rate by Milwaukee County for MMSD
     capital improvements.

4.   Existing contract formula for non-Milwaukee County
     communities.

5.   Current cost distribution methods of non-Milwaukee
     County communities incorporated into analysis.

6.   The net amount of annual MMSD debt service  (after
     subtracting contract community payments) is recovered
     by ad valorem taxation of Milwaukee County property.
                             34
-------
7.   Grant eligible expenditures are assumed 75% funded to a
     maximum of $60 million per year.

8.   County equalized property valuation is assumed to rise
     at a real growth rate of .4% per year.

9.   Costs are expressed in 1980 dollars and 0% inflation is
     assumed.

10.  Projected design year flows are assumed to be achieved.

Mosaic Alternative (MMSD Recommended Plan)

This alternative is similar to the Regional Alternative. The
only local community that would continue to operate a public
treatment facility would be South Milwaukee.  The alter-
native calls for MMSD to finance and construct all aspects
of the MWPAP both in and out of Milwaukee County (except
South Milwaukee).

Assumptions

1.   Two MMSD-operated public treatment plants:  Jones
     Island and South Shore.  One locally-owned and operated
     plant: South Milwaukee.

2.   MMSD constructs all elements of plan, including sewer
     rehabilitation and relief work both in and out of
     Milwaukee County and any local connectors needed out-
     side the County.

3.   20-year general obligation level debt service bonds
     issued at 6% interest rate by Milwaukee County for MMSD
     capital improvements.

4.   20-year general obligation level debt service bonds
     issued by South Milwaukee at 7% interest rate for
     capital improvements.

5.   Existing contract formula for non-Milwaukee County
     communities.

6.   Present cost distribution methods of non-Milwaukee
     County communities incorporated into analysis.

7.   South Milwaukee distributes cost by ad valorem property
     tax.

8.   The net amount of annual MMSD debt service (after
     subtracting contract community payments)  is recovered
     by ad valorem taxation of Milwaukee County property by
                             35
-------
     Milwaukee County.

9.   Grant eligible expenditures are assumed 75% funded to a
     maximum of $60 million per year.

10.  County equalized property valuation is assumed to rise
     at a real growth rate of .4% per year.

11.  Costs are expressed in 1980 dollars and 0% inflation is
     assumed.

12.  Projected design year flows are assumed to be achieved.

Combination Alternative (MMSD Recommended Plan, Except No
MMSD Financing of Construction Beyond Milwaukee County)

The MMSD has not previously financed construction outside
Milwaukee County.  This alternative assumes that either
legal or political reasons would prevent the MMSD from
financing construction outside of Milwaukee County.  Non-
Milwaukee County communities would finance and construct
their own connections to the MMSD and perform their respective
sewer rehabilitation and relief construction.  Otherwise,
this plan is identical to the Mosaic Alternative.

Assumptions

1.   Two MMSD-operated public treatment plants:  Jones
     Island and South Shore.  One local plant:  South
     Milwaukee.

2.   MMSD constructs all elements of the plan within
     Milwaukee County  (except South Milwaukee).

3.   20-year general obligation level debt service bonds
     issued at 6% interest rate by Milwaukee County for MMSD
     capital improvements.

4.   20-year general obligation level debt service bonds
     issued by South Milwaukee at 7% interest  for capital
     improvements.

5.   20-year general obligation level debt service bonds
     issued at 7% interest rate by local communities outside
     Milwaukee County for construction of local connectors
     and sewer rehabilitation and relief.

6.   Existing contract formula for non-Milwaukee County
     communities.

7.   Present cost distribution methods of non-Milwaukee
     County communities incorporated into analysis.

                             36
-------
8.   The net amount of annual MMSD debt service  (after
     subtracting contract community payments) is recovered
     by ad valorem taxation of Milwaukee County property.

9.   Grant eligible expenditures are assumed 75% funded to a
     maximum of $60 million per year.

10.  County equalized property valuation is assumed to rise
     at a real growth rate of .4% per year.

11.  Costs are expressed in 1980 dollars and 0% inflation is
     assumed.

12.  Projected design year flows are assumed to be achieved.

MMSD DEBT SERVICE

Assuming Milwaukee County property is taxed to finance the
annual debt service (after contract community payments have
been deducted), the annual amounts paid by the Residential,
Commercial and Industrial classes are shown on Table 15.
Residences will finance 64% of the debt because they comprise
64% of the County property value.

The total and average annual MMSD debt service appears in
Table 16.  All of the amounts include a small existing debt
which is about 4% of the MWPAP debt.  The highest tax rate
occurs under the Mosaic Alternative($4.37/$1000)* because
Milwaukee County residents would finance all construction in
outlying counties.  Non-Milwaukee County communities would
continue to pay according to the existing contract formula.
The Local Alternative has a lower tax rate associated with
it ($4.33/flow) because many interceptors in Milwaukee
County, as well as connections beyond, would not be built
and, thus, not financed by the County.  The fact that the
cost to Milwaukee County residences drops with the Local
Alternative is noteworthy.  It demonstrates that, assuming
Milwaukee County finances all construction (as the Mosaic
Alternative indicates), the burden to Milwaukee County
residents increases if the communities of Caddy Vista,
Germantown, Muskego, New Berlin, and Thiensville connect to
the MMSD instead of maintaining local treatment facilities.

In other words, the full cost of the facilities needed to
connect these communities would not be recovered under the
existing contract formula during the planning period.  To a
degree, Milwaukee County residents would subsidize the cost
of connecting the outlying communities.

*The $4.37/$1000 represents the tax rate per $1000 equalized
 property value.
                             37
-------
                               TABLE 15

                 ANNUAL  DEBT  SERVICE BY  CLASS (xlOOO) :
            MOSAIC  ALTERNATIVE (MMSD RECOMMENDED PLAN)
MMSD  Debt  Service
Allocation to Milwaukee
County
1980
81
32
83
84
85
36
87
38
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
2000
01
02
03
04
2005
$12,255
12,826
14,625
22,422
35,974
51,271
65,137
76,570
86,089
39,200
89,486
89,348
87,141
87,115
87,097
87,088
37,104
86,232
86,305
84,390
84,603
83,674
81,357
72,646
57,755
39,722
Residential
(64% of total)
Commercial     Industrial
(26% of total) (10% of total)
$ 7,843
8,209
9,360
14,350
23,023
32,813
41,688
49,005
55,097
57,088
57,271
57,183
55,770
55,754
55,742
55,736
55,747
55,188
55,235
54,010
54,146
53,551
52,068
46,493
36,963
25,442
$ 3,186
3,335
3,803
5,830
9,353
13,330
16,936
19,908
22,383
23,192
23,266
23,230
72,657
22,650
22,645
22,643
22,647
22,420
22,439
21,941
21,997
21,755
21,153
18,888
15,016
10,328
$1,226
1,282
1,462
2,242
3,597
5,127
6,514
7,657
8,609
8,920
8,949
3,935
3 ,714
3,711
8,710
8f708
8,710
8,623
8,631
8,439
8,460
8,367
8,136
7,265
5,776
3,972
Source:  MWPAP Model 6QA
                       38
-------
J
CQ
•S
6-
     B5
     ,4
     •S
     Cd
     en
     a
     en
Average Milwaukee
Average Annual County
Annual Debt Service Average
e Contract Allocated * Annual
en
IB
M
01

i^





































Community To Milwaukee Tax Rate
rH
IB
3
C
C
<





Q
W

2

rH
IB
JJ
£























ervice Payments County Property For MMSD
005* 1985-2005* 1985-2005* 1985-2005
to

jj
_Q
1)
a



0)
o
•H
>
Id
 rH
« «.
ID V£
CO CO







•O1 f>
r-- IN
in CM
^ «
O ^0
PS \@
ff\ C*N
rH rH






TJ
H)
•O
C
V
£
0
o

a:
rH
IB Q ^*
c o cn c
0 -H S IB
•H IB S rH
tn m — Ou
QJ 0
OS £
VO
o
o
vo
CO
Of
\Q
(N
^
p*








in
CO

«
r-
m
rH






.M.
CO
en
1
0
CO
en
,—4
•ta*

C
0
•H
JJ
O
rtl

0
z
on
(N
in
en
vo
CO
I'O
in
»
^«
CO







m
us
in
*
0
ro
en
^













C
0
•H
JJ
(B
C
•H
g
0
o





















01
14
IB
rH
^
O
'O

IJH
O

01
13
C
IB
in
3
O
J=
JJ
C

*














tn
•O
C 01
O JJ
J3 IB
\4
O JJ
• tn
O QJ
^
^1 QJ
IB JJ
01 C
>< -H

0 OP
(N VO


••
w
c
0
•H
JJ
a
E
in
CO
<
m of $60 million
3
E
•H
X
IB
g

,_!
IB
3
C
e
IB

C
IB

O
JJ C
01 O
IB C JJ

rH T3 rH
0 C «H
T3 3 C
&4 M
O
00 c*>
en in OP
rH t^ O














(4^
rH
VO

w
1^"
CO
r-

^
^j
a
KO

«.
E
en
V£

^
O
p*

01
rH
H)
•O
0
Jg

cu
rij
Cu
s



• •
CD
0
!H
3
O
en
                                                        39
-------
The substantially lower average annual household capital
charges for residents beyond Milwaukee County are a function
of the existing contract formula.  Financing the debt service
on 20-year bonds Cas Milwaukee County residents must do by
way of the property tax) translates into a much higher
household cost than contracting for service under the current
formula Cas communities beyond Milwaukee County do) which
consists of a 7.5% reasonable return on investment for the
MMSD and a 2% depreciation on all assets in place.  This
disparity between in-County and out-of-County capital
charges could be mitigated by modifying the terms of the
contract formula to create changes outside the County that
are approximately equal to charges within Milwaukee County.

The Regional Alternative, as well as the Combination
Alternative, are the least expensive for Milwaukee County
residents.  The Regional, at $4.29 per $1000., is cheaper
than the $4.37 per $1000. of the Mosaic, because almost $500
million worth of equalized property from South Milwaukee
would join the MMSD.  However, the $.08 per $1000. savings
to County residents ($4.00 per year on a $50,000 house)
comes at an expense of a 600% increase to South Milwaukee
households, where annual costs would increase from $33.
(with Local) to $238.  It is much cheaper for South Milwaukee
residents to improve their local plant than to join the
MMSD.

The Combination Alternative, which reflects no MMSD-financed
construction beyond Milwaukee County, would also have the
smallest burden on Milwaukee County residents.  This plan
assumes that any community that connects to the MMSD must
finance its own connector to the County line, and also
finance its own sewer rehabilitation for Infiltration/Inflow
(I/I) reduction.

Under this plan, South Milwaukee remains local, all other
communities connect.

Community Cost Distribution Methods

Estimating average annual household capital charges by
community for Milwaukee County involves multiplying the
average annual tax rate times the community's average
residential property value.  Estimating average annual
household capital charges in municipalities beyond Milwaukee
County, however, is not as direct.  Contract communities,
and communities with local plants, are not constrained to
usage of the ad valorem property tax for capital cost
recovery as is Milwaukee County. Consequently, individual
communities were contacted to acquire information on the
methods used to either distribute the MMSD capital bill or
                             40
-------
the local capital bill, depending on whether they were
connected to the MMSD or operated their own treatment
facility.  The capital cost distribution methods were col-
lected for Brookfield, Butler, Caddy Vista, Elm Grove,
Germantown, Mequon, Muskego, New Berlin, and Thiensville.*
In addition, it was necessary to obtain information on South
Milwaukee because, although it is in Milwaukee County, it is
not part of the MMSD.

Operation and Maintenance Calculations for Communities with
a Local Alternative

All of the communities with a Local Alternative (Caddy
Vista, Germantown, Muskego, New Berlin, and Thiensville),
except South Milwaukee, distribute O&M and capital costs
together on a per household basis.  The details of each
community's capital charges are explained on the page pre-
ceding each community table.  O&M household costs are not
mentioned in those explanations, but are discussed here.

Under any alternative that calls for a community to connect
to the MMSD, household O&M costs are assumed to be the same
regardless of the community they are in.  The reason for
this is that the MMSD determines the total residential bill
for any community based on the User Charge Program.  Assuming
the individual community distributes the cost by the same
method that determined it, all household O&M bills for
anyone connected to, or within, the MMSD should be about the
same.  Therefore, O&M bills were calculated only for the
local alternatives.  The 1985-2005 average annual O&M
community cost was multiplied by the residential percentage
and then divided by the average number of sewered households
in the community during the planning period.

COMMUNITY TABLE DESCRIPTION (See Table 17)

Operation and Maintenance  (O&M)

This row is defined by 1985-2005 average annual total
community O&M cost, including connection fees and user
charges for all user classes.   All communities, in and out
of Milwaukee County, are apportioned their share of the
*No data were gathered for Menomonee Falls-because, when
contacted, the Village official explained that their system
is being revised to accommodate connection to the MMSD.
Therefore, it was assumed for the analysis that Menomonee
Falls distributes its capital bill to the property tax.
                             41
-------
TABLE 17
THE
COiMMUNITY
TABLE
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Eaualized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value (S)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
















REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
















MOSAIC
(MMSD
RECOMMENDED
PLAN)













•


COMBINATION
(MMSD RECOM-
MENDED PLAN,
BUT NO MMSD
FINANCING
OF CONSTRUC-
TION BEYOND
MILWAUKEE
COUNTY)
















     42
-------
total MMSD annual O&M budget according to the MMSD's approved
User Charge program. The computer model simulates the user
charge and, based on facility planning estimates of future
annual MMSD O&M costs, distributes the cost by community.

Operation & Maintenance Connection

This is 1985-2005 average annual community O&M cost on the
connector that would be required for any community to join
the MMSD.  This cost would be borne by the community only
under the assumption that, for legal or political reasons,
the MMSD would not construct outside Milwaukee County.  The
function of this local connector is to carry the community's
flow to the Milwaukee County line where it would join a
Metropolitan Intercepting Sewer  (MIS).  As such, the con-
nection O&M cost appears only in the last column of the
table.  Assuming the MMSD does finance these local connectors,
their presentation enables the reader to identify the cost
of maintaining these connectors.

Capital

This row represents the 1985-2005 average annual capital
charge for the whole community.  The average has been calculated
using the MWPAP financial model output.  For a Milwaukee
County community, the figure is essentially the result of
the total taxable property in the community times the tax
rate of a given alternative.  For a suburb outside the
County, the figure represents a simulation of the contract
formula as currently defined.

Connection Capital

This row is 1985-2005 average annual capital cost of con-
structing the local connector to carry the flow from a non-
Milwaukee County suburb to an MIS at the Milwaukee County
border.  The local municipality would finance this construction
if MMSD-finaneing of all MWPAP-related construction would be
legally or politically unacceptable.  Thus, this cost figure
only appears in the fourth column.  If the Mosaic Alternative
is implemented, then this figure reveals the extent to which
the MMSD is financing construction out of Milwaukee County.
Because this figure assumes local financing, the 20-year
G.O. bonds are assumed to pay 7% interest, instead of the 6%
assumed, when Milwaukee County issues bonds for MMSD.

Rehabilitation and Relief Capital

Local sewer relief and rehabilitation is necessary to reduce
the system's level of I/I.  Under all the alternatives, the
MMSD finances local relief and rehabilitation within Milwaukee
County.  Under three alternatives, the Local, Regional, and

                             43
-------
Mosaic, the MMSD finances relief and rehabilitation outside
the County.  However, just as with the local connectors, if
MMSD would not or could not finance construction outside the
County, the cost of relief and rehabilitation for the suburbs
outside the County would appear as in column 4.  The costs
are 1985-2005 average annuals based on 20-year G.O. bonds at
7%.  These figures are derived from the I/I Analysis completed
in 1978 and represent a cost-effective level of removal of 6
gallons per minute.  For a comparison of all planning area
community relief and rehabilitation under different levels
of removal, see Table 17.

Residential Portion of Total Capital

Many suburbs beyond Milwaukee County charge households by
distributing the residential portion of the capital cost
among households.  That portion is usually based on a
percentage of total community flow.  Thus, it was necessary
to estimate what percentage of a community's flow would be
residential during the average planning period year.  This
was done by averaging present percentages with year 2005
design percentages.

Present and Future Sewered Households

Although property in Milwaukee County is taxed to finance
MMSD capital improvements, most of the suburbs outside the
County  (whether connected to the MMSD or operating a local
treatment plant) recover capital costs by charging a flat
rate per household.  Projected future costs to suburban
communities for either MMSD capital payments, or for local
treatment plant capital improvements, are partially determined
by year 2000 normative population forecasts  (which determine
design flows) made by SEWRPC.  Therefore, in order to estimate
future household bills, the average number of planned sewered
future households in a community is necessary.

For the purposes of this EIS, the average number of future
sewered households, between 1979 and 2005, were calculated
for non-Milwaukee County suburbs.  Listed below is the
present number of sewered households (1979) based on conversations
with the individual municipalities.  The 2005 figures are
calculated by dividing each community's 2005 future sewered
population by the respective future household size.  The
average number of future sewered households in the planning
period for each community represents the approximate number
of households that will be absorbing future average annual
capital costs   (Table 18).
                             44
-------
                          TABLE 18

              NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY COMMUNITY
                   Presently
                   Sewered
                   Households:
                   1979
Future      Average
Sewered     Number of
Households: Households:
2005        1979-2005
3,800
608
266
2,100
4,639
3,419
3,304
2,356
1,100
6,992
2,371
5,934
603
442
7,954
15,890
10,783
6,094
14,092
1,217
7,907
2,400
4,866
605
354
5,027
10,264
7,100
4,700
8,224
1,158
7,449
2,385
Brookfield
Butler
Caddy Vista
Germantown
Menomonee Falls
Mequon
Muskego
New Berlin
Thiensville
South Milwaukee
Elm Grove

Assumptions of Table 18

1.   Based on SEWRPC Year 2000 forecast, Five-year projection
     made by MWPAP.

2.   Some communities charge commercial establishments the
     same flat fee as residential.  As a result, some 1979
     values are slightly higher than actual number of
     households.

Equalized Tax Rate

This row represents the 1985-2005 average annual equalized
tax rate (per $1000. of equalized value) that would be
levied on all taxable property in Milwaukee County to
support debt service on the bonds issued during the 1980s.
Table 19 uses the Mosaic Alternative as an example to
demonstrate how the tax rate was calculated.

Household Capital Cost

If a community distributes capital cost on a per household
basis, then the household capital cost is calculated by
multiplying the residential percentage of the community flow
by the total capital cost, and then dividing by the average
number of future sewered households.  If a community distributes
the capital cost by an ad valorem property tax as Milwaukee
County does, then the household capital cost is calculated
                             45
-------
  tn <
  z »
  O a.

  S a
  < u
  u a
   en
u x s
J < S
g =.-

H > U
  r> >


  Is

  ui
  S*
m
41
V
MM O fl 4)
~t 0 JJ O>
(0 O -H U
3 -H & (6
tr\ ra £
Id «• U U
>
4J
C
3
0
U
31 15
0 C >•
3--1 u «
10 — I 01 01
0> 3 n 0.3
r- M 3 0 -H
-1 S BO, >
is
•B «)
01 — (
±> ±t
a ~t
u c
-u —I £ D
.a -1 E tn
(1) < 0 Z
i>
5* o « c
4J -^ »"* -H
C > < JI
31-1 4J
O 4> 0-H
U W H 3
>.
jj ^j «
B C C
B *> E S
0000
E-< O O £u
» Q
• a> tr»
>i— U Z
C 3 JJ >
3 c .a u u
0 C 0) 01 O
B.
." s
^1 W U
01 01 0
o u u.
Cy
jj a,
.a s
G CJ
a o u
Q > 0
EQJ 0)
W a
w
(0
4)
>
CO CO CD CO CD

so r- eo r*i o
p* *^ co e^ v
CD rt co V-D P*>
o — in P* co
VO O O V P*
W
m vo m CM ^r
in PM PM P«J P*
PM co vp *r eft
V*
-*e* as ^ PM co >H ^r vc o
n vo vo O cr» iri rn c^ \o ro OOD\OVS p*4 '•H ^ eft s "•* P* co in

SS°S§ S5S-S SSSSS 2?S"S SSSSS
Llwr-OOD CO CD CD CO CO CO 00 CO 00 CO CO 03 CO t~ U1 l-l (N — 1
- lonninw cs o -i -i co ve  u^wow* w^e>»o> e> r- « -, o o pHO(N V0«0'
-------
by multiplying the tax rate times the average residential
property value.  If the community charges the household
according to a user charge for capital recovery, then the
household capital cost reflects that method.

Residential Property Values

1979 average residential property values (by community) in the
fiscal analysis were calculated from property value data
published in the Statistical Report of Property Valuations
by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

Total community equalized residential land value divided by
the number of land parcels equals the average value per
parcel of residential land.

The total community equalized value of residential improve-
ments divided by the number of residential improvements
equals the average value of a residential improvement.

Summing the average residential land parcel value and the
average value residential improvement yields the average
value of residential property.

This community average property value was used throughout
the analysis for calculating household capital charges
whenever the ad valorem property tax was the assumed method
of cost distribution.  The values appear in Table 20.

Household O&M

The MWPAP Financial Planning Model has simulated the MMSD
User Charge Program and is based on estimated future total
MMSD O&M costs.  It has calculated each year's average
household charge for any household connected to the MMSD.
The figure in the table is a 1985-2005 average annual
household user charge for O&M.  For any given alternative,
the household O&M charge is the same for all MMSD-served
households because it is an average of all households.
However, the charge is different for a community with a
local alternative. In these cases, the established community
method of cost distribution was used to estimate the house-
hold bill.  If the community distributes the cost by the
same method that was used to determine it, the household
charge would be about the same in all connected communities.

Household Income

Community household incomes used in the EIS were derived
from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue 1978 adjusted gross
                             47
-------
                TABLE 20

1979 AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUE
Bayside                    $115,000
Brookfield*                  89,000
Brown Deer                   62,000
Butler*      ,                52,000
Caddy Vista*                 45,000
Cudahy                       51,500
Elm Grove*                  111,500
Fox Point                   109,500
Franklin                     68,500
Germantown*                  62,500
Glendale                     75,000
Greendale                    79,000
Greenfield                   61,500
Hales Corners                67,500
Menomonee Falls*             67,000
Mequon*                      94,500
Milwaukee                    40,000
Muskego*                     63,000
New Berlin*                  68,000
Oak Creek                    58,000
River Hills                 159,000
St. Francis                  47,500
Shorewood                    85,500
South Milwaukee              55,500
Thiensville*                 81,500
Wauwatosa                    70,000
West Allis                   61,000
West Milwaukee               50,500
Whitefish Bay                90,000
All figures rounded to nearest $500.
*0utside Milwaukee County
-'•Caddy Vista Sanitary District Estimate.


Source:  Statistical Report of Property Valuations,
         Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue, 1979.
                   48
-------
income per capita figures, and appear in Table 21*  (Wisconsin
Dept. of Revenue, 1978).  The EIS multiplied each community's
per capita figure times the average household size for that
community.  The product represents an estimated mean house-
hold income for every community in the planning area.  These
incomes are used in the analysis primarily for estimating
the percent of an average household income that would be
devoted to sewer service under the various alternatives.
The equation is per capita Adjusted Gross Income  (AGI) x
Persons per Household  (PPH) = Mean Income.

Percent of Income

This represents the percent of the average household income
that is devoted to sewer service during the average year in
the planning period.  It does not include any local overhead,
administrative, or related costs.

Household Size

The 1978 persons per household (PPH) figures are taken from
the WSP-EA Table 4-19.  The figures are from the Milwaukee
Journal Consumer Analysis.  They were calculated by dividing
the population by the number of households when data for
several municipalities were grouped.

COMMUNITY TABLES

Brookfield (Table 23)

Present

Approximately one-third of Brookfield is connected to the
MMSD (everything east of the subcontinental divide) and
about two-thirds (west of the divide) is served by Brookfield's
local treatment plant  (tributary to the Fox River).  Brookfield
taxes all property at the rate of $3.00 per $1000. of assessed
valuation to cover the combined capital costs from the MMSD
District and the local plant.  It is Brookfield's policy to
not make a distinction between the Lake Michigan and Fox
River drainage basins for cost distribution.
*Per capita adjusted gross income  (AGI):  1978

     "This is the adjusted gross income reported on 1978
     calendar and corresponding fiscal year individual
     income tax returns from each taxation district divided
     by the 1978 estimated population for each taxation
     district.  Adjusted gross income is total income after
     business expenses, but before deductions."  (Taxes,
     airs and Shared Taxes in Wisconsin Municipalities,
     1978, Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Bureau of Local
     Financial Assistance)

                              49
-------



















u
•£
u
z
M

rH
u

o:
rH B,

CO
H CO
tJ O
tf O
EH

ADJUST
CO
^
2















•o
0)
JJ ffl
•C £
in CT> o
•H O
0) C
3 M


IB
CU

ii

01
c
c

O IB
rH
dP &




'U
rH
0
<*•> j= a
n 0
3 0
O C
E w



T3
rH
O
IN 4)
0] ffl
3 N
O-H
X CO



2
o
O
M M
ffl
CM 10
rH JJ
CO -H
r~ O,
v?> ffj
fH U







>*
Communit


in p^rHOCOOO^COVjO^U^finincOCOCFV^ *
•H CO rH rH







^IN^rsCOOOr^vO^INVO^OOC^inrH^OinrHC^Oinr-COrn,,
fO fH rHrH rH rH rH C>J (sj p-| -^j. ,— ( PO rH rH (N ^* U") rH
m







K S5SScSSSSr5»SSS?SSSSSS^^SSSScoS
rH vDCNi/>oo3fHcNrninc^u^*«a\u^vo^o^^or^enr^ooco*3ir-rHrn
1/1 ror^fsiicNiro^(Nfsir^ODrHr^r^fsr^fHrHrn
«y>



rH
^i u*i o rH o ^ m d o vo ^n 1/1 in 1/1 rH \>o oo \Q ^o ro ro r*j f^ rn \o r** irt u^ co
rH VO(NOOOOVOrH^rr|rHVO(NVOC01TlvOVOVOfvlrHO'r>tNrr1Or-P-CA
<~l riclrimrnr-irororn^mrororir-irsrni-imroritNmrnrnrsrsioj






cor»OrHrHtnr~rriinenooovop-cocnoTrr~rHP-rHOrHP-r-o\in
n oovooocNOvom»roNrHoor-coo\i^iNOincoeoinino\fOiNrri
rH rH rH rH rH IN rH




*
01 ffl
—1 ffl 01
tO rH .* ffl >,
* ki IB 3 J^ *
« IB * 0) fa «tnoi!0ffl 3ffl
'OMV C T3C CrH-HS-HOllt!
rtffl 01 fflJJ 3 fflrHMffl ffl •HXl*r4
C CJJT3
O O C ffl
O -H 3 S
01 JJ O
S -4 r-
JJ ffl CTI
01 ffl rH
rH C S <
•H IB 05
CESS
M rf *™j
rH S ffl
0-w ffl
U O ffl ^
*H 2
01 3
ffl JJ rH
J O 3 -H
g * °£
° 5 .:
50
-------
TABLE 22
COMMUNITY:
BAYS IDE
Operation and
Maintenance (?)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
(?)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
» >
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
99,048

99,048
724,857


724,857


4.33
115,000
498
61
559
51,500
1.1
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
92,809

92,809
717,095


717,095


4.29
115
493
57
550
51.5
1.1
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
93,857

93,857
731,714


731,714


4.37
115
503
57
560
51.5
1.1
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
93,857

93,857
718,048


718,048


4.29
115
493
57
550
51.5
1.1
  51
-------
TABLE 23
COMMUNITY:
BROOKFIELD
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
437,810

437,810
788,571


788,571


.62 -f .40 =
1.55
89,000
138
61
199
37,000
.5
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
410,952

410,952
741,571


741,571


.59 r .40 =
1.47
89
131
57
188
37
.5
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
415,619

415,619
750,476


750,476


.59 * .40 =
1.47
89
131
57
188
37
.5
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
415,619

415,619
737,286

94,714
832,000


(.58 + .08) 4
.40 = 1.65
89
147
57
204
37
.6
    52
-------
Brookfield is currently assessing property value at 24% of
the state equalized value.

          Locally Assessed Value = $  282,691,158  = 24%
          Equalized Value          $1,201,525,480

1980 net local tax rate = 74.11 per $1000. assessed. 1980
net equalized tax rate = 17.44 per $1000. equalized.

Therefore, the $3.00 per $1000. of locally assessed value
translates to $.72 per $1000. equalized value  ( 3 x .24).

Taxing at the rate of $3.00 per $1000. (assessed value)
would yield a total capital amount of $848,000  (3 x 282,691).

The 1979 MMSD capital bill to Brookfield was about $130,000,
or 15% of Brookfield's total capital cost (130/848).

In other words, about 15% of the $.72 per $1000. (equalized),
or $.11, is related to MMSD capital charges.

Future

Future MMSD average annual capital charges  (1985-2005) to
Brookfield increase about 480% to $750,000.

The $.11 per $1000.  (equalized) current tax rate would
increase 480% to about $.60 per $1000. (equalized)  depending
on which system level alternative is being examined.

The EIS has estimated that about 40% of Brookfield1s property
value falls within the MMSD service area.

In order to estimate the effective tax rate if the MMSD
capital charge were distributed only to the MMSD served
area, the $.60 per $1000. is divided by .40  (.6 divided by
.4 = 1.50) .

The MMSD capital charges to Brookfield, when isolated from
local costs and distributed to only the Lake Michigan
drainage area, result in an average annual  (1985-2005)
equalized tax rate of about $1.50 per $1000. (equalized)
depending on the system level alternative.
                             53
-------
TABLE 24
COMMUNITY:
BROWN DEER
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($}
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
365,952

365,952



1,490,667


4.33
62,000
268
61
329
22,500
1.5
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
343,619

343,619



1,471,857


4.29
62
266
57
323
22.5
1.4
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
347,619

347,619



1,501,571


4.37
62
271
57
329
22.5
1.5
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
347,619

347,619



1,473,619


4.29
62
266
57
323
22.5
1.4
   54
-------
Butler (Table 25)

Present

Butler recovers the MMSD capital bill by charging $.16 per
1000 gallons of water consumption.  The average residential
water consumption is 68,000 gallons per year.  The resulting
average residential MMSD capital charge is 10.88 per year
(.16 x 68). Because the residential class accounts for only
12% of the water usage, it finances only 12% of the capital
costs.

Future

The method used for estimating future household MMSD capital
charges increases the present $10.88 by the same percentage
that Butler's total MMSD capital bill increases.  This
assumes that the percentage the residential class currently
pays remains constant.

For example, with the Local Alternative:
The 1985-2005 average annual MMSD capital charges increases
275% from the current $50,000 to $189,700.  Therefore,
10.88 x 3.75 = $41. per household for capital.
                             55
-------
TABLE 25
COMMUNITY:
. BUTLER
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital {$)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
93,000

93,000
189,714


189,714
12%


52,000
41
61
102
25,000
.4
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
87,667

87,667
178,571


178,571
12%


52
' 39
57
96
25
.4
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
88,667

88,667
180,905


180,905
12%


52
39
57
96
25
.4
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
88,667

88,667
177,667

11,700
189,367
12%


52
41
57
98
25
.4
  56
-------
Caddy Vista Sanitary District  (.Table 26)

Present

Caddy Vista distributes sewerage costs on a per household
basis. The residential class comprises about 92% of the
flow.  Caddy Vista does not separate capital from O&M,  and
the current sewerage charge of about $162 per year includes
both.  There are about 266 homes within the sanitary dis-
trict.

Future

The SEWRPC forecast calls for an increase of homes in Caddy
Vista to 442 by the year 2005.  The average number during
the planning period is, therefore,  (266 + 442)/2 = 354.  The
future residential share of flow and cost is expected to
increase to 95%.  The method for estimating future average
annual household capital charges is equal to the average
annual community capital cost times .95 and divided by 354.

Elm Grove (Table 28)
Present

Elm Grove apportions capital cost by charging all connections
a flat rate.  There are about 2,400 households in Elm Grove,
all of which are served by the MMSD.  The residential class
represents about 96% of the flow.  Elm Grove does not item-
ize capital and O&M costs when billing.  However, capital
costs account for about 37% of the total.  The annual house-
holds charge of $98. could be broken down to $37. for capi-
tal and $61. for O&M charges.

Future

Elm Grove is fully developed and, consequently, the future
number of households should remain constant.  Future annual
(1985-2005 average)  household capital charges from MMSD are
estimated by multiplying the community 1985-2005 average
annual cost by .96 and then dividing by 2,400.

For example, the Local Alternative:
$358,381 x .96 = 344,046 divided by 2,400 = $143.
                             57
-------
TABLE 26
COMMUNITY:
CADDY VISTA
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M (?)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
76,000

76,000
165,667


165,667
95%
354

45,000
445
204
649
20,500
3.
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
21,952

21,952
35,571


35,571
95%
354

45
95
57
154
20.5
.7
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
22,238

22,238
35,952


35,952
95%
354

45
96
57
156
20.5
.7
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
22,238
18,000
40,238
35,286
36,550

71,836
95%
354

45
193
108
301
20.5
1.4
   58
-------
TABLE  27
COMMUNITY:
CUDAHY
Operation and
Maintenance {$)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
(?)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
1,002,095

1,002,095
1,910,095


1,910,095


4.33
51,500
223
61
284
19,000
1.5
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
945,762

945,762
1,887,714


1,887,714


4.29
51.5
221
57
278
19
1.5
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
956,429

956,429
1,925,667


1,925,667


4.37
51.5
225
57
282
19
1.5
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
945,429

945,429
1,889,809


1, 889', 809


4.29
51.5
221
57
278
19
1.5
  59
-------
TABLE .28
COMMUNITY:
ELM GROVE
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
	
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
149,524

149,524
358,381


358,381
96%
2,400

111,500
143
61
204
51,500
.4
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
140,476

140,476
337,381


337,381
96%
2,400

111.5
135
57
192
51.5
.4
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
142,095

142,095
341,524


341,524
96%
2,400

111.5
137
57
194
51.5
.4
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
142,095

142,095
335,476

62,381
39-7,857
96%
2,400

111.5
159
57
216
51.5
.4
   60
-------
TABLE 29
COMMUNITY:
FOX POINT
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value (?)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
206,857

206,857
1,204,381


1,204,381


4.33
109,500
474
61
535
52,000
1.0
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
194,190

194,190
1,192,429


1,192,429


4.29
109.50
470
57 v
527
52
1.0
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
196,476

196,476
1,216,429


1,216,429


4.37
109.50
478
57
535
52
1.0
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
196,476

196,476
1,193,857


1,193,857


4.29
109.50
470
57
527
52
1,0
  61
-------
TABLE 30
COMMUNITY:
FRANKLIN
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
607,524

607,524
1,664,381


1,664,381


4.33
68,500
297
61
358
23,500
1.5
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
569,524

569,524
1,641,857


1,641,857


4.29
6.85
294
57 ,
351
23.50
1.5
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
576,048

576,048
1,674,905


1,674,905


4.37
68.5
299
57
356
23.50
1.5
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
576,048

576,048
1,643,857


1,643,857


4.33
68.5
294
57
351
23.50
1.5
  62
-------
German-town (.Table 31)

Present

Sewer service bills to Germantown residents are currently
about $88. per year; they do not differentiate the O&M from
the capital.  However, about 25% of the total cost represents
the capital portion,  which is about $22. of the $88.  The
remaining $66. recovers O&M expense.  The residential share
of the total cost is presently 65%.  2,100 households are
presently sewered.

Future

In the future,  the residential portion is expected to
increase to 70% of the total flow and the analysis assumes
that this class will support 70% of the capital expense.
7,954 sewered households are forecast for Germantown by the
year 2005.  The average number of sewered households assumed
for cost distribution is (2100 + 7954)/2 = 5027.

The method used for projecting future household capital
charges in Germantown was  1) multiply .70 times the 1985-
2005 average annual capital cost  2) divide that product by
the average number of sewered households.

For example,  the Local Alternative:
$815,285 x .70 = 570,700 divided by 5,027 = $114.
                              63
-------
TABLE 31
COMMUNITY:
GERMANTOWN
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
(S)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
422,000

422,000
815,285


815,285
.70
5,027

62,500
114
59
173
25,000
.7
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
391,476

391,476
675,952


675,952
.70
5,027

62.5
94
57
X
151
25
.6
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
396,000

396,000
684,095


684,095
.70
5,027

62.5
95
57
152
25
.6
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
396,000
84,000
480,000
671,952
411,000
33,476
1,116,428
.70
5,027

62.5
155
69
224
25
.9
      64
-------
TABLE  32
COMMUNITY:
GLENDALE
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
S Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital (?)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate (?)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
(?)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
(?)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
540,857

540,857
3,016,476


3,016,476


4.33
75,000
325
61
386
28,000
1.4
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
509,286

509,286
2,972,286


2,972,286


4.29
75
322
57
X
379
28
1.4
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
514,905

514,905
3,032,000


3,032,000


4.37
75
328
57
385
28
1.4
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
514,905

514,905
2,976,000


2,976,000


4.29
75
322
57
379
28
1.4
    65
-------
TABLE 33
COMMUNITY:
GREENDALE
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
393,048

393,048
2,022,143


2,022,143


4.33
79,000
342
61
403
26,000
1.6
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
368,619

368,619
1,998,952


1,998,952


4.29
79
339
57 l
396
26
1.5
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
372,905

372,905
2,039,334


2,039,334


4.37
79
345
57
402
26
1.5
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
372,905

372,905
2,001,238


2,001,238


4.29
79.
339
57
396
26
1.5
    66
-------
TABLE 34
COMMUNITY:
GREENFIELD
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
702,857

702,857
3,126,952


3,126,952


4.33
61,500
266
61
327
26,000
1.3
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
660,048

660,048
3,086,762


3,086,762


4.29
61.5
264
57 v
321
26
1.2
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
667,524

667,524
3,148,905


3,148,905


4.37
61.5
269
57
326
26
1.3
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
667,524

667,524
3,090,381


3,090,381


4.29.
61.5
264
57
321
26
1.2
   67
-------
TABLE 35
COMMUNITY:
HALES CORNERS
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
179,143

179,143
778,095


778,095


4.33
67,500
292
61
353
29,500
1.2
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
168,048

168,048
770,334


770,334


4.29
67.50
290
57 v
347
29.5
1.2
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
170,000

170,000
785,809


785,809


4.37
67.50
295
57
352
29.5
1.2
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
170,000

170,000
771,286


771,286


4.29
67.50
290
57
347
29.5
1.2
  68
-------
TABLE 36
COMMUNITY :
MENOMONEE
FALLS
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
919,143

919,143
1,664,048


1,664,048


1.97
67,000
132
61
193
26,000
.7
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
862,095

862,095
1,561,143


1,561,143


1-85
67
124
57 ^
181
26
.7
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
871,714

871,714
1,580,095


1,580,095


1.88
67
126
57
183
26
.7
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
871,714

871,714
1,551,857


1,551,857


1.97
67
132
57
193
26
.7
 69
-------
Mequon  (Table 37)

Present

Mequon households are billed equally by what is essentially
a flat rate.  The average household pays $126. per year, of
which $27. is for MMSD capital expense, $62. for O&M user
fee, and $37. for local costs. $815,285 x .70 = 570,700
divided by 5,027 = $114.

The residential share of the total flow is 78%.  It is
Mequon's policy to distribute that portion of the capital
costs to the residential class now and in the future.  There
are currently 3,419 sewered households in Mequon.

Future

SEWRPC forecasts 10,783 sewered households in Mequon in the
year 2005.  Therefore, the average number of households in
the planning period would be 7,100; that is,  (10,783 +
3,419)/2.

Future household MMSD capital bills were determined by
multiplying the 1985-2005 average annual capital cost by  .78
and then dividing by 7,100.

For example, the Local Alternative:
$1,172,571 x .78 = 914,605 divided by 7,100 = $129 average
annual household capital bill.
                              70
-------
TABLE 37
COMMUNITY:
MEQUON
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital (?)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Ecrualized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
(?)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
626,476

626,476
1,172,571


1,172,571
78%
7,100

94,500
129
61
190
36,500
.5
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
587,714

587,714
1,100,143


1,100,143
78%
7,100

94.5
121
57 i
178
36.5
.5
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
594,286

594,286
1,113,571


1,113,571
78%
7,100

94.5
122
57
179
36.5
.5
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
594,286
3,000
597,286
1,093,762
273,917
63,238
1,430,917
78%
7,100

94.5
157
57
214
36.5
.6
 71
-------
TABLE 38
COMMUNITY:
MILWAUKEE
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
22,871,476

22,871,476
41,312,571


41,312,571


4.33
40,000
173
61
234
16,000
1.5
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
21,566,000

21,566,000
40,870,000


40,870,000


4.29
40
172
57
229
16
1.4
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
21,804,000

21,804,000
41,694,000


41,694,000


4.37
40
175
57
232
16
1.5
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
21,804,000

21,804,000
40,916,667


40,916,667


4.29
40
172
57
229
16
1.4
   72
-------
Muskego (Table 39)

Present

Households are billed according to a flat rate; O&M and
capital costs are not distinguished.  The annual household
cost is currently $96.  However, O&M accounts for about 34%
of the total annual costs  (103,988/303,567).  Therefore, $33
(.34 x 96) can be assigned to O&M and $63 to capital for
analytical purposes.

The residential share of total connections is almost 97%
(3,304/3,413).

Future

Currently the residential share is 97%.  However, if Muskego's
industrial development plans materialize, the residential
share of the year 2005 would be 73%.  Eighty-five percent of
the flow and the cost is assumed to be attributable to the
residential class:  (97 + 73)/2).  Sewered households in 2005
are forecast to number 6,094.  For estimating average year
costs, it was assumed the costs would be distributed to
4,700 households:   (3,304 + 6,094)/2.

For example, for the Local Alternative:
$932,952 x .85 = 793,009 divided by 4,700 = $169 average
annual (1985-2005) household capital cost.
                              73
-------
TABLE 39
COMMUNITY:
MUSKEGO
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
435,000

435,000
932,952


932,952
85%
4,700

63,000
169
79
248
24,500
1.0
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
293,429

293,429
576,000


576,000
85%
4,700

63
104
57 i
161
24.5
.7
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
296,905

296,905
583,000


583,000
85%
4,700

63
105
57
162
24.5
.7
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
296,905
48,000
344,905
572,524
291,333
27,095
890,952
85%
4,700

63
161
63
224
24.5
.9
   74
-------
New Berlin (Table 40)

Present

New Berlin distributes sewerage costs on a per household
basis. The current annual household charge to recover MMSD
capital is about $18.  There are 2,356 residential units
connected to the MMSD and 1,198 tributary to Regal Manor.

The residential class paid about 59% of the total New Berlin
MMSD capital bill.  However, New Berlin expressed an in-
tention to distribute capital charges among the user groups
according to flow percentages.

Future

The future residential portion of the total flow and (assumed
cost)  is forecast to be about 53%.  Future sewered households
are forecast to increase to 14,092.  The average number of
sewered households during the planning period should be
around 8,224.  The method used for estimating future average
annual (1985-2005) household capital charges:  multiply the
community total average annual by .53 and divide by 8,224.

For example,  for the Local Alternative:
$2,958,476 x .53 = 1,567,992 divided by 8,224 = $191.
                             75
-------
TABLE 40
COMMUNITY :
NEW BERLIN
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
754,000

754,000
2,958,476


2,958,476
53%
8,224

68,000
191
49
240
26,500
.9
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
948,381

948,381
1,625,762


1,625,762
53%
8,224

68
105
57 i
162
26.5
.6
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
958,809

958,809
1,645,571


1,645,571
53%
8,224

68
106
57
163
26.5
.6
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
958,809
2,000
960,809
1,616,286
272,286
104,857
1,993,429
53%
8,224

68
128
57
185
26.5
.7
   76
-------
TABLE 41
COMMUNITY:
OAK CREEK
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital {$)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
2,518,286

2,518,286
2,674,190


2,674,19.0


4.33
58,000
251
61
312
23,000
1.4
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
2,380,524

2,380,524
2,631,762


2,631,762


4.29
58
249
57 v
306
23
1.3
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
2,405,190

2,405,190
2,684,857


2,684,857


4.37
58
253
57
310
23
1.3
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
2,405,190

2,405,190
2,635,333


2,635,333


4.29
58
249
57
306
23
1.3
  77
-------
TABLE 42
COMMUNITY:
RIVER HILLS
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehab i 1 i tat ion
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
50,000

50,000
402,809


402,809


4.33
159,000
688
61
749
89,000
.8
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
46,619

46,619
398,238


398,238


4.29
159
682
57 v
739
89
.8
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
47,286

47,286
406,048


406,048


4.37
159
695
57
752
89
.8
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
47,286

47,286
398,476


398,476


4.29
159
682
57
739
89
.8
  78
-------
TABLE 43
COMMUNITY:
ST. FRANCIS
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
•
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital (?)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
(?)
Household O&M
(?)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
305,095

305,095
780,095


780,095


4.33
47,500
206
61
267
18,000
1.5
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
286,809

286,809
770,429


770,429


4.29
47.5
204
57 x
261
18
1.5
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
290,143

290,143
785,952


785,952


4.37
47.5
208
57
265
18
1.5
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
290,143

290,143
771,429


771,429


4.29
47.5
204
57
261
18
1.5
  79
-------
TABLE 44
COMMUNITY:
SHOREWOOD
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital {$)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
303,095

303,095
1,480,048


1,480,048


4.33
85,500
370
61
431
20,500
2.1
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
284,476

284,476
1,465,571


1,465,571


4.29
85.5
367
57 ,
424
20.4
2.1
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
288,095

288,095
1,495,238


1,495,238


4.37
85.5
374
57
431
20.5
2.1
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
288,095

288,095
1,467,333


1,467,333


4.33
85.5
367
57
424
20.5
2.1
  80
-------
South Milwaukee (Table 45)

South Milwaukee uses a property tax to distribute their
capital and O&M costs.  The tax rates in the table are
equalized.
                             81
-------
TABLE 45
COMMUNITY :
SOUTH MILWAUKEE
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
414,000

414,000
250,381


250,381


. 59 Capital
.96 O&M
55,500
33
51
84
21,000
.4
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
406,048

406,048
1,840,809


1,840,809


4.29 Capital
.95 O&M
55.5
238
50 ,
288
21
1.4
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
414,000

414,000
250,381


250,381


,59 Capital
.96 O&M
55.5
33
51
84
21
.4
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
414,000

414,000
250,381


250,381


.59 Capital
.96 OSM
55.5
33
51
84
21
.4
   82
-------
Thiensville (Table 46)

Present

Thiensville distributes sewer costs on a per household basis
which includes capital and O&M expenses.  The current charge
is $72. per year.  Out of a total budget of $120,000,
$113,000 is O&M expense and $7,000. capital.  Applying the
ratio to the $72. suggests a household capital charge of $4.
(.06 x 72). There are 1,100 households connected to Thiensville's
plant and the residential class supports about 70% of the
costs.

Future

A total of 1,217 households are forecast for the year 2005.
The average number of households during the planning period
is 1,158 (1,100 + l,217)/2.  Assuming the residential portion
remains at 70%, the estimating procedure involves multiply-
ing the community average annual cost by .70 and dividing by
1,158.

