Title: Draft for Final Report, Existing Funding Sources Information Matrix
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004632/00001
 Material Information
Title: Draft for Final Report, Existing Funding Sources Information Matrix
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Draft for Final Report, Existing Funding Sources Information Matrix (JDV Box 70)
General Note: Box 24, Folder 3 ( Water Supply Development and Funding - 1996-1997 ), Item 34
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004632
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text




Draft for Final Report


Existing Funding Sources Information Matrix


Option and Type Source Administered Recipients Amount Uses Guiding Principles Requirements Impediments Actions to Pros and Cons
by Implement (Comments)

HUD Community Federal funds DCA Small non- Up to $750,000 per Line and tank Assistance to low Population and income Supplemental funds;
Development Block entitlement cities, grant based on replacement, income areas surveys intense competition
Grants' counties population installation
EPA Safe Drinking Federal funds DEP Municipalities, $53 M (1997) Projects to achieve Facilitate compliance State operator certifi- DEP rule, more Encourage legis- Projects must be
Water Act State utilities $41 M (1998) SDWA goals w/SDWA; health cation, capacity statutory lature to fully directly linked to
Revolving Fund' protection development authority needed fund match, drinking water
(Loans and grants) revise statutes
EPA Clean Water Federal funds DEP Municipalities, -$100 M yearly Eliminating health Loans for wastewater Stringent "readiness to Reuse is mid-high
Act State Revolving utilities hazards, outlawed infrastructure. (No proceed" evaluation; priority iffor
Fund discharges; grants or set-asides) several financial tests compliance.
(Loans) achieving Else, low priority
compliance; reuse
management
USDA Rural Federal funds USDA Rural areas, small FY 1996: Restoration, im- Improve quality of life Population <10,000; Supplemental funds
Utilities Service cities & counties, ~$16.8 M in loans provement of water, and promote develop- priority to areas of
(loans and grants) Indian tribes, special ~$10.1 M in grants wastewater facils.; ment in rural areas population <5,500
districts technical assistance

Special assess- Property taxes Local govt. or All cities, counties Up to full cost of project All construction, Available to all cities Cost must be apportioned Public dislike of Apportionment Full cost can be
ments b special districts land planning, etc. and counties to benefit received taxes study, adoption recovered; may be
(In use or new?) by ordinance repaid over several yrs.
Difficult to raise taxes,
relate taxes to benefits
Impact fees Fees assessed Local govt. All cities, counties Up to proportionate full All construction, Users pay for growth Detailed cost studies to Market values Proportion study; Allows new constr. to
for new projects with growth/new cost of replacing used land planning, etc impacting the system determine proportionate for service collections from pay its way. Other $
construction capacity amounts new construction; must be found for
implementing existing residents and
ordinance commercial entities.
Ad valorem, Property taxes Local govt. All cities, counties Up to each revenue cap All construction, Public right-of-way Moneys used for lawful To extent that Budgeting by city S can be spent on what-
franchise fees b & large utils. land planning, & used to benefit public purposes the revenues are or county cor- ever they want (within
operating expenses services available and in mission law). Property taxes
statutory limits likely to go up and/or
services cut










Option and Type Source Administered Recipients Amount Uses Guiding Principles Requirements Impediments Actions to Pros and Cons
by Implement (Comments)

Save Our Rivers Documentary DEP WMDs Varies yearly with level Acquire land interest Acquire lands critical Must be spent according Amount avail- Land must be in- Allows for land acq.
(SOR) Water Mgt. Stamp Tax of land sales in state. necess. for water to regional water to s. 373.59, F.S. able varies from cluded in WMD 5 that is mutually bene-
Land Trust Fund c FY95-96: $41.8 M (but management, supply supply projects year to year yr. acquisition ficialfor env. pro-
large portion obligated and conservation (perform in env. sen- plan. WMD Gov. section and water
as debt service on land and protection of re sitive manner); board approval of supply dvpmt.
acq. bonds already sources. 25% can be cannot be used to purchase at $ varies from year to
issued) used for mgt., main- acquire rights-of-way public mtg. year; significant part of
tenance & cap. im- for canals or Resolution to funds committed to
provement of lands pipelines. DEP. debt svc.; cannot ac-
quire lands for facilities
or cap. improvements.
P-2000 Trust Fund C Tax free bond DEP WMDs 30% of funds go to Purchase of water Acq. criteria include Must be spent according Funds subject WMD Gov. board Allows for land acq.
revenues WMDs. 1996: Total = management lands issues of imminent to s. 373.59, F.S. and federal re- approval of that is mutually bene-
$896.3 M; $268.9 M to pursuant to s. 373.591oss of an acq. op- s. 259.101, F.S. strictions on use. purchase at ficialfor env. pro-
WMDs F.S. Must meet portunity; protecting Income derived public mtg. tection and water
SOR requirements endangered species from P-2000 Resolution to supply dvpmt.
AND at least I of 6 habitat; protection of lands could jeo- DEP. May not continue after
others in s. 259.101 groundwater recharge pardize tax free year 2000; legal restric-
F.S. areas status of bonds tions on deriving in-
come from lands acq.
with tax free bonds.
Ad valorem taxes Property taxes WMDs WMDs may enter Varies with each budget Planning, data District Water Must be spent in Public resistance WMD Gov. board Gov. boards can make
into agreements with year. If millage raised collection, technical Management Plans, accordance with Ch. 373, to tax increases, approval of tax sure $$ spent on stra-
local govts., public to statutory caps by all studies, construction Water Supply Needs F.S. Existing increase; tegic initiatives consis-
& private utilities, WMDs, and all addt'l $ & operation, land & Sources assessments statutory caps budgeting addt'l tent with water supply
individuals to spent on water supply, a acquisition limit potential expenditures for plans) for a region.
expend funds max. of $87 M/yr would revenues water supply Can't be bonded,
be available. If raised development limiting use for capital
to constitutional cap, projects; allows for no
$187 M/yr available, addt'l spending on
other priorities; all
property owners fund
without consideration
of who receives benefit.








