My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004-10-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
200x
>
2004
>
2004-10-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2010 3:50:53 PM
Creation date
6/20/2005 10:50:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/26/2004
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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
<br />Financial Incentives <br /> <br />Funding ofthe programs to reduce III is a significant concern for local government. The <br />option of collecting additional revenue from all communities under the current rate charge <br />and distributing it under a surcharge program was judged by the task force to be unfair to <br />those communities now meeting the III goal. Council staffformulated an approach to collect <br />additional revenue from communities with excessive III and then use this revenue to support <br />a 50/50 match program for III reduction. This approach, labeled as a Community Assistance <br />"Surcharge," establishes a minimum account in these communities for III reduction. <br /> <br />An alternative financial program was suggested by task force members; rather than pay <br />MCES the additional funds and receive them back under a matching program, some <br />communities could choose to "Opt-out" (undertake voluntary III reduction programs that are <br />funded at the same or greater level), Under this approach, a community would obligate local <br />funds to undertake the same or greater effort for III reduction. <br /> <br />A financial penalty or "Demand Charge" for not meeting the III goals within a specified time <br />was discussed as another means of assuring compliance. Communities that continue to have <br />excessive III could not continue to discharge the excessive peak flows into the interceptor <br />system. The cost to MCES to control the peak flow and provide flow attenuation at the point <br />of connection would be assigned back to the community as a Demand Charge, <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.