For example, the Local Alternative:
$356.286 x /70 = 249,400 divided by 1,158 = $215.
                             83
-------
TABLE 46
COMMUNITY:
THIENSVILLE
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Eaualized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
129,000

129,000
356,286


356,286
70%
1,158

81,500
215
78
293
28,500
1.0
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
77,238

77,238
189,667


189,667
70%
1,158

81.5
115
57
172
28.5
.6
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
78,000

78,000
192,238
C

192,238
70%
1,158

81.5
116
57
173
28.5
.6
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
78,000

78,000
188,714
.125x313,048)
39,131
12,095
239,940
70%
1,158

81.5
145
57
202
28.5
.7
  84
-------
TABLE 47
COMMUNITY :
WAUWATOSA
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
1,583,667

1,583,667
6,655,429


6,655,429


4.33
70,000
303
61
364
24,500
1.5
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
1,489,286

1,489,286
6,588,381


6,588,381


4.29
70
300
57 i
357
24.5
1.5
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
1,506,524

1,506,524
6,721,286


6,721,286


4.37
70
306
57
363
24.5
1.5
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
1,506,524

1,506,524
6,595,809


6,595,809


4.29
70
300
57
357
24.5
1.5
  85
-------
TABLE 48
COMMUNITY:
WEST ALLIS
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate (?)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
1,829,286

1,829,286
6,153,286


6,153,286


4.33
61,000
264
61
325
17,500
1.9
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
1,719,619

1,719,619
6,093,048


6,093,048


4.29
61
262
57 ^
319
17.5
1.8
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
1,739,333

1,739,333
6,216,000


6,216,000


4.37
61
267
57
324
17.5
1.9
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
1,739,333

1,739,333
6,099,857


6,099,857


4.29
61
262
57
319
17.5
1.8
  86
-------
TABLE 49
COMMUNITY :
WEST MILWAUKEE
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
1$)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
892,667

892,667
1,064,429


1,064,429


4.33
50,500
219
61
280
12,000
2.3
_____ 	
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
845,952

845,952
1,054,095


1,054,095


4.29
50.5
217
57 v
274
12
2.3
'
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
855,143

855,143
1,075,286


1,075,286


4.37
50.5
221
57
278
12
2.3
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
855,143

855,143
1,055,190


1,055,190


4.29
50.5
217
57
274
12
2.3
  87
-------
TABLE 50
COMMUNITY:
WHITEFISH BAY
Operation and
Maintenance ($)
Connection
O&M ($)
Total O&M ($)
Capital ($)
Connection
Capital ($)
Rehabilitation
& Relief Capital ($)
Total
Capital ($)
Residential Portion of
Total Capital
Future Sewered
Households
Equalized
Tax Rate ($)
Property
Value ($)
Household Capital
($)
Household O&M
($)
Total Household
($)
Household Income
($)
Percent of Income
LOCAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
355,143

355,143
1,861,524


1,861,524


4.33
90,000
390
61
451
33,500
1.3
REGIONAL
SYSTEM LEVEL
ALTERNATIVE
332,809

332,809
1,843,286


1,843,286


4.29
90
386
57
443
33.5
1.3
MOSAIC
ALTERNATIVE
336,667

336,667
1,880,429


1,880,429


4.37
90
393
57
450
33.5
1.3
COMBINATION
ALTERNATIVE
336,667

336,667
1,845,381


1,845,381


4.29
90
386
57
443
33.5
1.3
88
-------
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY COSTS

Table 51 summarizes the community capital and O&M costs for
four alternatives.  Table 52 summarizes the community costs
by household and also indicates the percent of average
household income devoted to sewer service (capital plus
O&M) .

Table 53 compares the average annual costs to communities
with local alternatives.  The capital costs represent average
annual debt service on 20-year G.O. bonds at 6% for MMSp
purposes and 7% for local communities.  The MMSD Mosaic
Alternative does not appear on this table because it differs
only slightly from the Regional Alternative.  Because South
Milwaukee remains separate from the MMSD, the total taxable
property value decreases slightly and, as a result, costs to
everyone else increase slightly.

The Combination Alternative differs from the MMSD Mosaic
Alternative in that the historical construction practice of
the MMSD financing construction only within Milwaukee County
is assumed. The purpose is to show what the costs to these
communities would be for constructing and maintaining
connectors to the County line and rehabilitating their
sewers for I/I reduction if the MMSD did not finance these
costs.

As Table 53 indicates, the Regional Alternative is less
expensive than the Local Alternative for every community
except South Milwaukee, where the Regional Alternative cost
is more than 600% higher.

If legal or political reasons would prevent the MMSD from
financing construction beyond its borders, the Combination
Alternative adds the costs of connection and sewer rehabi-
litation to the contract formula capital charge.  If these
conditions prevail, the Regional Alternative would still be
cheaper for Caddy Vista, Muskego, New Berlin, and Thiensville.
However, it would be 29% more expense for Germantown to
connect to the MMSD than to remain local.

FUNDING SCENARIOS FOR LOCAL ALTERNATIVES

As mentioned above, Table 53 shows that in 5 cases (except-
ing South Milwaukee), it would be cheaper for the municipalities
to connect to the regional system than to build local faci-
lities. There is, however, one factor that contributes to
the attractiveness of the Regional Alternative.  The
costing for the Local Alternatives assumed no grant funding
from any level of government, whereas the Regional
Alternative incorporates 75% funding up to an annual ceiling


                             89
-------
     c u
     o >
     B  a
     c  c
     J3  (!)
     O rH
     u <
 01
•o

 10
 01
 •3
 O

4J
o
        4J

         10

     O  C
     •H  rl

     10  O


     O fH

     S rt
                        ^rVOCOC^OVOCNVOVOOtnfnCOOtN^^TinrHin
                                                                                                  co ^T  co r** c\ in r-

                                                                                                            in t"* co f*i
                                                                                                                 > in in
                                                                                                                 > m ^
                                                                                                                 < O CO
CM O CM rH <
fi in o co <
r» r— in rH
                                                   rHrHCNCMfl     rHrHO    rH
                                                                        i in o
                                                                        i r- co
                                                                        i o co


in

U
-3
a
rij
E-i




2

O


j
^
D
Z
Z
"^
w
o


rH
10
C
o
•H
Oi

Ctf




2
O
O1* ^ ^ CO
^ n
„




rH
l«
•^
'a
10
u

- CM (N 01
^ TT i— r~
r. P" ^
rH

                                                                                                                 i  vo f)
                                                                                                                 i  "» m
                                                                                                                 i  o •»
                                                                                                                 >  in co
                                                                          rHO    rH(N        rH<
in
o
o

 I
in
                             i  10 n '
                             i  \o 01 i
                                                                                         i  m in
                                                                                         i  o\ m
                        CM co  i
                        r-. r-  •
                                 i o '
                                 i G\ i
                            9)
                         (B-H
                         13 M-4

                         tn o

                         10 rl
                         03 ca
             «
              (0
       rl    JJ
       0)     tn
       (1)    -H
       Q « >
           n
       G  i
       3 rH -O
       o -p *d
       S-i  3  *
   *         e
   0)4-1     3
   >  c  c o

>1 rl  O iH

>o        c
                                                                        V)
             01 rH

             rl  IQ
             dj Eb
         T3 C


   0) rH  (11 O  0)


e IB TJ >
                                            3 *        -v< «
                          «     01  a)      eg  (U        3 S3
                           C     rH -rl      3 rH     01  <8
                    (1)    •H.iirHO'OrHrHlfl-rlS.C
                    4)*  rHOJ-HCO-H'rlOlrHrHin

                 c  D  cji a)  i-j     r<3     in -P < s M-I

CQJ   «O3-H3tnoi«H
                                                                                                        c

                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                3   fc
                                                                                                                                r8   <•
                                                                                                                                3   S
                                                                                                                                ^   3
                                                                                                                                i   s
 0)
-a
                                                                                   90
-------

                                                                            -'OC  — O —
                  3
s
^
O
         a
      —  >
                        %
                        ul
                       z
                       14
                       o
a
                                                                          i  (N  V  l/>

                                                                            r-  O  G
                                                                   rr r- 03 in O 
                  3     S4

                  3     u
                       s
                                                                                                               -

                                                                                                      3 3 2  S
                                                                                                                     1     I
                                                           91
-------
                                                                                                                            r-
                                                                                                                            IN





C 4)
0 >
•H -H
i ^ jj
10 10
C C
•H M
J3 41
O rH
U <






s
(4
o







(0
4->
•rt
a
u
co o
n o
CM O
CM CO
CM rH






VC O
co in
CM in
in vo
m co


CO 00
cn o o
CM O 0
O vo IP
rr en co
en




iH
VO CM O VO
co in o r-
co en o TP
rH i-H iH CO
r- r- i-i ro
VC *=P

o in o
o o o
o en o
O VO CO
co en ^-
V CM




rH
co ^ co in
CM CM co en
^- in ro o
vo CM rH r-
I-H r» en CM
rH in CM
rH
in en o
o o o
en co o
<• CO CM
"«r in
co en




pHJ
CM vo vo t—
in co eo in
en CM CM co
0 VO CM TP
en rH r^ o
CO VC CM -H
^
ff\ O
0 0
00 O
O TP
VC rH
cn ^




rH
Cn rH «T rH in
CM CO rH CO cn
*r co r» rH o
co o co en CM
cn in oo co «-H
cn CM H
rH
O
O
O
CO
r-






o
^
en
en
CO
CM

                                                                                                                            vo
                                                                                                                            CM
                                                                                                                            in
                                                                                                                            CM
                                                                                                                            !N
                                                                                                                            (M
                                                                                                                            vo
                                                                                                                            CM
      tn  <

      U)  (S
      O  Sd
      U  EH
      D -3
      Z <
co    Z CJ
in    < O

Ed    Ed
J    U <
                                   CM
                                   in
                                   cn
                       vo
                       t-
      in

      in
CM
in
cn

in

vo
                 en
                 CM
                                         en
                                         CM
o
o
o

VO
r-
in
                                   eo

                                   o>
                       eo

                       o
                                                                                             vo
                                                                                             o
                       CO
                       ro
                       CM
CM    en
vo    O
r»    co

in    o
CM    T
vc    ao
                                                                                 r-

                                                                                 vo
                                                                                                               en
                                                                                                               co
      < S

      in cn
      o Ed
      O H
      CM EH
       I  rH
      in z
      03 3
      cn £
      rH S

         8
      o
      o
      o
                                   I—
                                   vo
                                   VC
o
o
o

CM
CM
                       in
                       co
                                                    in

                                                    co
o
o
o

in
co
                  CM
                  in
                  a\

                  CM

                  g

 >i C
T3  O O
73 CJ EH
 10
                                    10
C
o
•H
C 10
O 4J
S -H -H
5 4-1
O O
Jr> ffl
e. c
a c

u u
41
a
rH *-^
•r^ M
>Q ^s.
OJ H

CJ
OS




rH
10

0
EH




O

0)

n
3
r
ion
itation
4J rH —
fj -rl M
o .a\
C 10 M
C £ —
O 41
u os





rH
(fl
4-1
O
EH


C
•H
rH
i^
4)
O

3
41
Z
ion
itation
4J rH
0-H
-l
H 10
— 4J
O
EH


waukee
rH
-H
^

&
4J
3
0

le
ion
itation
rH 4-1 rH
•H O -H
> 4) .Q
W C 10
C C £
4) 0 4)
•H U Cfi
J~,
EH

j— i.
M
"X r-t
Ht (0
•*-.- jj
O
EH


                                                                     e <
                                                                     o g
                                                                     ^ ^
                                                                     4-1
                                                                     O „.
                                                                     ra a)


                                                                     I!
                                                                    _P w
                                                                         92
-------
 of  $60  million.   Communities  for which a Local Alternative
 is  the  most cost-effective and environmentally-sound may be
 eligible  for federal  and state grant assistance,  provided
 the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional  Water Quality Management
 Plan (208 Plan)  is  amended to reflect this scenario.   South
 Milwaukee is the only community for  which a local solution
 has been  identified as cost-effective and environmentally-
 sound.  Consequently, funding assistance for the  other local
alternatives is  unlikely.   However, the possibility for state
 or  federal funding  of a local alternative does exist.
 Therefore,  Table 54 shows the cost to communities of building
 local  facilities under 0, 60, and 75 percent funding assumptions,

 "Break-evens"
 The  Regional  Alternative  is really only assumed to be 36%
 funded (see  funding section)  because of the annual ceilings.
 Thus 75%  funded Local  Alternative would very likely be less
 of  a fiscal burden than the Regional Alternative if the
 costs were  somewhat close without funding.   This section
 identifies  the percentage funding that would be required for
 a Local Alternative to bring the community  burden down to
 the  level at  which the Local and Regional burdens would be
 equal.  This  analysis  refers to capital costs only.

 Caddy Vista's Local Alternative would have  to be at least
 79%  funded  to lower the financial burden to the level of the
 Regional  Alternatives  burden.   The corresponding percentages
 for  the other municipalities are:  Germantown, 17%; Muskego
 38%; New  Berlin,   45%; and Thiensville,  47%.

 BONDING ASSUMPTIONS

 Bond Interest Rate Sensitivity

 The  financial analysis has assumed that Milwaukee County
 would issue the 20~year general obligation  bonds at an
 interest  rate of 6%.   However, it is possible that future
 economic  conditions could cause Milwaukee County to pay a
 higher rate on the bonds  in order to market them.  Because
 of  this possibility, the  MWPAP has conducted a sensitivity
 analysis  to determine  the impact associated with higher
 interest  rates.   Average  annual debt service was calculated
 for  6%, 7%,  8%,  and 9% interest rate assumptions for bond
 issues.   A  rather constant relationship exists between the
 interest  rate and the  debt service.   For every one percentage
 point increase in the  interest rate paid on the bonds, the
 average annual debt service increases 8%. For example, if
 the  MMSD  had  to issue  all the MWPAP bonds at 7%, the 1985-
 2005 average  annual debt  service on the bonds would be 8%
 higher than if the bonds  were issued at 6%.


                              93
-------
    « EH
    O 03
    Si
    z <
    3
    CO U
    CO O
    H<

    2 in
E-i   DO


    W I
    > m
    H CO
    EH Cft
    < rH
    tJ CO
    EH iJ
    tJ <
    < y
ffl
rH
JJ JJ "fi
C -rl -rl
0 O rji
W JJ IB M
&H .Q Q* <8
3 111 IB S
UD U —


C
O
•H
JJ
UrH
9 rH 3 rH
00 IB Ij IB
1 .rl JJ JJ
O JJ 10 -rl
en C 0 iB
rH H U U


V
to £
18 O
0
rH C
IB M
JJ
0 XH
EH 0


•o
"° i
ID O
to
3
o
K rH
IB
JJ
•H
0.
U


E
IS
^1 f^
( w
•rl*-
e to
3 JJ rH
E CO ^
JJ
•H
c
3
0
u

in in in
p» P- p-
in in in
333








eft o P*
vo in eft
oo oo in
^
^





P4 O P-
PI M rH






•*-r*r
o o o
CM Pg pg





in o co
T O PI
•V pg r-l



yj 1C VO
P- P" P-




VD in pg
vo p- in
rH







o o in
VO P~










(0 IB IB
to in 03
•H -rl .rl


ttt
IB 10 IB
O U U

•W .Q.
fi ro n
p> p- p-








rn p^ p*j
oo in pg
oo in p>i
00 PI P<






p- «r PI







Cft Cft Cft






^* IO 00
rH ^J1 Pg
rH



PJ M N
PJ PJ PJ




in ic rn
rH CM O
CO PI PJ







o o in
O P-










e c c
333
O 0 O
JJ JJ JJ
fi C C
lie
^1 rl rl
0) 0) 0)
O U O

m me*
in in in
p- p- p-








pg o o
pg in PI
rH O in
O T PJ
rH





o vo in
rH






CftCft Cft






eft co pg
10 VO «•
rH



in in in
PI PI PI




p°) n pi
PI p- PI
eft PI pg







o o in
SO P*













0 0 O

0 0) QJ
to to to
333
SEE

eft mcft

CO CO CO
04 pg pg








rH rH CO
in TT co
p*l eft O
pg pg co
PI rH





eft in ^







Ch WCft






rH VO CO
Cft P- Tl-
rH



• en
CN (N fN




VO fN O>
in ^« co
PO rH







o o in
VD P*










0) 0) 0)
rH rH rH
rH rH rH
•rl -r) -rl

to tn to
c c c
0) a) o)
•H -1-1 -H
J= X! £
EH EI EH

m in in
p- P- p-
rH rH rH








P^ rH VO
o pg P-
PI m in
pT






^r PI PI







rH rH rH






P^ fi CO
PI rH




^ TT Tl-
rH rH rH




o o pg
in o vo
pg rH







o o in
VO P*






tti 0) 0)
0) 0) 0)
v y y
333
It) IB IS
333
rH rH rH
•rt -rH -H
&&.&

A Si A
JJ JJ JJ
333
000
CO CO CO
O
v&
i
C
-H
JJ

S,

VU
o
4J
c
01
|
S,
0
a
g
•rl
n
e
8
S
°H
(N


















to
r^
(Q
^H
rB -H
•H 0
C "
0
"° ^
a) o
rH
nj tt
CJ rv-
c
UH ^
0 to
^
3 5
0 ^
EH .
•K ^




ro
O
CO


,-H
o
CO

•t
in
o
vo
fc
m
o
VC
v>
1— <
o
VO
fc
m
o
^

^,
m
S
-------
The change in tax rates levied on County property illustrates
their sensitivity to the interest rate paid on the bond
issues.

Mosaic Alternative:  Interest Rate Sensitivity

20-year bonds at 6% = $4.37 per $1000. equalized
20-year bonds at 7% = $4.73 per $1000. equalized
20 year bonds at 8% = $5.12 per $1000. equalized
20-year bonds at 9% = $5.55 per $1000. equalized

Bond Maturity Sensitivity

Using the total local cost of the Mosaic Alternative
($1,064,005,000) as an example, the following discussion
illustrates the sensitivity of the debt service to a change
in bond maturity (see Table 55).

Issuing over $1 billion in 20 year general obligation bonds
during the 1980s results in an average annual debt service
between 1985 and 2005 of $86,137,000, and a total debt
service of $1,977,223,000,  In other words, it costs $1.97
billion to buy $1.1 billion.  By the year 2013 (when the
last payment is made), interest on the bonds would have
totaled about $870 million.

Assuming 30-year G.O. bonds would be issued, the average
annual payment  (1985-2015) decreases about 12% to 75,387,000,
but the total debt service to retire the bonds increases
22%, from $1.97 billion to $2.4 billion.  Assuming the
issuance of 40-year G.O. bonds, the average annual debt
service payment (1985-2005) decreases 20% to $68,737,000,
but the total amount of debt service to retire the bonds
increases 47% to $2.9 billion.  A legislative amendment
would be required to allow Milwaukee County or the MMSD to
issue bonds with a longer maturity.  The net effect of
increasing the bond repayment period beyond 20 years is a
reduction in the amount of average debt service payments,
but a rather substantial increase in the total amount of
debt service.

Table 56 compares the change in average annual household
capital cost to repay debt service on 20, 30, and 40-year
general obligation bonds.  All assumptions are the same for
each except the length of the bond retirement period.  This
table assumes that all communities distribute the cost by
the property tax method.*  As a result, the costs to many
*This ignores the fact that most out-of-County communities
 do not use the property tax to distribute the costs which
 the contract formula allocates to them.
                             95
-------
m
in

w
j
ea
<
EH
10
S
H
co
EH
H
a
        O
        m
0)
tn
G
CB
J3
CJ
dP



Q
CO
S
2

rH
rcj
4-1
0
EH







^
*

^
G
0
«
0)
£>
•rH
4-)
(0
C
!H
0)
4J
rH
f-tl

0
•H
ra
M
O
Ul
TD
C
0
CQ
rl
O
CN

£•
O
Cn

<*>
o




0
0)
0
•H
^
^1
0)
M

4-)
Q
0)
a
01
13
G
O
m
VJ
>i
0
CN

e
0


o
• H
£>

l^



















rfP
r-
^j*
_j-


O
0
o

r^
ro
r^
«,
l^Q
co
CO
«,
CN







0\°
0
CN
1




0
0
o

r-
n
r^.
^
CO

^
^**1

0
•=T





O
0
o
•»
in
o
o
^
^T
^D
O










^^
co
ro
0
CN
i
0
co
CTi
rH
















m
CN
0
CN
1
in
CO

rH


^-.
dP
^D


















                                                                     o.
                                                                     <
                                                                     a.
                                                                      ra
                                                                      r)
                                                                      0)
                                                                             cn
                                                                             M
                                                                             03
                                                                             O
                                                                             CO
                                                                             cn
                                                                             0)
                                                                             SH
                                                                             (0
                                                                             w
                                                                             OJ
                                                                             •H
                                                                             M-l
                                                                                            0)
                                                                                           T3
                                                                                           s
                                                                                    CD
                                                                                    o
                                                                                    !H
                                                                                    3
                                                                                    0
                                                                                    CO
                                                                 96
-------
                         TABLE 56

                 1985-2005 AVERAGE ANNUAL
               HOUSEHOLD CHARGE BY COMMUNITY
             TO RECOVER DEBT SERVICE ON BONDS
                      1985-2005      1985-2015      1985-2025
                      20 YR          30 YR          40 YR

   Bayside            $ 503          $ 422          $ 386
*  Brookfield            53             45             39
   Brown Deer           271            228            208
*  Butler               117             98             86
*  Caddy Vista          133            113            101
   Cudahy               225            189            173
*  Elm Grove            139            117            103
   Fox Point            479            402            368
   Franklin             299            251            230
*  Germantown           138            121            109
   Glendale             328            275            252
   Greendale            345            290            265
   Greenfield           269            226            207
   Hales Corners        295            248            227
*  Menomonee Falls      124            109             96
*  Mequon               162            141            127
   Milwaukee            175            147            134
*  Muskego              101             89             80
*  New Berlin           116            101             90
   Oak Creek            253            213            195
   River Hills          695            584            534
   St. Francis          208            174            160
   Shorewood            374            314            287
   South Milwaukee       33a            33a            33a
*  Thiensville          164            139            122
   Wauwatosa            306            257            235
   West Allis           267            224            205
   West Milw            221            185            170
   Whitefish Bay        393            330            302

Assumptions:  All communities distribute the cost by the property
              tax method.

              Assume:  Mosaic Alternative
              20 yr = MWPAP Model 60A
              30 yr = MWPAP Model 63A
              40 vr = MWPAP Model 62A

              Contract Formula
              6% interest on bonds

                                     Present Worth Discount Rate
                                     of 6 7/8%
*0utside Milwaukee County
aNot part of MMSD financing; local facility improvement with 20 yr
 G.O. Bonds at 7%.
                              97
-------
households outside Milwaukee County are not accurate, but
the comparison between the costs for 20, 30, and 40-year
bonds is valid, nonetheless.  As the table indicates,
average annual costs for debt service on 30 and 40-year
bonds decreases about 16% and 23% respectively.  However,
these lowered average annual costs must be paid for an
additional 10 or 20 years beyond the 20-year bonds.  Column
2, 2A, 2B in Table 57 show the total cost over the 20, 30
and 40-year periods.  For example, Bayside's average annual
charge drops from $503 to $442  (Table 56) if a 30-year bond
is assumed.  But, the total cost increases from $10,563
(Table 57) (column 2) to $15,593 (column 2A) because the
period of repayment is ten years longer.

Columns 3, 3A, and 3B show the "present worths" of paying
for the average annual amount for 20, 30, or 40 years.
Present worth takes into account the time value of money.
Based on an interest rate (6 7/8% in this analysis), the
present worth represents today's value of money spent in the
future.  In other words, if one were to put $5,505. in the
bank today he would be able to make a 21-year stream of
annual payments of $503. assuming that the amount in the
bank at any given time was growing at an annual interest
rate of 6 7/8%.

LOCAL SEWER REPAIR AND REHABILITATION

The repair and rehabilitation of local sanitary sewer systems
is an integral part of the MWPAP. This aspect deals with the
repairs necessary to alleviate problems caused by an excess
of clear water entering the sanitary sewer system.

Following periods of wet weather, clear water enters the
sanitary sewer system through damaged pipes, joints and man-
holes  (infiltration), as well as roof leaders, basement
drains and inlets  (inflow).  This infiltration and inflow
(I/I) causes overloading of the sanitary sewer system and
wastewater treatment facilities, and leads to backups as
well as the bypassing of raw wastewater directly into re-
ceiving waters.

The MMSD has been  required by a Dane County Court  Stipulation
to eliminate excessive  I/I by July 1, 1986.  Also, Public
Law  92-500 requires  the removal of excessive clear water to
be eligible  for  federal "Construction Grants" Funds.  There-
fore,  to ensure  compliance with the  court order and  to
remain eligible  for  federal construction grants, the MMSD
has  undertaken a total  clear water program  of which  local
sewer  repair and rehabilitation is one  aspect.
                             98
-------
                      05
                          rsicso^oinco— <
               tn
               0
               CJ
            O  0
            •v  a
                                                                                              •«• ^o r- —i
                                                                                              ^J ^T -«T *O f
                                                                                              r* in c^ o -
o
CM
                                                                                O O3 03 in
                                                                                f-* o-i    —i
            a
            c
ea
m
\a
                                                                                              oj -v <^ in &.
                                                                                              03 o) co o ca
                                                                                              O OJ 1-1 Q5 O>
   t/5
p fl
-I Z
2 O

   §M
   CJ


ui
>• a
a en


35 a
O a
'o Q

j £
< a

o o
6- U
   a
   OS
               as I
            O  0
            m  a
            (U  i
            tn  jj
            u  o
            a.  2
                                                                                              oo oo r- m cs
                                                                                              o -^ f^ co —*
O
in


„




















m i-i-ir-rim^oN^
S22££S£S£
O ~tinrN






fl
•0 u jj
—( oi tn 01 w
01 01 -1 > S C
lU't"* G ^ 0 "*^ '*^
*^tu ki >• u 0 ^
•^ ^ ^" 01 >i JI rji CL v^
01 0 3 -> 13 fl S
>»O 0 ^ T3 'S = X fl
flULi3fl3'->OU
aa a a cj cj a i. i.

ooeoinavin^fMinf^vo^uieovt-i-vvor*^
SS'S22?S^?^5«S255S3
(N va r- in us CM m n  us in  '03-^3tny3
01*~*ki^fl UO)-^301(t3--4^^Q^fl010)
CJOCJOS ?;SSZ2OB!WMa3r,
«:
a

_^
tn
^
0)
^J
.•4
^
3


>•
C
3
0
CJ
01
JH
3
IT!
3
— t
>H
r
n
•3

tn
±t
3
O
5
o
•c
0

tn
73
fl
3
Q
j—
^J

c

tn

tn
0


i-4
-------
                                TABLE  58A

               LOCAL REHABILITATION AND  RELIEF  SEWER COSTS
                         I/I Analysis Estimates
                         (6 gallons per minute)
Community
Bayside
Brown Deer
Cudahy
Fox Point
Franklin
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Milwaukee
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
Subtotal
Brookfield
Butler
Elm Grove
Germantown
Menomonee Falls
Mequon
Muskego
New Berlin
Thiensville
Subtotal

Total
  *0utside Milwaukee County

 All costs in thousands  of dollars.

Source:  MMSD SSES
J-iUUd -L
Rehabilitation
Private

$

2
1





42




4
12


$67









$ 1
$68
1
457
695
,050
,361
372
526
40
7
57
,695
406
298
778
361
,687
,489
510
34
,823
313
13
28
44
286
169
78
85
21
,037
,860
Public
2
$ 119
138
580
226
116
335
368
780
320
7,288
308
190
300
76
1,016
984
104
413
$13,711
205
52
363
141
314
205
94
416
69
$ 1,859
$15,570
Local
Dpi i of
x\c j_ ^L. c .1.
Sewer
3
— M
	
$ 391
917
—
—
—
450
45
434
__
— ,
36
451
1,027
1,479
__
1,713
$6,943
—
__
--
—
—
—
—
--
217
$ 217
$7,160
Total
Public
4
= 2 + 3
$ 119
138
971
1,143
166
335
368
1,230
365
7,722
308
190
366
527
2,043
2,463
104
2,126
$20,654
205
52
363
141
314
205
94
416
286
$ 2,076
$22,730
Total
Project
= 1 + 4
$ 576
833
3,021
2,504
538
861
408
1,237
422
50,417
714
488
1,114
888
6,730
14,952
614
2,160
$88,477
518
65
391
185
600
374
172
501
307
$ 3,113
$91,590
                                     100
-------
                                   TABLE 58B

                  LOCAL REHABILITATION AND RELIEF SEWER COSTS


                               SSES Estimates
                             (9 gallons per minute)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
   Community
Bayside
Brown Deer
Cudahy
Fox Point
Franklin
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Milwaukee
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
Subtotal
Brookfield
Butler
Elm Grove
Germantown
Menomonee Falls
Mequon
Muskego
New Berlin
Thiensville
Subtotal

Total
* Outside Milwaukee County

1
 All costs in thousands of dollars.

Source:   MMSD SSES
.UWl—Q J.
Rehabili

Private
1
$ 493
901
2,372
1,239
440
717
73
1,027
72
53,993
383
301
1,216
1,766
9,703
9,580
631
3,560
$88,467
177
15
23
44
11
160
105
121
19
$ 675
$89,142
tation

Public
2
$ 325
432
873
429
753
773
1,117
1,627
513
9,473
1,010
371
355
310
2,539
2,287
171
683
$24,041
213
11
597
326
1,284
962
847
745
202
$ 5,187
$29,228
Local
Relief
Sewer
3
—
—
$ 391
917
__
__
—
450
45
434
--
—
36
451
1,027
1,479
— ,
1,713
$6,943
—
—
—
—
—
__
__
—
217
$ 217
$7,160
Total
Public
4
= 2 + 3
$ 325
432
1,264
1,346
753
773
1,117
2,077
558
9,907
1,010
371
391
761
3,566
3,766
171
2,396
$30,984
213
11
597
326
1,284
962
847
745
419
$ 5,404
$36,388
Total
Project
= 1 + 4
$ 818
1,333
3,63
2,585
1,193
1,490
1,190
3,352
627
63,900
1,393
672
1,607
2,527
13,269
13,346
302
5,956
$119,451
390
28
620
370
1,295
1,122
952
866
438
$ 6,079
$125,530
                                     101
-------
                                   TABLE 53C

                 . LOCAL REHABILITATION AND RELIEF SEWER COSTS


                                SSES Estimates1
                           (12  gallons  per  minute)
*
*
*
*
   Community
Bayside
Brown Deer
Cudahy
Fox Point
Franklin
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Milwaukee
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
Subtotal
Brookfield
Butler
Elm Grove
Germantown
Menomonee Falls
Mequon
Muskego
New Berlin
Thiensville
Subtotal

Total
  * Outside Milwaukee  County
  1
   All costs in thousands  of  dollars.

  Source:  MMSD SSES
J-IW W t_l JL
Rehabilitation '

Private
1
$ 493
901
3,685
1,239
442
717
73
1,275
72
64,723
1,750
301
1,730
1,769
17,240
15,644
699
6,163
$113,916
477
15
23
196
11
160
105
121
19
<•* ^ i ^ ^»
9 j. , j.^ /
$120,043

Public
2
$ 325
532
873
429
753
771
1,117
1,627
510
9,473
1,010
372
355
310
2,539
2,287
181
683
$24,147
1,013
11
597
326
1,284
962
847
745
202
$ 5,987
$30,134
Local
Relief
Sewer
3
— _
	
$ 391
917
__
— „
__
450
45
434
__
—
36
451
1,027
1,479
__
1,713
$6,943
__
—
— ,
— ,
— ,
__
— ,
__
217
$ 217
$7,160
Total
Public
4
= 2 + 3
$ 325
532
1,264
1,346
753
771
1,117
2,077
555
8,906
1,010
372
391
761
3,566
3,766
181
2,396
$31,090
1,013
11
597
326
1,284
926
847
745
419
$ 6,204
$37,294
Total
Project
= 1 + 4
$ 818
1,433
4,949
2,585
1,195
1,488
1,190
3,352
627
74,630
2,760
673
2,121
2,530
20,806
19,410
880
8,559
$150,006
1,490
26
620
522
1,295
1,122
952
866
438
$ 7,331
$157,337
                                       102
-------
From the I/I analysis and the SSES, repair costs have been
estimated for each community.  Three different sets of costs
have been developed  (one derived from the I/I analysis, and
two derived from the SSES}, based on the removal of three
different levels of I/I.  The cost estimates for each com-
munity, under the three options, are shown in Table 58-A, B,
C.  This table presents the general cost scenarios that may
possibly confront each community.

