FLOOD03407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Basically, the methods available for local financing of capital needs include: various means of borrowing, current revenues; special revenues; revolving funds and reserve funds; loans, revenue sharing and grants of funds from the federal, state and county governments and agencies; land and funds received from land owners in accordance with local regulations for platting subdivisions; and, in some places, special user charges. In new subdivisions it is usually relatively easy to re- quire provision of drainage facilities by the land developer as a condition of plat approval. However, complications arise when trunk sewers or large open channels are involved, or where the problems require the provision of up-graded facilities in old, inadequately drained localities. In such instances, some of the financing possibilities include: creating a special drainage district and levying a property tax; use of general revenues; special assessments against benefited property; tax exempt municipal bonds; state and federal grants-in-aid; federal loans; and volun- tary contributions of materials and/or services by property owners and developers. Motor fuel taxes may furnish part or even all of the capital funding when lateral sewers are included in pavement improvements. Storm drainage is not usually revenue producing and, therefore, is not ordinarily financed by means of revenue bonds. User charges for stormwater management are becoming more popular with local governments. Cities such as Aurora and Boulder, Colorado have for several years used this method for financing both capital needs and operation and maintenance of stormwater systems. Before adopting the user charge concept, the public agency involved should prepare and adopt a stormwater management masterplan and develop a schedule and cost estimates for implementing and operating the system. This has been a failing in the use of this financing method as most agencies have not devel- oped masterplans, nor do most have the qualified personnel or funds available for this purpose. Many public officials agree that a financing method based on a user charge, or service charge, is needed for developing effective stormwater programs. However, most feel that it would be difficult to gain voter approval. In most places, legis- lation would be required at the state level to authorize a charge of this type with- out voter approval. It appears that communities wishing to adopt this financing method must either conduct carefully-planned public information programs to convince local voters of the need, or take whatever steps are necessary to obviate the need for approval by referendum. Some communities--such as Bellevue, Washington and Boulder, Colorado--have established a separate stormwater utility. Boulder's service charge is based on the computed peak runoff rate and area of each lot or parcel of property within the service area. Initially, there was refusal by some property owners to pay the monthly service charge; however, a successful lawsuit against one recalcitrant property owner eliminated further resistance. Property owners having on-site storm- water storage facilities benefit by paying smaller monthly charges because of the reduced runoff rates. This provides an incentive for land developers and owners to provide detention storage, a practice encouraged by most stormwater management agencies. During and preceding the 1920's, land developers found the special assessment method of financing streets, walks, water mains and sewers very advantageous, with little or no cost to themselves. With the onset of the great depression of the 1930's, assessments and property taxes became delinquent and placed a serious burden on city and state government treasuries to which much of the debts reverted. This situation was disasterous to many cities and continued to plagie them for many years. 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I