[Board] Arguments for and against

[keith.bierman at chnorthmetro.us]

I don’t have anyone signing the argument against.

Arguments For

 

1.     The District has provided vital sewage service since the inception of Cherry Hills North. The District’s continued responsibility requires closing the gap between revenue and expenses.

2.     The District has historically been funded by a mill levy that is tax deductible to the residents, and has virtually no collection overhead.  The proposed increase in the mill levy will result in a net increase to residents of less than $25/month[1], and should suffice for several years to come.

3.     The District is obligated to close the revenue gap. Most Districts employ a user fee model, which results in higher overhead and the resulting fees are not tax deductible. A failure to raise the mill levy will result in user fees being levied.

 

For background about the District, finances, and document archive, http://chnorthmetro.us/

Argument Against

 

1.     Most Districts employ user fees. The mill levy approach results in very modest tax savings to residents and the cost of elections is nontrivial. The residents would be better served by adopting a user fee model.

 


[1] $38,600/140/12  .. I have not taken into account likely tax credit value.  I don’t recall the precise number of homes.  FWIW I don’t propose that we include this footnote.

Keith Bierman
Director
Cherry Hills North Metropolitan District
keith.bierman at chnorthmetro.us
(303)-997-2749





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://chnorthmetro.us/pipermail/board_chnorthmetro.us/attachments/20140918/e57dbb3a/attachment-0002.html>