The specific control of local sanitary sewer repair and
rehabilitation will be under the jurisdiction of each com-
munity   CJune, 1980).  However, due to the MMSD's court
ordered deadline, the repair and rehabilitation will be
carried out on the MMSD's time schedule under their overall
supervision.  This is necessary since the MMSD is held fully
responsible and will face the consequences of non-compliance.

The financing of the repair and rehabilitation work will be
carried out on a district-wide basis, in the same manner as
the entire MWPAP.  The MMSD will be responsible for obtaining
grant funds as well as financing through district-wide
taxation and/or bonding.

CSO FISCAL IMPACTS

Impacts of Alternatives

The costs of constructing the MWPAP facilities, including
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) costs, would exceed the $60
million maximum level of state and federal funding during
most construction years.  As a result, the costs of the
alternative CSO solutions would not be affected by funding
levels.  It can be assumed that any CSO alternative costing
more than the Inline Alternative would directly increase
the local capital required for the MWPAP (see Table 59).
Generally, the percentage increase in the total MWPAP costs
caused by a different CSO solution could be applied to the
Milwaukee County property tax rate required to finance the
Mosaic Alternative.  For example, if a $1,064 billion alter-
native (local capital)  results in a $4.37 per $1,000 tax
rate, then a $1.098 billion alternative, which is a 32%
increase, would result in a $4.51/$1000 tax rate (see Table
59).  Assuming the continuation of the current contract
formula, costs to communities outside of Milwaukee County
would increase, but not as much as in-county costs.  The
contract formula is not as sensitive to changes in MMSD
capital expenditures because the charges to contract com-
munities are based on a 2% depreciation of MMSD assets in
place.  Thus, costs are spread through the contract formula
based on a 50-year pay-back period (as opposed to 20-year
bonds in Milwaukee County).
                             103
-------
                          TABLE  59

             FISCAL IMPACTS  OF CSO  ALTERNATIVES
Alternative

1.  Inline
2.  CST/Inline
3.  Modified
Total Storage
4.  Complete
   Separation
Total Initial
MWPAP Capital:
Local Share*

$1,064,005
 1,074,535

 1,088,085

 1,097,925
Percent
Increase

Base
1%

2.3%

3.2%
Average
Annual
Tax Rate

$ 4.37
  4.41

  4.47

  4.51
Annual Burden
to a $50,000
Home in Milwaukee Co.

$     218
      220

      223

      225
*Costs in thousands
Source:  ESEI

Distribution of  CSO  Costs

The analysis of  the  fiscal impacts of the MWPAP assumed that
the MMSD Recommended CSO Alternative would be implemented,
that the MMSD would  finance the construction, and that all
costs would be distributed to all connected municipalities.
Milwaukee County residents would directly finance the debt
service on bonds by  paying a property tax, while contract
communities would pay according to the existing contract
formula.  CSO costs  are  included in these two cost distribution
methods.

A controversial  issue of the MWPAP, involving the financing
of individual parts  of the program, has been raised at
public meetings  on the MWPAP-WSP.  For example, one issue
deals with the acceptability of distributing CSO costs
throughout the entire MMSD service area.  Another issue
deals with the acceptability of distributing the costs of
interceptor construction throughout the entire MMSD service
area.  In fact,  the  proposal to distribute all MWPAP costs
throughout the entire MMSD service area is an issue.

For the purpose  of demonstrating the magnitude of not financing
the CSO component district-wide, a "worst-case" analysis was
conducted.  This worst-case scenario assumes that the CSO
work would be financed entirely by the residents of the CSSA
by way of the property tax.  The objective in performing
this analysis is to  give some fiscal perspective to the CSO
burden. The analysis is  not intended as an alternative means
of distributing  MWPAP costs.  The effects of having $3
billion worth of property  in Milwaukee and Shorewood  (CSSA)
taxed to finance the debt  service on bonds issued for CSO
work are shown in Table  60.  The fiscal burden presented in
the table is for CSO costs only.  No other aspect of the
MWPAP is included.
                              104
-------
                            TABLE 60

                    COSTS TO CSSA RESIDENTS
                       FOR CSO WORK ONLY
Property
Value
$15
25
35
,000
,000
,000
Average % of % of
Annual $7,000 $10,000
Tax Income Income
$165 2.4% 1.6%
275 3.9 2.7
385 5.5 3.8
% of
$13,000
Income
1.3%
2.1
3.0
The 1985-2005 average annual tax rate on CSSA property to
finance debt service on 20 year bonds would be $11.00 per
$1,000 of equalized property value.
Assumptions:

          The 1979 estimated equalized value of CSSA is
          $3 billion.

          The real growth rate would be .29% per year.

          CSO work would receive a proportional share
          of available grant funding.

          The MMSD recommended CSO alternative would be
          implemented.
Source:   MWPAP Model ALCSO
                              105
-------
ALTERNATIVE COST APPORTIONMENT

The comparison of the fiscal impacts of the Local Alternative,
the Regional Alternative, the Mosaic Alternative, and the
Combination Alternative, has assumed the continuation of the
existing contract formula and the ad valorem property taxation
of Milwaukee County.  Table 61 compares the community costs
of the Mosaic Alternative to a system based on flow con-
tribution and one based on a service area property tax. The
flow-based charges are determined by multiplying the estimated
future flow of a community (as a percentage of the total
service area flow) times the average annual MMSD debt service
(1985-2005) of $86 million.  In other words, if the $86
million average annual MMSD debt service were apportioned
according to a community's percentage contribution to the
total service area flow  Cignoring strength factors) , the
average annual community costs would be as listed in the
table. The future flows by community are MWPAP estimates for
the year 1995.

The other alternative, a service area tax, would be an
ad valorem property tax on all property served by the MMSD,
regardless of political jurisdictions.  Very simply, the tax
rate would be determined by dividing the $86 million by the
total amount of served property value.  This rate times the
community property value yields the amount shown on the
table.  Each community charge is divided by the $86 million
to establish the percentage of the total MMSD average annual
debt service that a community would be contributing.

The objective in creating alternative scenarios, as in Table
61, is to give more perspective to the Mosaic Alternative.
The citizen is able to see whether his/her community would
pay more or less if the cost distribution were based on
something other than the existing system.  Table 62 indicates
the percentage change that would occur if the system of cost
distribution were switched from the existing constraints of
the Mosaic Alternative to a flow-based or service area tax
method.  For example, the table shows that Bayside's charge
would drop 65% if the distribution of cost was based on
percentage of total flow. Under a service area tax, Bayside's
cost would drop 8%.  In general, Tables 61 and 62 indicate
that Milwaukee County suburbs would pay much more under the
existing cost distribution system than they would under a
flow-based or service area tax. Waukesha, Washington, Racine,
and Ozaukee County communities would pay higher costs with a
flow-based system and much higher costs if they had to pay
by the same ad valorem property tax method as Milwaukee
County communities.  The City of Milwaukee would pay higher
costs under a flow-based system  (CSO-related flow included),
but would have its charge decreased with a service area ad
valorem property tax.

                             106
-------
                     0) ^
                     Ol rH
                     C -"

                     5  a
                     o  o
                         SH
                     <*> CM
                     M-l  ifl
                     O  -P
                         0
                     *°  EH
                     4-1
                     JH.-^
                       o  rH  in VD
                                                                                                                                              co
                                                                                                                                              ro
                                                          rH rH  rH
                                                                          CNrHCN
                                                                                         rOrHCO
                                                                                                ro
                                                                                                  n  o  ro  CN
                                                                                                   -  O
                                                                                                  H  tJ      kO
                                                                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                  CO
                                                                                                                   m
                                                                                                                   co
                                                                                                                                                       CO
H
iJ
CQ
<
EH
      £•<
      Z
      O
      H
      a
      EH
      8
      o
      S
                     0)
                     CT>
                     G
                     MH
                     O
01
tn ^
ITS O
fflO
                     CM
                                     I-  +   I  +  +  +  +   I
                                                                      +   l   I    I    I-T-
                                                                                                            +I-I-I
                                                                                                incor^     men
                                                                                                                               +   11   +
                                                                                                        CN
           in
«* m

co CN  ^  en
m en  CN  co
CN P-  CO  rH
                                                                                                  r-  CN CN
                                                                                                     rH  1^3  CO  CN
                                                                                                      fd  O  *>Q  O
                                                                                                CTl
                                                                                                        rHrO
                                                                                                      U  CN
                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                              CO
                                                                                                                                      CN  CN  CO
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                             in

                                                                                             m
                                                                                                                                                       VO
                                                                                                                                                       co
      H
      EH








o
•H
rd
cn
o
S
<4H
o

01
>
•H
4J
m
S
0)
4-1
rH

rH
03
4-1
g



.M^
o
o
o
rH

X

                                    in r-
                                    oo co
                          rH ^r ro
                          CN o CN
                                                                                          CN  o  ro  m co
                                                                                          CNl  CO  CN  CM rH
                                                                          rOCNCO
                                                                                                CO
                                                                                                                                  t^  P-  rH  CN
                                                   en r- in
                                                                  en
                                    iHOrHOmmrH^D
                                    rOinOCOrocN^rH
                                    r> t~-  in  rH      en ro  CN
                                                cornro^cocOrHcn.cO'q'COOoocn


                                                    COCNM     rHrHrH      rHCN
                                                                                                                        ;a
                                                                                                          O
                                                                                                          CO
                                                                                                          CO
                                                                                                                                                                    OQ
                                                                                                                                                       CO
Bayside
Brookfield*
Brown Deer
Butler*
Caddy Vista*
Cudahy
Elm Grove*
4-1
c
•H
0
ftl
X
o
CM
Franklin
Germantown*
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Menomonee Falls*
Mequon *
Milwaukee
Muskego*
New Berlin*
^
0)
0)
SH
u
^
(8
O
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
South Milwaukee
Thiensville*
Wauwatosa
m
•H
rH
rH
<
4->
W
CD
s
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
                                                                                                                                                               s
                                                                                                                                                               -
                                                                              107
-------
                              TABLE 6 2

                       PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
                  MOSAIC ALTERNATIVE  TO ALTERNATIVE
                      COST  DISTRIBUTION METHODS
   Bayside
   Brookfield
   Brown Deer
   Butler
   Caddy Vista
   Cudahy
   Elm Grove
   Fox Point
   Franklin
   Germantown
   Glendale
   Greendale
   Greenfield
   Hales Corners
   Menomonee Falls
   Mequon
   Milwaukee
   Muskego
   New Berlin
   Oak Creek
   River Hills
   St. Francis
   Shorewood
   South. Milwaukee
   Thiensville
   Wauwatosa
   West Allis
   West Milw
   Whitefish Bay
Percentage Change From
Mosaic Alternative
To Flow Based System

       -65
       + 06
       -45
       +05
       +20
       + 45
       + 06
       -56
       -36
       + 08
       -66
       -54
       -49
       -62
       + 08
       + 08
       + 20
       + 08
       + 08
       + 44
       -47
       + 19
       -25
       Local
       +07
       -30
       -16
      + 113
       -53
Percentage Change Frc
Mosaic Alternative
To Sewer Service Area
Property Tax

       -08
      + 132
       -08
       + 35
       + 35
       -08
      + 220
       -08
       -08
       -08
       -08
       -08
       -08
       -08
       + 94
       + 63
       -08
       + 96
       + 76
       -08
       -08
       -08
       -08
      Local
       + 99
       -08
       -08
       -08
       -08
*0utside Milwaukee County.
  Source:  MWPAP
                                108
-------
Table 63 shows what the average annual household cost would
be with a sewer service area property tax based on the same
$4.07 per $1000. of equalized property value as Table 61.
The results are juxtaposed with the existing constraints of
the Mosaic Alternative (County property tax, contract
formula) so the reader can make the comparison at the house-
hold level.
                             109
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACTS

BACKGROUND

The impacts of the MWPAP on the area economy have been esti-
mated by the MWPAP using the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA) Regional Industrial Multiplier System (RIMS).  The
RIMS model is essentially an outgrowth of economic base
theory.  In order to facilitate an understanding of the RIMS
model and its predictions, a number of economic terms are
defined.

Economic Base Theory

The fundamental concept of economic base analysis is that an
economy can be defined as consisting of two segments: those
firms and individuals in the local economy that are net
exporters (basic) and those firms and individuals that serve
markets within the local economy  (nonbasic).  Export firms
are considered the prime movers of the local economy. Payments
to local suppliers and workers for exports will have a
"multiplier" effect because this  income will be partially
spent within the local economy and become someone else's
income.  In fact, the income from outside of the region goes
through several iterations within the local economy.

Multiplier

The multiplier estimates the amount of local income that
will be generated by a given amount of non-local income.
Multipliers are calculated  (based on the economic linkages)
for the economic indicators of gross output, earnings  (income),
and employment.  For example, a multiplier could be used to
estimate the number of jobs created as a result of the
employment of one person in a basic industry.

There is no single multiplier that describes every industry
(or industrial sector) and every  region of the country.
Each industry has a multiplier based on the unique mix of
suppliers and labor of that sector.  Likewise, each metropolitan
area has unique multipliers based upon the capacity of the
local economy to provide needed supplies and labor, and the
spending tendencies of local consumers.  RIMS uses the
national input-output model, and  special BEA and other
Department of Commerce studies to determine unique multipliers
for each sector and region.
                              110
-------
                            TABLE 63

                SEWER SERVICE AREA PROPERTY TAX:
            1985-2005 AVERAGE ANNUAL  HOUSEHOLD  CHARGES
                (4.07 PER $1000 EQUALIZED VALUE)


                                            Average        Mosaic
                      Average               Annual         Alternative
                      Property Value         Charge         Annual  Charge


   Bayside            $ 115,000             $  468           $  503
*  Brookfield            89,000               362             131
   Brown Deer            62,000               252             271
*  Butler                52,000               212              39+
*  Caddy Vista           45,000               183              96
   Cudahy                51,500               210             225
*  Elm Grove            111,500               454             137
   Fox Point            109,500               446             478
   Franklin              68,500               279             299
*  Germantown            62,500               254              95
   Glendale              75,000               305             328
   Greendale             79,000               322             345
   Greenfield            61,500               250             269
   Hales Corners         67,500               275             295
*  Menomonee Falls       67,000               273             126
*  Mequon                94,500               385             122
   Milwaukee             40,000               163             175
*  Muskego               63,000               256             105
*  New Berlin            68,000               277             106
   Oak Creek             58 ,000               236             253
   River Hills          159,000               647             695
   St. Francis           47,500               193             208
   Shorewood             85,500               348             374
   South Milwaukee
*  Thiensville           81,500               332             116
   Wauwatosa             70,000               285             306
   West Allis            61,000               248             267
   West Milwaukee        50,500               206             221
   Whitefish Bay         90,000               366             393

   Butler Employs a User Charge For Capital Recovery.
   Consequently, the Industrial Class pays the majority
   of Butler's capital costs.

*  Outside Milwaukee County

   Source:  MWPAP Model 66B
                               111
-------
Input-Output  Cl/0)

Input-output analysis is a method for studying the relation-
ships among industries to determine the overall effect on
the economy of expansion or contraction in a selected
industry(s).

An input-output table details the degree to which industrial
sectors within a region are linked to each other.  The table
displays the dollar amount that industrial Sector "A" purchases
from all the sectors that supply A in order for Sector A to
produce a dollar's worth of output.  The table also shows
all the sectors (in dollar amounts) to which Sector A is an
input  (sales).   In summary, an I/O table shows the inter-
industry linkages of an economy.

The national input-output model describes the relationships
between industrial and other sectors on a national level. It
has to be adapted to the unique characteristics of a particular
metropolitan region.  No region has the capacity to provide
all of the supply requirements for a particular industrial
sector.  Each region has its own unique mix of industrial
sectors.

RIMS estimates unique multipliers for any county, or group
of counties, and for any of the 478 industries included in
the national input-output model.

