General Data
Name of instrument Cost-effective fees for technical infrastructure
Country AT
Spatial level local
Type Economic instruments
Subtype Access fees / supply fees
Description Fees for access to technical infrastructure such as road access, drinking water, waste water treatment, electricity and communication infrastructure are currently identical for each individual user of these networks. Thus, a household in a densely populated residential area is paying the same price as the suburban household with significantly higher provision costs; the municipality as a whole is therefore subsidising ineffective settlement patterns. Research suggests that municipal costs for low-density settlements are 98% higher than those for high-density settlements (http://www.pronatura.ch/content/data/060516_Zersied_I.pdf, S. 4). Fees that reflect the actual costs of technical infrastructure provision would thus encourage more cost-efficient residential areas.��
General objectives Cost-effective treatment of different settlement patterns
General objectives keywords internalisation of external costs; land development; municipal infrastructure costs;
Responsible Local authority/Municipal council
Stakeholder Involved Planners; Private individuals; Judicial branch; ;
Reference http://www.staedtebund.at/de/oestb/archiv/service/steinlechner_oegz0109.html http://www.pronatura.ch/content/data/060516_Zersied_I.pdf (p.4ff).�
General assessment of strength and weakness Strength: Lowers financial burdens for high-density commercial and residential areas. Eases burdens on municipal budget.
Weakness: Potentially inconsistent with the law, particularly the principle of equality. �
Metadata
Date of entry 31.01.2007
Implementation
Legal status not-mandatory for responsible body, BUT mandatory for end-user
Extension pilot status
Comment Cost-effective fees exist for certain services such as water and waste water access, while for other services such as road maintenance, postal or telephone services, equal fees apply for all users of these networks. Question of legal defensibility of different fees for different settlement patterns: Three-step assessment: 1st step: Users of a network are to be considered as a collective => Is the level of service utilization identical with the level of fees charged? 2nd step: Is a differentiation in fees objectively justifieable (e.g. as steering instrument)? 3rd step: Do arguments of administrative efficiency justify unequal treatment?�����
Type of monitoring none
Characteristics
Preconditions for implementation
General comment The same dilemma is true for social services (mobile care for elderly, child care, schooling, ambulance etc.).
Assessment
Relevance
Status strong indirect relevance
Ranking 2
Remark -
Acceptance
Status municipal administration, envoronmental NGOs, superordinate administrations
Ranking 3
Remark
Implementation
Status
Ranking 0
Remark difficult to assess, some fees are levied to cover costs (access to drinking and waste water), while for others standard fees apply (postal services, telephone).
Feasibility
Status Legislation, political will
Ranking 4
Remark -
Effectiveness
Status Direction of effect, type of effect, acceptability, perpetuity
Ranking 4
Remark -