My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-20-18-WS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2018
>
02-20-18-WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2018 2:24:49 PM
Creation date
2/15/2018 1:44:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1048
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
SECTION 6 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Surface Water Management Plan Section 6: Implementation Program <br />City of Arden Hills <br />WSB Project No. 3455-200 Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />Table 6-1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Funding Alternatives <br />Funding Method Advantages Disadvantages <br />Ad Valorem Tax 1. Administrative structure for collection <br />in place. <br />2. Simple and accepted source of <br />revenue. <br />3. Allows for a larger revenue base. <br />4. Contributors pay through tax districts. <br />1. No incentive to reduce runoff or <br />pollution. <br />2. No relationship to level of benefits <br />received. <br />3. Discontinuous source of revenue. <br />4. Limitations on amount of expenditures <br />due to budget constraints. <br />5. Competition with other City services (i.e., <br />police, fire). <br />Surface Water <br />Management Utility <br />1. Charges based on land usage rather <br />than property value. <br />2. Simple and consistent source of <br />revenue. <br />3. Contributors pay on their utility bills. <br />4. Incentive to reduce runoff or pollution <br />if credit procedure is in place. <br />1. New fees are perceived as taxes. <br />2. Basis for computing fee may be <br />controversial. <br />3. May place an unfair burden on some <br />segments of the population. <br />4. Administrative costs for billing and setup. <br />Special Assessments 1. Only benefited properties pay. <br />2. Revenues from assessment are <br />applied to a specific project cost. No <br />competition with general services. <br />3. Benefits directly related to cost for <br />service. <br />4. Assessment can be deferred in <br />hardship cases. <br />1. Rigid procedural requirements. <br />2. Runoff contributions cannot be <br />assessed. <br />3. Difficult to determine and prove benefit. <br />4. May place an unfair burden on some <br />segments of the population. <br />Development <br />Charges <br />1. New development generating runoff <br />pays for runoff management. <br />2. Administrative structure for reviewing <br />plans and collecting fees is in place. <br />3. Systems can be tailored to the <br />specific needs through regulatory <br />changes. <br />4. Revenues are applied to water <br />management. No competition with <br />general services. <br />1. Only address problems within the vicinity <br />of the new development, not usually <br />existing developments. <br />2. Only address prevention not correction <br />of major problems. <br />3. Limited usefulness as a financing <br />mechanism. <br />4. Limited new development pressure <br />within existing City limits. <br />Dr <br />a <br />f <br />t <br /> <br />11 <br />/ <br />2 <br />0 <br />/ <br />2 <br />0 <br />1 <br />7
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.