THE REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL MULTIPLIER SYSTEM

The following description of the RIMS model is provided by
the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA, 1977):

     The total regional economic effect of public programs,
     policies, or investments is composed of an initial
     industrial impact and a secondary impact.  The nature
     of the task involved in estimating the initial indus-
     trial impact varies considerably between problem sit-
     uations.  In general, however, it requires that the
     change introduced into the economy—be it an irrigation
     project or flood plain zoning—be defined in terms of
     an initial change in economic activity, by industry.
     The secondary impacts can be estimated using the indus-
     try-specific multipliers that are generated by the
     RIMS.
                              112
-------
An Overview of the RIMS Estimating Procedure

The RIMS procedure is an effort to provide some of the
analytical opportunities of the input-output framework
without incurring the costs of creating an entire I/O
model for a region.  To realize this efficiency, the
gross-output multiplier is viewed as being made up of
four components:

The initial final-demand-change component is always
unity.  This permits the initial final-demand-change to
be included in the total gross-output change.

The direct-effect component is the sum of the inter-
industry direct requirements per dollar of gross
output.  It represents the expenditures for inputs
directly supplied by other industries to the industry
experiencing a change in final demand.  For example,
one particular direct requirement of the grain mill
products industry is grain.  The grain required by that
industry per dollar of gross output is one element of
the direct-effect componet of its final-demand multiplier,

The indirect-effect component represents additional
industrial activity generated by the initial final-
demand change.  That is, the indirect effect accounts
for the direct requirements of industries that provide
inputs to industries selling direct requirements to the
industry experiencing a final-demand change.  In the
example of the grain mill products industry and its
direct requirements for grain, it can be noted that the
grain industry, in turn, requires inputs from the
fertilizer industry, among others.  The fertilizer
required by the grain industry represents one element
of the indirect effect component of the grain mill
products industry final-demand multiplier.

The induced-effect component of the final-demand
multiplier represents the effect on total gross output
of changes in household income and changes in personal
consumption expenditures arising from changes in
payments to households for supplying factors of pro-
duction.  These gross-output effects result when a
household sector is introduced into the endogenous
portion of the matrix of direct requirements per dollar
of gross output by including a household income row and
a Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) column.  In
the example of the grain mill products industry, income
received by the grain mill worker is expended on the
outputs of industries supplying personal consumption
goods and services.  Treated in this way, the household


                        113
-------
     sectors interacts with all other sectors in the model,
     and changes in final demand in a particular industry
     are reflected in a particular set of changes in house-
     hold income, in the level of PCE, and, consequently, in
     the ouputs of industries directly and indirectly
     selling goods and services to households.

The RIMS Procedure

The first step in using RIMS is determining which sectors
are providing the stimulus for the impacts.  The MWPAP con-
sulted with the Bureau of Economic Analysis  (BEA) of the
United States Department of Commerce to arrive at six RIMS
sectors:
1)
2)
3)
Sector 1606
Sector 1607
Sector 1729
4)
5)
Sector 1731
Sector 1731
                  New water supply facilities
                  New sewer facilities
                  Maintenance and repair of water supply
                  facilities
                  Maintenance and repair of sewer facilities
                  Modified Sector 1731 for maintenance and
                  repair of cavern storage facilities
6)   Sector 7303 - Miscellaneous professional services.  Used
                  to reflect planning, engineering, and
                  administrative services.

(It should be noted that these are BEA RIMS codes, and are
not to be confused with SIC codes.)

During the evaluation of the final alternatives, the projected
cost of each alternative was broken down into the six RIMS
sectors.  The Mosaic Alternative involved only four RIMS
sectors, because of the differences in construction techniques,
equipment, and labor needed for a partial separation system.

The expenditures for the Mosaic Alternative are shown in
Table 6-4.

                           TABLE 64
                 EXPENDITURES BY RIMS SECTORS
Sector
                                     Expenditures
       New water supply facilities       $
       New sewer facilities
       Maintenance and repair of 1606
       Maintenance and repair of 1607
       Maintenance and repair of
       cavern storage facilities
       Miscellaneous professional services
                                        402,450,000
                                        887,454,000

                                        109,410,000
                                        256,839,000
                                         $1,656,153,000
 (Source:  MWPAP Summary, Table 1.)
                              114
-------
The RIMS system was run by BEA to produce a unique multiplier
for each of the original six sectors for the Milwaukee SMSA.
RIMS first chooses the appropriate direct requirement
coefficient column from the national input-output model.  As
previously explained, this column provides the unique mix of
input needed for every requirement of the impacted sector.

The national direct requirement columns are then edited by
RIMS to remove those requirements which are not available in
the geographic area under consideration.  County Business
Patterns'  four-digit data is used for the editing process.

Finally, the coefficient column is regionalized by scaling
down the coefficients for those requirements which the
region must partially import.  For this purpose, two-digit
SIC location quotients are used.  The location quotients are
calculated from BEA county earnings data.  The coefficients
are scaled down when the location quotient is less than one.

POSITIVE ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Gross Output

The last step in the RIMS procedure is to calculate the
gross output multiplier.  This is done by introducing the
local spending propensities which have been established by
BEA.  The multipliers for the six sectors used in the
Milwaukee study are shown in Table 65.  These multipliers
were used to evaluate all of the MWPAP alternatives.

                           TABLE 65

                    BEA SECTOR MULTIPLIERS
                        (Gross Output)

Sector                                  Multiplier

1606:  New water supply facilities        3.290
1607:  New sewer facilities               2.921
1729:  Maintenance and repair water
       supply facilities                  3.204
1731:  Maintenance and repair sewer
       facilities                         3.473
1731:  Modified maintenance and repair
       sewer facilities                   2.912
7303:  Miscellaneous professional         3.345
       services

(Source:  MWPAP RIMS Industry-Specific Multipliers)
                             115
-------
When the RIMS multipliers are multiplied by the dollars of
expenditures in the sector, they produce projected changes
in gross output.  For example, the projected change in gross
output for the Mosaic Alternative is $4,544,452,000.  The
projected increases in gross output for the other final
alternatives range from $4,560,000,000 to $4,617,500,000.
Overall economic impacts from all of the alternatives are
very similar.  Gross output impacts for the Mosaic Alternative
(MMSD Recommended Plan) are presented in Table 66.

Earnings

BEA defines earnings as "wage and salary payments, other
labor income, and proprietor's income."  Gross output impacts
were converted to earnings impacts by the MWPAP.  The con-
versions involved applying special RIMS earnings to gross
output factors  (developed by BEA for each industrial sector).

Earnings will usually be significantly less than gross
output. This is because earnings include only the cost of
labor component of output.  Gross output also includes the
value of commodities, government taxes, capital formation,
and other economic sectors.

The total change in earnings for the Mosaic Alternative is
an increase of $1,173,626,000.  The earnings multiplier is
2.03, meaning that every dollar of direct earnings will
reflect a total of $2.03 in both direct and indirect earn-
ings,  (see Table 67).

This is very close to the range of projected increases in
earnings for the other alternatives of between $1,237,000,000
to $1,255,000,000.  The earnings multipliers for the other
alternatives range between 1.93 and 1.97.

Employment

Earnings impacts may be converted into employment impacts.
This indicator of economic impact measures new jobs that
will be created as a result of the program.

The MWPAP converted earnings impacts to employment impacts
by multiplying the indirect and induced portion of MWPAP-
generated earnings by an earnings to employment ratio for
the State of Wisconsin.  This figure was then added to a
direct employment estimate derived from Bureau of Labor
Statistics  (Dept. of Labor) surveys of similar projects in
other areas to arrive at total employment impact.
                              116
-------
                                TABLE 66
                   CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE IMPACTS:
                             GROSS OUTPUT
             Primary (current)
             Change in
             Gross Output
Pre-'80
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
113,524
95,590
149,463
262,090
364,614
417,853
372,287
324,022
282,092
166,592
47,942
349
1,345
1,341
                     Indirect and
                     Induced Change in
                     Gross Output
                       Total Change in
                       Gross Output
89,799
74,932
114,322
202,138
277,795
313,592
278,549
238,462
202,195
117,675
33,722
279
946
942
203,323
170,522
263,785
464,228
642,409
731,445
650,836
562,484
484,287
284,267
81,664
628
2,291
2,283
Totals
2,599,104
1,945,348
4,544,452
Notes:  Units in thousands of 1980 dollars

Source:   MWPAP, RIMS Summary, Table 3.
                                   117
-------
                                TABLE 67
                   CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE IMPACTS:
                               EARNINGS
             Primary Change
             In Earnings
Pre-'SO
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
41,339
32,136
43,651
64,172
78,215
86,873
75,579
63,231
51,842
29,642
8,557
126
242
240
                     Indirect and Induced
                     Change in Earnings
                       Total Change
                       In Earnings
26,530
22,256
34,494
62,052
86,036
96,967
85,933
73,528
62,477
36,411
10,430
83
292
292
67,869
54,392
78,145
126,224
164,251
183,840
161,512
136,758
114,319
66,053
18,987
209
534
532
Totals
575,845
597,781
1,173,625
Notes:    Units in thousands of 1980 dollars
          Earnings is sum of change in earnings for RIMS sectors
          Earnings = wages and salaries and other labor income + profit

Source:   MWPAP,RIMS Summary, Table 4.
                                   118
-------
The employment impact was adjusted to man-years.  A total of
55,097 man-years are projected for the Mosaic alternative:
15,700 will be directly associated with project construction;
4,000 in engineering and design; and 35,380 will be in jobs
indirectly generated by the project.

The employment multiplier is 2.79.  This means that every
man-year directly involved in the project construction will
reflect a total of 2.79 direct and indirect man-years added
to the local economy.  The employment multipliers for the
other alternatives were also all 2.78 or 2.79.  There are
only small differences between the employment effects of any
of the alternatives.  Table 68 presents the construction
employment impacts for the Mosaic Alternative.

NEGATIVE ECONOMIC IMPACTS

The MWPAP will have many positive impacts on the Milwaukee
economy.  Almost two billion dollars of additional earnings
would be generated, with 55,000 total man-years of employ-
ment during the 13-year construction period.  However, the
negative impacts of the shift of local funds from other uses
in order to pay for the large local share of the total costs
must be considered.  The net economic impact is the difference
between the positive and negative impact.

Two scenarios based on the extreme possible consumer reactions
to increased taxes are examined.  One extreme is that con-
sumers would pay the new taxes out of funds that would
normally be spent entirely outside of the region, such as
for vacations. The second scenario assumes that consumers
would have spent all of the tax money entirely within the
region.  While neither of these scenarios is completely
realistic, they illustrate the range of possibilities.

"Least Case"
The first scenario, the "Least Case," assumes that none of
the new tax money would have been spent within the region.
Therefore, there is no multiplier effect from the lost
consumer income.  Only the actual amount of the debt service
needed to retire the capital bonds is considered.  With this
first scenario, $1.966 billion would be removed from the
local economy to retire the general obligation bonds over a
30-year period.

The $1.97 billion to be paid out in property taxes may be
subtracted from the expected positive impacts from construction
to arrive at a least case net impact (see Table 69).

                            119
-------
                                TABLE 68
                   CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE IMPACTS:
                              EMPLOYMENT


Pre-'80
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
Direct
Employment
943
787
1,219
1,906
2,590
3,062
2,727
2,951
2,246
1,364
397
3
11
11
                                  Indirect and  Induced
                                  Employment	
                                    1,603
                                    1,340
                                    2,056
                                    3,669
                                    5,065
                                    5,717
                                    5,080
                                    4,352
                                    3,692
                                    2,151
                                      616
                                        5
                                       17
                                       17
                                             Total
                                             Employment
                                               2,546
                                               2,127
                                               3,275
                                               5,575
                                               7,655
                                               8,779
                                               7,807
                                               6,803
                                               5,938
                                               3,515
                                               1,013
                                                   8
                                                  28
                                                  28
Totals
19,717
35,380
55,097
Source:  MWPAP, RIMS Summary,  Table 5.
                                   120
-------
In order to calculate  net impacts on earning and employment,
debt-retirement  impacts  were first converted to earnings  and
employment, using  the  same procedure discussed earlier.

                            TABLE  69

                       LEAST CASE EFFECTS

                 Construction Related     Debt-Service
                 Positive	    Negative Effect     Net Change

Gross Output       $4,544,452,000          $1,966,319,000      +$2,578,133,000
Earnings           1,173,626,000            333,584,000      +   840,042,000
Employment-total          55,097                23,707             31,390
Employment-annual          1,670                   718                952

Source:  MWPAP,  RIMS Summary, Tables 11, 13,  15.


"Worst Case"

The second scenario  is the "Worst Case".  It assumes that
all of the new tax money would have been spent within  the
region, and thus would have compound effects on the local
economy.  In  order to  evaluate the negative impacts of this
scenario, it  was necessary to calculate an appropriate
multiplier for each  dollar taken from a sector.  The negative
multiplier has to  take into account spending characteristics
of the residential,  commercial,  and various industrial
sectors of the economy.  The residential and commercial
sectors were  represented by corresponding RIMS sectors.   The
industrial sector  was  represented by a weighted average of
23 different  RIMS  industrial sectors,  representing the 31
largest industrial firms in Milwaukee.

1.   Residential sector,  represented by RIMS Personal
     Consumption Expenditures.   Sector multiplier is 2.837.

2.   Industrial  sector,  represented by a composite multiplier
     derived  by weighting 23 different RIMS industry-specific
     multipliers,  representing the 31  largest industrial
     firms in the  Milwaukee area.  Multiplier is 2.958.

3.   Commercial  sector,  represented by RIMS Retail Trade
     sector.* Multiplier is 2.907.
*Retail was chosen to  represent the commercial sector because
 it was felt to be representative of the Milwaukee commercial
 economy.  Also,  a composite commercial multiplier would
 have required gathering  data that were not readily available,

                              121
-------
                          TABLE 70
                   DEBT SERVICE BY CLASS:
                    MOSAIC ALTERNATIVE
                        ($ x 1000)
MMSD Debt
Service Allocated
to Milwaukee County
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
12,255
12,826
14,625
22,422
35,974
51,271
65,137
76,570
86,089
89,200
89,486
89,348
87,141
87,115
87,097
87,088
87,104
86,232
86,305
84,390
84,603
83,674
81,357
72,646
57,755
39,722
Residential
64%
7,843
8,209
9,360
14,350
23,023
32,813
41,688
49,005
55,097
57,088
57,271
57,183
55,770
55,754
55,742
55,736
55,747
55,188
44,235
54,010
54,146
53,551
52,068
46,493
36,963
25,422
Commercial
26%
3,186
3,335
3,803
5,830
9,353
13,330
16,936
19,908
22,383
23,192
23,266
23,230
22,657
22,650
22,645
22,643
22,647
22,420
22,439
21,941
21,997
21,755
21,153
18,888
15,016
10,328
Industrial
10%
1,226
1,282
1,462
2,242
3,597
5,127
6,514
7,657
8,609
8,920
8,949
8,935
8,714
8,711
8,710
8,708
8,710
8,623
8,631
8,439
8,460
8,367
8,136
7,265
5,776
3,972
 Source:   MWPAP,  Financial Planning Model 60A; ESEI
                             122
-------
Using these multipliers,  a composite multiplier was cal-
culated by weighting the  expected percentage of the debt
payment to be paid  from each sector (Table 70).  The com-
posite multiplier was multiplied by total debt service  to
arrive at a net  impact.   Gross-output losses were converted
to earnings and  employment losses using the same procedures
outlined in the  section on positive impacts. Net losses were
then calculated  by  subtracting from previously determined
positive impacts.   Table  71 summarizes the "Worst Case"
impacts for the  entire program period of 1980-2012.

In the "Worst Case",  net  earnings for the entire program
period will still be slightly positive while net employment
will be negative.   This is because negative employment
impacts, from decreased local spending, will fall primarily
on lower paying  jobs.  Also, employees working in sewer
construction and related  industries, earn more than typical
Milwaukee employees.  The  MWPAP, under this scenario would
provide less new job stimulus than would be lost through
debt service impacts; but the new jobs would be higher
paying than those lost.

