Laserfiche WebLink
"L'C3aamle EzI_,^.alion of at ve s:?y. Prc_' _-3i <br />�^3 ser5 as a Cons __..._.I on iG'_ the S U<:1 <br />:�:ivy .vCh CO, Gf <br />. , <br />It ZS becon ing iIlCreaSlP.gly ovvious that Cor_t, :led 'There is good reason vliiy users' fees should <br />relianCCI by municiDai governments on property taxes become increasingly popular wit'_a both city o-fficials and <br />as their primary source of revenue will, be a fiscal voters. many times the benefits from city services <br />_H ossibilizy in t'r_e fuE-are. Ti:ere are two reasons for appear remote to the voters while the taxes are more, <br />this. First, the yield of flit property tax is not visible. Because users' -fees connect costs and benefits, <br />responsive to income growth. Unlike taxes on income, increases in fees could find more general favor than tax <br />M . the: property tax base does not grow as fast as ; the increases of the same amount. Financing through users' <br />income of a city. This means that mill levies must;` fees in many casesreleases those citizens who do. not <br />continue to rise or services provided by the city must be wish to participate or use the service from having to pay <br />.; reduced. for its cost. <br />4 Second, demands on cities for services are rising It is for this political reason, as ,well as the <br />