[MissoulaGov] SID Deferrment

[Jim McGrath]

I'm not sure what you mean by defer?

The city has allowed low-income seniors, for example, to defer the SID,
which basically makes it due upon sale of the property. In fact we did
that for the fellow in question. (by the way it is quite probably the
easiest bureaucratic process I have ever seen!) it's a great program.

 

My comment was that if we decide that sidewalks, for example, or curbs
or parks or street lights are common goods and should not be paid for by
SID, are we going to PAY BACK or REMOVE -not defer-the cost experienced
by others up till now? 

Obviously not. 

But would it be fair to those who have paid SIDs (or have them on their
property as a deferred lien) to ALSO pay for someone else's common
public good? 

 

________________________________

From: Bob Jaffe [mailto:BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 2:24 PM
To: Jim McGrath; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: SID Deferrment

 

Jim,

I asked Brentt to look into the issue of people who have been assessed
in the past being allowed to defer the balance of their SID.  He did
some research and determined that the language of the ordinance does not
preclude this.  There are some qualification guidelines but it is
available to people.

 

bob

 

 

________________________________

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com on behalf of Jim McGrath
Sent: Fri 2/6/2009 7:03 AM
To: Jed Taylor; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Park rebuild project

I'm sure others will weigh in on this, because it is a thorny question.
In fact, curiously philosophical for city council work.

I think all council members grapple with the question (I know I did).
What is the "fair" way to fund projects like this? I tended to lean
toward community-wide, in part so that all parts of the community could
afford infrastructure.

The fact is that would result in many fewer projects -- some years none
because all the resources would go to maintaining existing crumbling
infrastructure. The sources of community-wide funding are real estate
taxes and gas tax. Both may be declining. Property taxes are
constrained. These capital projects are very expensive, too. In the case
of parks, you can't use gas tax. I pretty much oppose the idea of park
districts, but the amount of money devoted to park maintenance and
development is dismal.

Plus there is history. The city has used the SID tool for many years. I
know an elderly disabled fellow on the Northside who happened to have a
corner house and was assessed a gigantic SID for curb and sidewalk. It
presented a huge hardship and it is still in place. Are you interested
in giving relief to past property owners who agreed by the petition
process to have that assessment?

Given that we are doing SID's, the financing tool is only an option for
the property owner. They can pay it or they can finance it themselves I
suppose or they can take advantage of the city's financing. The amounts
and timelines are such that the city can't "just pay for" and bank the
neighbors. (There may be legal problems with that idea, too, I don't
know).

I don't have any answers for these questions. I do know all the
approaches to it have minuses as well as pluses.

Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining
to City business may be considered public or private records depending
on the message content. The City is often required by law to provide
city records to individuals requesting records, some of which are not
public records and have limited scope of distribution pursuant to state
law. The City is required by law to protect private, confidential
information. This message is intended for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this
transmission, please notify the sender immediately, do not forward the
message to anyone, and delete all copies. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090213/d0dabc93/attachment.htm>