                            TABLE 71

                       WORST CASE EFFECTS

                 Construction  Related     Debt-Service
                 Positive-Effect	     Negative Effect   Net Change

Gross output       $   4,544,452,000        $  5,525,758,000  -$981,306,000
Earnings             1,173,626,000          1,137,313,000  +   36,313,000
Employment-total             55,097                72,197        17,100
Employment-annual             1,670                 2,188          518

Source:  MWPAP, RIMS Summary,  Tables 12, 14,  16.
With the least case  scenario,  there would be a net gain of
31,390 man-years  in  employment,  while under the worst case
scenario there would be  a net  loss of 17,100 man-years.

Conclusion

The probable economic impacts  will be somewhere between the
"Least Case" and  the "Worst Case".  Much will depend on
househould spending  and  the ability of businesses to pass
their tax increases  along to their customers.  In either
case, the magnitude  of stimulus  and drain will not affect
the basic situation  of a of positive economic impacts,
overlapped and followed  by a long period of negative economic
impacts.
                              123
-------
INDUSTRY AND HOUSEHOLD IMPACTS

To study the question of industry-specific impacts, the EIS
relied on a survey of fifty firms conducted by the MWPAP,
and on EIS interviews with trade associations.

The MWPAP sampled fifty firms from throughout the Milwaukee
region.  The firms were selected so that each major indus-
trial sector was included, and so that firms of all sizes
were included.  Interviews were conducted with senior exe-
cutives of each participating firm.  Forty-seven of the
original fifty firms participated.

Specific objectives of the survey were to provide informa-
tion related to the status of the MWPAP, to discuss esti-
mates of the firm's projected sewer-related tax increases,
and to elicit the company's reactions to the estimated
future charges.

Findings

The survey found that few of the firms interviewed felt that
they would be put at a competitive disadvantage.  No one
indicated a desire to move to avoid the costs of the program
(MWPAP:  Economic Study, p. 15.).  This may partly be ex-
plained by the large exemption to property valuation granted
to the industrial sector.

The MWPAP compared 1985 projected sewerage costs for selected
industries with their actual 1979 costs.  Sewerage costs
include both user charges for O&M, and property taxes for
capital debt service.  Thirty-one major industrial firms
were grouped into three categories:  Group A is heavy
machinery; Group B is breweries and dairy products; and
Group C is other manufacturing.  The comparison is presented
in Table 72.

None of the three industrial groups is expected to even
double its total sewerage costs.  More important is the fact
that sewerage costs are, and will remain, a very small
portion of the firms' total costs.

Table 73 illustrates the very small percentage of value-
added*, present and projected, from sewerage costs.
*Value-added is derived by subtracting the total cost of a
 firm's materials from the value of the firm's shipments of
 manufactured goods.
                              ,124
-------
                                      TABLE  72
                            1979 and 1985 SEWERAGE COSTS
                              FOR 31 INDUSTRIAL FIRMS
                      1979 Sewerage Costs
                      (Thousands of 1980 Dollars)
                                 Projected 1985 Sewerage Costs
                                 (Thousands of 1980 Dollars)
Description

Costs in thousands
at 1980 price levels

  Group A
  Group B
  Group C

Total
User
Charge
$  716.7
 3,038.0
 3,572.1
Property
Tax
   506.6
   120.2
    23.7
Total
$1,223.1
 3,158.2
 3,595.8
User
Charge
$  770.5
 3,393.6
 3,920.8
Property
Tax
$1,275.1
   464.1
    70.5
Total
$2,045.6
 3,857.6
 3,991.4
$7,326.8   $  650.5   $7,977.1   $8,084.9   $1,809.6   $9,894.6
Cost distribution
between Capital
and 0 s M
  Group A
  Group B
  Group C

Total
 59%
 96%
 99%

 92%
 41%
  4%
  1%
100%
100%
100%

100%
 38%
 88%
 98%

 82%
 62%
 12%
  2%

 18%
100%
100%
100%

100%
   Manufacturers' and merchants' stock 50% tax exempt.
   Manufacturers' and merchants' stock 100% tax exempt.
Source:  MMSD Wastewater System Plan,  Environmental Assessment, Table 7-11.
                                         125
-------
The only major value added component due to sewerage costs
as in the chemical industry.  The MWPAP does not, however,
substantially change what is already a high cost.

Wet Industries

Brewing:  The MWPAP will probably not have any effect on the
industry, because of the use of property tax revenues for
capital recovery.

Leather Tanners:  Leather tanning faces severe foreign com-
petition and has consequently had great difficulty in passing
along price increases to its customers.  However, interviews
revealed that the projected increase in property taxes would
not adversely affect them.  They are far more concerned with
federal regulations regarding pretreatment of toxic discharges.

Construction

The MWPAP will create a temporary upsurge in the construction
industry in Milwaukee.  As seen previously in Table 68, con-
struction employment will rise to a high of 3,000 man-years
in 1984, and average out at approximately 1,800 man-years
annually through 1990.  The average figure would represent
about ten percent of average annual construction employment
in the Milwaukee SMSA over the past decade.*

The construction industry is a volatile business, in which
new projects are continuously being started, while others
are completed.  Also,it is normal for significant periods of
lapse between projects to occur.

Commercial Buildings

Commercial buildings such as offices, hotels, and shopping
centers are more affected by property taxes than other types
of activities because property taxes are a relatively large
proportion of the operating costs.  Property taxes are one
of the factors in determining financial feasibility of a new
project and can create a squeeze on existing properties if
increases cannot be passed on.  It is unlikely that an
average property tax rate of the magnitude proposed  (4.37/1000)
from 1985-2005 would have a significant effect.  Most existing
office buildings and shopping malls operate on the basis of
net leases, with pass-throughs to tenants.  For office
buildings, the market is considered generally strong enough
to absorb this and allow it to be passed on.
*Representatives of the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of
 Construction Services, several of its branch offices,and
 construction experts at EPA uniformly concurred that the
 employment surge created by the MWPAP was not a critical issue,

                             126
-------
                              TABLE 73
                   SEWERAGE COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE
                           OF VALUE ADDED
                                        Sewerage Cost as a Percent
                                        of Estimated 1976 Value Added
Description

Group A
  Paints and Allied Products
  Primary Metals
  Fabricated Metals
  Machinery Except Electrical
  Electric and Electronic Equipment
  Transportation Equipment

Total Group A
                        1979 Sewerage
                        Cost
                         0.2%
                         0.2
                          *
                         0.1
                         0.1
                         0.1%
Projected 198J
Sewerage Cost"
 0.5%
 0.3
 0.1
 0.1
 0.1
 0.1

 0.2%
Group B
  Malt Beverages
  Dairy Products

Total Group B
                         0.8
                         0.2

                         0.7%
 1.1
 0.2

 0.9%
Group C
  Food Processing Excluding
    Beverages and Dairy Products
  Paperboard Products
  Miscellaneous Chemicals
  Leather Tanning

Total Group C
                         2.2
                        N/A
                        16.2
                         3.2

                         4.0%
 2.5
N/A
18.2
 3.6

 4.5%
All Groups, Total
                         0.3%
 0.4%
*Less than 0.05%
N/A - Not Available
 Manufacturers'
"Manufacturers'
and merchants' stocks 50% tax exempt.
and merchants' stocks 100% tax exempt.
Source:  Table 7-12
         MMSD Environmental Assessment
                                  127
-------
Households

Households will be most burdened by the increase in property
taxes  (see Tables 52 and 53 in the Fiscal Section of this
a.ppendix) .  They will benefit neither from the phasing in of
the machinery and equipment and inventory exemptions, nor
from the  ability to pass along price increases to customers.
The property tax increases will come at a time when Milwaukee
is already a high tax area for households  (Table 74).


Milwaukee communities will receive some additional state
property  tax credits, due to their increased tax effort.
This will lower the net tax levy somewhat.  Also, some
homeowners will be able to itemize their increased property
tax bill  on their state and federal income taxes.  Finally,
Homestead Relief will reduce the burden on low income residents,
                             128
-------
                   TABLE 7 4

          STATE AND LOCAL TAX BURDEN
            IN 25 LARGE U.S.  CITIES
                     1977
                       Percent of Income
                       Paid in State
                       and Local Taxes
1.  Boston
2.  New York
3.  Philadelphia
4.  Milwaukee
5.  Baltimore
6.  San Francisco
7.  Detroit
8.  Los Angeles
9.  San Diego
10. Pittsburgh
11. St. Louis
12. Indianapolis
13. Phoenix
14. Denver
15. Kansas City
16. Cleveland
17. Chicago
18. Dallas
19. San Antonio
20. Houston
21. Columbus
22. Memphis
23. Seattle
24. New Orleans
25. Jacksonville
22.3
13.9
13.3
13.2
12.7
11.7
11.1
10.8
10.7
 9.1
 8.9
 8.8
 8.3
 7.7
 7.2
 7.0
 6.9
 6.8
 6.7
 6.5
 6.1
 5.8
 5.5
 4.3
 4.1
Source:  1979 Statistical Abstract

1Based on 1977 income of $22,500 (family of four)
                      1-29
-------
                     FISCAL  IMPACTS

                      BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citizen's Governmental Research Bureau Bulletin, Volume
    68, No. 3, February 9, 1980.

Citizen's Governmental Research Bureau Bulletin, Volume
    68, No. t, March 29, 1980.

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Management Plan
    for the Repair and Rehabilitation of Local Sanitary
    Sewer Systems, June, 1980.

	, User Charge and Industrial Cost Recovery,
    December, 1978.

Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program, Financial
    Planning and Impact Computer Models:  FM78A, FM6SM,
    FM70A, FM60A, FM61A, FM64A, FM65A, FM63A, FM62A,
    FM68B, FM66B, ALSCO, AL101, AL103, AL105, AL201,
    AL203, AL205, AL401, AL403, AL405, AL601, AL603,
    AL605, AL801, AL803, AL805, AL901, AL903, AL905,
    ALC22, ALC23, ALC24, ALC25, ALC26, ALD19, ALD20,
    ALD21, ALD22, ALD23, ALD24, ALD25, ALD26, ALD27.

Wisconsin State Statues:  59.07, 59.£6, 59.964, 66.066,
    66.C71, £6.072, 66.076, C7.01, £7.02, £7.03, 67.04,
    £7.05, 67.06, 67.07, 67.08, 67.11, 70.62(4), 144.01,
    144.24.

Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Moody's Municipal and
    Government Manual,  1980.   New York, 1980.

	, Moody's Bond Record.  New York, 1980.

               , Moody's Bond Survey.  New York, 1980.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, A
    Regional Land Use Plan and A Regional Transportation
    Plan For Southeastern Wisconsin - 2000, Planning
    Report No. 25, April, 1975.

Wisconsin Constitution:  Article XI, Section 3.

Wisconsin Department of Administration, Demographic
    Services Center, Official Population Estimates for
    1979.
                           130
-------
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Fiscal Year 1980
    Project Priority List for Water Pollution Control
    Grants.

	,  Fiscal Year 1981 Project Priority List for
    Water Pollution Control Grants.

Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Bureau of Local Financial
    Assistance, Indebtedness 1978, Bulletin No. 60.

______  ,  Municipal Resources Provided and Expended
    19T87  Bulletin No. 61, April 1980.

_______  ,Taxes, Aids and Shared Taxes in Wisconsin
    Municipalities, 1977.

Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Bureau of Property Tax,
    1979 Statistical Report of Property Valuations -
    Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.

	,  1979 Statistical Report of Property Val-
    uations-Qzaukee County, Wisconsin.

	,  1979 Statistical Report of Property Val-
    uations-Washington County, Wisconsin.

	,  1979 Statistical Report of Property Val-
    uations-Waukesha County, Wisconsin.
                           131
-------
                 FISCAL IMPACTS


               PERSONS INTERVIEWED


Bauman, John; Treasurer; Caddy Vista Sanitary District.

Garms,  John; Assistant City Engineer;  City of Mequon.

Fiudy, Jerome; City Assessor; City of New Berlin.

Laabs,  Quinten; Village Administrator; Village of Thiensville.

Lee, Gerald; Building Inspector and Zoning Coordinator; City
     of Muskego.

Mackinnon,  John; Director of Public Works; Village of
     Germantown.

Nowak,  Joseph; Assistant City Engineer; City of New Berlin.

Ray, John;  President; Caddy Vista Sanitary District.

Spinney, Barbara; Deputy Treasurer; Village of Butler.

Theine, Norbert; City Administrator; City of South Milwaukee.

Volt, Max;  Director of Public Works; Village of Menomonee Falls,

Weed, Poy;  Deputy Controller; City of Brookfield.

Yulga,  Lenry; Assessor/Controller; Village of Elm Grove.
                          132
-------
                        ECONOMIC IMPACTS


REFERENCES AND CITATIONS

Baldwin, John H.; "Background Assessment:  Growth Trends in
          Milwaukee SMSA", memorandum from RERC,
          dated April 12, 1979.

Ginn, Leonard; "Changes to Local and Regional Economies",
          undated report and worksheets.

Ginn, Leonard; "Economic Multiplier Methodologies Available
          to Assess the Economic Impacts of the Water Pollution
          Abatement Program", report dated February 2, 1979.

Ginn, Leonard; "Employment Componet of Economic Multiplier
          Analysis", memorandum dated June 13, 1979.

Ginn, Leonard; "Meeting with Richard Beemiller and Joe
          Cartwright concerning RIMS Application", memorandum
          dated April 23, 1979.

Ginn, Leonard; "Telephone call with Joe Cartwright concerning
          RIMS", memorandum dated September 26, 1978.

Luersen, Paul; "Allocation of MWPAP Costs to RIMS Sectors",
          memorandum dated February 6, 1980.

Luersen, Paul; " Net Multiplier Impact Methodology", memorandum
          dated April 22, 1980.

Luersen, Paul; "RIMS Industry-Specific Multipliers," undated
          memorandum.

Luersen, Paul; "RIMS Summary:  Recommended Plan", undated
          memorandum.

Luersen, Paul; "Trip to Washington, D.C. 4/19/79" undated
          memorandum.

Mienrnyk, William H.; The Elements of Input-output Analysis,
          New York:   Random House, 1965.

Program Management Office; "Economic Impacts", undated
          memorandum.

Program Management Office; "Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
          District:   A Study of the Economic Impact on Local
          Industry of the Water Pollution Abatement Program",
          undated report.
                              133
-------
Program Management Office;  "MMSD Wastewater System Plan:
          Environmental Assessment",  February 1980.

Tiebout, Charles M.;  The Community Economic Base Study.
          New York:  Committee for Economic Development,
          December 1962.

U.S. Bureau of the Census;  Statistical Abstract of the
          United States;  1979.Washington, D.C., 1979.

U.S. Department of Commerce,  Bureau of Economic Analysis;
          Industry-Specific Gross Output Multipliers for
          BEA Economic Areas.  Regional Economic Analysis
          Division.January 1977.

U.S. Department of Commerce,  Bureau of Economic Analysis;
          Regional Industrial Multiplier System", undated
          paper.
                               134
-------
                        ECONOMIC IMPACTS
PERSONS INTERVIEWED

William Beemiller
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Washington, D.C.

Joseph Cartwright
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Washington, D.C.

Kip Cherry
Wisconsin Department of Business and
  Business Development
Madison, Wisconsin

Elizabeth David
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resoursces
Madison, Wisconsin

Eugene Fonswerth
U.S. Department of Labor
Kansas City, Missouri

Leonard Ginn
Howard Needles Tammer and Bergendoff
Alexandria, Virginia

Edward Hogan
Chicago Construction Coordinating Committe
Chicago, Illinois

Lowen Hunt
National Food Processors Association
Washington, D.C.

Morton Jaffe
Real Estate Research Corporation
Chicago, Illinois

Mary Lou Lagoman
Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, Illinois

Edward Lawrence
Urban Investment and Development Corporation
Chicago, Illinois
                              135
-------
Paul Luersen
CHM-Hill, Incorporated
Bellevue, Washington

Cathy Marshall
United States Brewers' Association
Washington, D.C.

Robert Micheals
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Paul Nergaard
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Colin Regan
Farnsworth and McKoane & Company
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Kenneth Schuck
Wisconsin Department of Revenue
Madison, Wisconsin

Ronald Van Helden
Office of Construction Industry Services
Washington, D.C.

National Paint and Coating Association
Washington, D.C.
                               136
-------