Option and Type Source Administered Recipients Amount Uses Guiding Principles Requirements Impediments Actions to Pros and Cons
by Implement' (Comments)

Private Investmentd Private funds Investor-owned Government and Based on needs and rate Water supply devel- Fair return on investment PSC regulations Legislation to Removing impediments
utilities (IOUs) & investor-owned utils. of return on investment opment; treatment, exempt bulk sale would provide
others distribution facilities of water by IOUs significant untapped
from PSC regs. funding sources
Revise PSC rules
to ensure cost
recovery by IOUs

Non-ad valorem Tax payers in Ch. 298 Water Ch. 298 Districts Varies (open ended). Installation of water Flood control and No fundamental pre- Public resistance Creation of dis- Many types ofprojects
assessments; fees region of Control Districts Budgets range from 10 control works; water supply (cor- requisites other than need to additional trict, election of can be funded this way.
and charges; ad Chapter 298 & Governing M/yr to a few K/yr. maintenance and prehensive water mgt. for flood control & water taxes board; planning, Coordination among
valorem taxes Water Control boards Depends on works that operation of works. and control) supply management levying of assmt. local govts. can be
District will be constructed. Fees & charges may problematic
be collected for
connection to works


Acronyms HUD: US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development


USDA: US Department of Agriculture


* see lettered attachments for more detailed information.











Draft for Final Report


Additional Sources for Water Supply Development (New)


j Option and Type Source Administered Recipients Amount Uses Guiding Principles Requirements Impediments Actions to Pros and Cons
. by Implement (Comments)


Sales Tax on Water Public (end
consumer)

Local Option sales Local taxes
2 tax (infrastructure
surtax, small county
surtax) b' UojltWY


State (or Local State
govt. or WMDs if
delegated)
Local govt. (If Cities
State delegates where
and mechanism impose
is developed.)


$270 M/yr. (est.)


and counties
tax would be
sed


4zcA( OPfnoiJ SMAtA-
Thy om UjDc:L-


5 Water Utility Tax


State could choose End consumer would Repeal exemption from
any number of uses pay for use of water 6% sales tax on water


Up to each jurisdiction's Counties < 50,000-
allotted share of all construction,
proceeds = 1.3 B land planning &
statewide (est.) operating expenses
Counties > 50,000-
construction, land
planning (no
operating costs).


Utility (& State (or local State
consumers) govt. or WMDs if
delegated)


Local resources used
for local public
benefit


Moneys must be spent on
allowable uses. Retain
6% exemption, but allow
local govts. to vote to
impose local tax.


Gross receipts tax
imposed for privilege
of selling water (sim.
to tax on elec., tele-
communications,


Public resistance
to taxes


To extent that
the revenues are
available and in
statutory limits.
Public resistance
to taxes.


Public opposition

Water may al-
ready be taxed


Legislative auth- Recurring S source.
orization Tax collection would be
difficult
Counties<50,000- Could limit impact to


by ordinance
unless money is
bonded
Counties>50,000-
by county
referendum


Legislative auth-
orization


areas most in need of
revenues.
Amnt. raised would
depend on rate auth-
orized; difficult tax to
administer.


Direct link between tax
base and use of$. Pos-
sibility offlexibility to
promote social objec-
tives.


Z gas)
Impa c es Users State (or local State Impact on people or Public opposition Legislative auth- Direct link between tax
/ govt. or WMDs if developments that orization base and use of$. Pos-
delegated) use water sibility offlexibility to
promote social objec-
tives.
New Ad valorem Property owners Cities, counties, Property tax is Collection process in
special districts LT J A) lvD O0LU( least popular place. Article VII
type of tax restrictions; village
caps
Ff Regulated entity State, cities, Fees more palatable
SDL or person counties (or spe- than taxes
cial districts if
power granted)
Utility Fees Person using Cities, counties
( A t &lJG) utility service









option and Type Source Administered Recipients Amount Uses Guiding Principles Requirements Impediments Actions to Pros and Cons
by Implement (Comments)
/ -


S Regulfry fees

Dvto


rpfrU


\ Propiry User
Fee(

Se4


Fee must further reg.
purposes (as opposed
to revenue-raising
niirnmse


Regulated entity State, cities,
or person counties (or spe-
cial districts if
power granted)
Person using State, cities,
govt. property, counties (or spe-
facility or svc. cial districts if
power granted)


0to /Documentary Stamp Those needing State
tax s doc. stamps


Divert part of tax
going to G.R.


( Legislative Appro- General revenue State Very Unlikely
priation s


1z Severance fee g


Users


Imposed as water
extracted from source


l5 Matginal--Cmt akte 'LYUCch,
Mieingts


Water Desalination Federal funds US Dept. of the Public Utils., state & $30 M nationwide for Research & Studies, Determine most cost- Federal share not to $ is authorized, Competition for funds
Act of 1996 grants Interior local govt. agencies, 1997 2002 Desal. Demonstra- effective and tech. ef- exceed 50% of total cost. must also be likely to be intense
and contracts a universities, others tion & Development ficient means to pro- Further guidance from appropriated
r,"k'% 1 (1) projects duce usable water Feds. forthcoming.
from saline or im-
paired (reuse) water


' Group suggestion from last meeting; no written information yet.


Due process
limits


r = p




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs