Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~. <br /> <br />,It <br /> <br />, <br />',- <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />HUBERT N. HARMON <br />228 WINDSOR LANE <br />ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55112 <br /> <br />7 November 1994 <br /> <br />The New Brighton City Council <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: <br /> <br />There are three principal arguments against adoption of the storm water <br />utility tax plan: <br /> <br />Fir'st, although it purports to allocate the cost to those parcels of <br />la.nd that genera.te the cost, it really apportions the cost somewhat <br />arbitrarily. ( As a practical matter, the determination in detail is only <br />carried out to a limited degree). <br /> <br />Second, the satisfactory handling of storm wa.ter is of benefit to the <br />entire community, much as are policing and fire fighting services. There <br />seem to be no compelling rea.sons for storm water costs not to be paid for by <br />general property taxes. <br /> <br />Third, generally speaking, the impact of the proposed storm water <br />utility tax would be great on those least able to pay. The biggest <br />cost-shifting would be from owners of expensive homes to owners of <br />inexpensive homes. <br /> <br />There is a fourth reason to be opposed to the adoption of the storm <br />water utilty tax plan: Approval of the plan might well be seen as a model <br />for other plans to split out other services to be ta>:ed individually. <It <br />should be noted that the similarity to water, gas and electricity charges as <br />"utility fees" breaKs down because, for these utilities, the user has a <br />choice in how much is used). <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />#JiJLa-f/{ft4~'-- <br /> <br />Hubert N. Harmon <br />