Laserfiche WebLink
<br />THEREFORE, I conclude that none the recommended options are fair or <br />appropriate, and I recommend a fourth option to Council: <br /> <br />BECAUSE MAJOR BENEFIT STREETSCAPE GOES TO <br />THE GENERAL PUBLIC, ITEMS IDENTIFIED AS STREETSCAPE <br />NOT BE ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION, BUT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Page 3, MSA ROADWAY ASSESSMENT: <br /> <br />MSA funds are available either bringing back the 25% siphoned offfor <br />street maintenance, or otherwise limiting ambitious reconstruction plans to the funds <br />available from that source. As I understand it, the state commissioner will also allow <br />advancing funds from future allotments if there is a really urgent project. Therefore, I <br />conclude that, one way or another, MSA funds will always be available for MSA <br />construction, or the project may have to wait for available funding. If the staff and the <br />council wish to include funds from the general tax levy, I would have no objection. I <br />would prefer MSA road construction be dovetailed into using MSA funds only, as and <br />when available. <br /> <br />Accordingly, I request you support Option 2, amended as follows: <br /> <br />2. (There shall be) No assessment of any MSA eli2ible costs r.w <br />road,vay eOBstruetioR on MSA designated streets. <br /> <br />In other words, MSA funds are the method of choice for funding all <br />construction on MSA streets. <br /> <br />I now want to comment on Chris Millers Attachment A <br /> <br />2 <br />