Laserfiche WebLink
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY <br /> SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 <br /> r <br /> PROS CONS <br /> * Dedicated and stable revenue * Places the burden of payment <br /> City-wide rather than on <br /> * Revenue which is under City perceived "affected" properties. <br /> control and not subject to <br /> legislative whims. * Non-traditional taxing source. <br /> * C•st taxpayers less than property * Eliminates opportunity for tax <br /> tax. deduction or circuit breaker. <br /> * Properties causing or contributing * Tax exempt properties would <br /> to the need for runoff have to pay -- schools/churches <br /> management pay into the will pass on the cost. <br /> management costs. <br /> * It's just another "TAX". <br /> * The charge is directly <br /> proportioned to runoff generated * It by-passes the assessment <br /> by specific class properties. procedure. <br /> • <br /> * Can work in conjunction with * "Not as accountable to the <br /> assessment procedures. public." <br /> * Provides for a funding * Additional initial administrative <br /> mechanism which earns interest 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 /> • <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 />