Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page par. <br />MSA construction costs over <br /> <br /> <br />to <br />years: <br /> <br /> <br />City costs on County MSA road construction: <br />City MSA street construction <br /> <br />$1,300,000 <br />3.700.000 <br /> <br />Sub <br /> <br />5,000,000 <br /> <br />Mill overlay <br /> <br /> <br />800,000 <br /> <br />$5,800,000 <br /> <br />In my opinion, the funding source for mill overlays should be the <br />$12,000,000 endowment fund set up for that purpose, rather than <br />MSA funds. <br /> <br />Page 2, par. 5. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller states that the city expects to asses about $291,000 <br />annually. He doesn't disclose the composition by type, but at that level, it <br />must include ineligible streetscape costs, as well as eligible and some <br />ineligible sewer costs. <br /> <br />Streetscape costs need to be stripped out of the analysis, because <br />they are not MSA eligible. <br /> <br />Sewer costs need to be stripped out of the analysis because the <br />proper funding source for sewer utilities are the city utility funds. The <br />city's water and sewer operations are intended to be operated as a <br />business, just like Excel does. Our utility bills should be high enough to <br />fund the system, and they are, actually. During the year 2000, cash <br />inflows in "enterprise funds' (primarily water and sewer) exceeded <br />outflows by over $1.5 million. In other words, our city utility operations <br />made a profit of over $1.5 million. They are expected to operate like a <br />business, but NOT make a profit. They should be break-even operations, <br />and we should not be charged more than it requires to provide us with <br />sewer and water benefits. <br /> <br />The above analysis assumes the city is not billing the utility funds, and the <br />MSA funds, and also assessing its property owners as well. I have a <br />question for staff: Is the city billing the utility funds for sewer services? <br />If not, why not? <br /> <br />4 <br />