Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />