Laserfiche WebLink
Page 12 <br /> COMPARISON WITH TAX APPROACH <br /> CLASS UTILITY FEE TAX LEVY <br /> % OF INCOME $ OF INCOME <br /> 1. Residential. - 28.3 50.1 <br /> 2. Cemeteries, golf courses .8 1.9 <br /> 3. Parks, etc. 1.9$ 0 <br /> 4. -. Schools, public .and private 0 <br /> 5. Apartments, churches, etc. 8.30 8.9 <br /> 6. Commercial_, industrial 57,5 39. 1 <br /> 0 8.9% from Non Taxable 'Sources <br /> Of particular interest is the fact that the residential costs to fund <br /> the same level of activities as proposed would be almost double if tax <br /> levies were used while the commercial and industrial zonings would <br /> conversely be little more than half if the tax levy system continued. <br /> This together with the fact that almost 9,00 new funds would be attained <br /> by charging previously tax free units such as schools, churches, <br /> county or state parks, etc. was very useful and enlightening. After <br /> some minor adjustments, the council unanimously favored the concept. <br /> The staff was authorized to get the utility formed. <br /> 9. Explain to Citizenry -- In order to get the idea of the utility <br /> to the citizens, several news releases were prepared and were <br /> published by the local newspapers. In addition, speeches were given <br /> to the local Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, Lion's Club, etc. to inform <br /> them of this proposal and solicit understanding and possible support. <br /> • A special mailing was also sent to each property owner explaining <br /> in simple terms what the storm drainage utility was, why it was needed., <br /> what their anticipated costs would be, how this would be different <br />