FLOOD04566 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I 62 5. If the City wished to identify this particular drainaqe function as a separate service to be paid for on a "service charge basis", the moneys from a user fee would go into this "drainage fund." The City of Aurora has a drainage user fee on the basis that pro- viding adequate drainage is a similar utility to providing adequate water and sanitary sewer facilities. Aurora makes a user charge for drainage based on the amount of domestic water used by water users, This may not be the most scientific way of approaching the charge, but it is an easy way. This user charge in Aurora came about through the passage of an ordinance by the City Counci I which came tu recugnize that something special had to be done about drainaqe. I I I I 6. Boulder's sales tax is used also to acquire land to preserve open space ($400,000). It would seem logical that one-fourth of the amount now being spent for open space, of $100,000, could be used to acquire open space that had a dual purpose of providing a place for surface waters to flow, I t is a well establ ished fact that greenbelts and waterways are compatible. Greenbelts could include channels or gulches or draws or a slough, as well as providing the funding for flood plain zoning and rights-of-way for dralnaqe. These funds can also be matched on a 50-50 basis with federal funds through either the HUD storm drainage facilities program or the HUD open space program, 7. The above discussion has been made on a "pay as you go" basis, which provides an annual amount o~ a continuing basis for drainage improve- ments. At some point in time after the necessary improvements have been made, there would be no need for such an extensive "drainage fund." This is the reason that many localities have taken the posi- tion that drainage improvements should be done on a bond basis rather than a "pay as you go" approach. I a. The City of Boulder has the authority to create a special im- provement district for selling bonds. The hang-up on this ap- proach has been the language that the people who payoff the bonds are the owners of property which "benefits" from the improve- ment because of the nature of drainage and the age-old assumption by the person living on top of the hill that his property in fact does not "benefit-" This approach has been difficult to activate. It is believed on the basis of assessing a cost to upper land owners in proportion to the additional water they send down hill from what "naturally flowed" when the land was in Its uDimproved condition. Since this theory has yet to be substantiated in an urban area (It has been substantiated in two rural cases, of which took place in Boulder County), as a practical matter this might not be an immediate solution to the problem. There is also a question as to whether a special Improvement bond issue would qualify for the matching federal funds. I I I I I I b. However, Boulder has the authority to institute a local im- provement bond issue in whch all property in the City pays on the same assessment basis regardless of benefits. It is believed that this type of a bond issue would qualify for federal matching funds.