Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I do to report that during my review the financial projections <br />for certain MSA projects,( that are in the engineering department <br />records) it appeared that the city was billing MSA as well as <br />assessing., in some instances (double dipping). To the extent tbis <br />behavior is going on., I consider it unethical and unfair, and I want it <br />stopped. <br /> <br />Page 3, chart and final comments. <br /> <br />The estimated annual reconstruction costs need to be reduced by the mill <br />overlay costs included therein. ($167,000 per year.) <br /> <br />These costs also need to be reduced by any streetscape included therein, <br />since I understand those frivolous types of expenditures for beauty alone, <br />without any function, are not permissible MSA costs. Since we are <br />talking about the use ofMSA funds, streetscape costs need to be stripped <br />out of Mr. Miller's analysis. <br /> <br />Sewer costs need to be stripped out of the analysis also, either because <br />they are MSA eligible, or they should be reimbursed by the city's <br />proprietorship enterprise utility funds. If the city isn't already doing this, <br />they should be, and I'll be bringing this issue up during the budget <br />process. <br /> <br />Mr. Millers Attachment B <br />ISSUES AND IMPACTS REGARDING ASSESSMENT POLICY <br /> <br />We area dealing with two separate issues here: <br /> <br />A. STREETSCAPING. <br /> <br />Streetscaping is not a permissible state aid item, and it is <br />unconscionable to assess adjacent landowners for something the city <br />wants to do to impress and please motorists and pedestrians using <br />the roadway or pathway. The city has two choices: <br /> <br />1. Include it in the general budget and levy, just like you do <br />pathway maintenance now, and spread the cost among all city <br />property owners. <br /> <br />2. Don't do it. <br /> <br />5 <br />