My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00961
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD00961
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:56:18 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:47:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/22/2003
Description
Flood Section - Probable Maximum Precipitation Site-Specific Study for the Cherry Creek Reservoir-Study Findings and Recommendations
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />SECTIO.SEVEN <br /> <br />Funding Alternatives <br /> <br />7.1 INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />Existing and potential sources of funding were evaluated as part of this project. Section 2 of this <br />report summarized the existing sources and amounts of funding for storm water management for <br />the five entities included in the project. Existing funding for Fruita, Orand Junction, Mesa <br />County, and Palisade is primarily out of the "general funds," which are funded primarily by sales <br />and property taxes. Funding from the general funds is allocated year by year and can vary <br />depending on other needs in each municipality. Existing funding for the Orand Junction <br />Drainage District is from a dedicated property tax, and is therefore relatively constant from year <br />to year. <br /> <br />Possible additional funding sources for stormwater include sales and property taxes as well as <br />stormwater enterprise fees, development impact fees, permit fees, and grants. <br /> <br />The organizational structures considered in the previous sections can only implement certain <br />funding mechanisms under state law. Some organizations can levy taxes and some can only levy <br />enterprise fees. The funding options available to each altemative organization were part of the <br />evaluation process. <br /> <br />7.2 FUNDING IN OTHER COMMUNITIES <br /> <br />While many municipalities are still funding stonnwater programs out of general fund revenues, <br />there has been a recent state and nationwide trend to provide a dedicated funding source for <br />stormwater program needs. A primary driver behind this movement is the ever increasing costs <br />for mandated NPDES stormwater permitting and environmental compliance programs, and the <br />resulting need for a consistent, dedicated funding source. Dedicated funding sources include: <br /> <br />. Funding for projects in areas of existing development (can also fund operation expenses) <br /> <br />dedicated portions of property taxes and sales taxes, <br /> <br />stormwater utility enterprise fees. <br /> <br />. Activity specific funding for projects required because of new development <br /> <br />drainage impact fees, <br /> <br />permit fees, <br /> <br />plan review fees. <br /> <br />7.3 STORMWATER UTILITY (ENTERPRISE) FEES <br /> <br />A stormwater enterprise is the most popular funding source to meet stormwater needs. In the <br />state of Colorado the statutory authority for a governmental entity to implement a stormwater <br />enterprise is called the "Water Activity Enterprise." A description of the W AE statute is <br />provided below. <br /> <br />The most equitable and by far the most common dedicated funding source for municipal <br />stormwater needs utilizes a stormwater (enterprise) utility fee on each property. (During <br />implementation, a policy decision will be made regarding charges on undeveloped property.) <br />The reason the fee is the most equitable funding source is because it is based on and is <br /> <br />URS <br /> <br />T:\PROJECTS\22236022_GRANO_VALLEY\5UB_OO\6.0]ROJ_OELIVIFINAl REPORT\FINAL REPT REV 4.DOC\9-JUl-03\\ 7-1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.