[MissoulaGov] SID Deferrment

[David Strohmaier]

Jim,
 
One possibility, should the City of Missoula ever seriously entertain the thought of city-wide street/sidewalk pr parks maintenance districts, would be for a certain percentage of the revenue generated from the district to go for tax relief to those who are still paying on existing SIDs (i.e., helping pay down their SIDs). This would do little to help the folks who have already paid off their SID, but it would help offset any real or perceived inequities between those who are currently saddled with SIDs and those across the city who would benefit from a city-wide assessment vis-a-vis more equitable distribution of the tax burden.
 
Dave
 
Dave Strohmaier
City Council, Ward 1 
508 E. Pine Missoula, MT 59802 
(406) 327-8911, home 
(406) 721-1958, office



Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:48:22 -0700From: jmcgrath at missoulahousing.orgTo: BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us; missoulagov at cmslists.comSubject: Re: [MissoulaGov] SID Deferrment





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 PMTo: Jim McGrath; missoulagov at cmslists.comSubject: 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 McGrathSent: Fri 2/6/2009 7:03 AMTo: Jed Taylor; missoulagov at cmslists.comSubject: 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/c86b80df/attachment.htm>