Laserfiche WebLink
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY <br />SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 <br />PROS CONS <br />* Dedicated and stable revenue <br />* Places the burden of payment <br />City-wide rather than on <br />* Revenue which is under City <br />perceived "affected" properties. <br />control and not subject to <br />* Non-traditional taxing source. <br />legislative whims. <br />* Cost taxpayers less than property <br />Eliminates opportunity for tax <br />deduction or circuit breaker. <br />tax <br />* Properties causing or contributing <br />* Tax exempt properties would <br />to the need for runoff <br />have to pay -- schools/churches <br />management pay into the <br />will pass on the cost. <br />management costs. <br />* It's just another "TAX'. <br />* The charge is directly <br />proportioned to runoff generated <br />* It by-passes the assessment <br />by specific class properties. <br />procedure. <br />* Can work in conjunction with <br />* "Not as accountable to the <br />assessment procedures. <br />public.' <br />* Provides for a funding <br />* Additional initial administrative <br />mechanism which earns interest <br />costs. <br />rather than pays interest (such as <br />bonding). <br />* Audited per State Law as are <br />other City utilities. <br />* Exemption from the tax can be <br />granted. There are no exemptions <br />for property tax. <br />* Expands the City's ability to <br />manage surface water in a way <br />that does not interfere with <br />budget peaks and valleys. <br />* The cost savings with the utility <br />vs. property taxes (per tax payer) <br />may, in most cases, be greater <br />than the amount saved by a tax <br />deduction or circuit breaker. <br />