<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16762" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009>Reading the discussion on SIDs has been
interesting. Here are some thoughts I have on them.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN class=407473907-15022009>SIDs
seem to really go to the question of what is the City of Missoula. If the
city is a single entity in which its residents share the expense of its
maintenance and improvement regardless of any individual neighborhood's relative
ability to contribute to the pot, and maintenance and improvement is provided on
the basis of need regardless of that same relative ability, then SIDs in general
seem to be about the last way projects should be paid for. People get the
city they're willing to pay for, and it's up to those who feel more money is
needed to convince a majority that taxes need to be raised, not necessarily so
their own street is nicer, but so the city in general is.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009>OTOH, if Missoula is really a confederation of
neighborhoods where basic services such as the police are paid for based on a
city-wide basis, but more localized projects such as rebuilding a park or
putting in street lights are undertaken only when enough residents of a
neighborhood can force everyone in that neighborhood to participate in a SID,
then SIDs seem a perfectly rational way of financing things. It's not the
model I prefer, because it seems that this would tend to Balkanize the city, but
it would have the benefit of keeping the fundamental tax rate lower than the
alternative and letting specific areas decide what they want and what they can
live without (although living without is often not much of a choice, but rather
a necessity).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN class=407473907-15022009>In
either case, I do think it would be a good thing strategically for the council
to state which model they think is appropriate so Missoula residents know where
its government is coming from and so individual project decisions don't seem ad
hoc.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009>There's never going to be a perfect time or method to
transition from SIDs to city-wide funding. Anyone who's already
participated in a SID has already decided how they're going to pay for it, even
if they haven't cut the check yet. Should the council decide to stop using
'mandatory' SIDs (as opposed to using the mechanism to help a group voluntarily
donate something like a park rebuild to the city), I would suggest that the
council should adopt a 'that-was-then, this-is-now' approach, declare a new
strategic vision, and say something along the lines of, "Starting in 2010, we
're one city and everyone in the city is going to help each other pay for what's
needed. Therefore, we're no longer going to use mandatory SIDs as a way of
paying for projects."</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009>Concerning sidewalks, it seems that the city could make
them the responsibility of each property owner to maintain his to a minimum
standard, much as it does requiring a property owner to keep his sidewalk clear
of snow and ice. If a property owner wants to tear his up once a year and
lay a new one down, let him. If his sidewalk falls below minimum
standards, order it repaired or have the city do it and bill him. And if
he doesn't have a sidewalk, then the city pays for putting one in and he enjoys
the increase in property value while also acquiring the responsibility to
maintain it.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009>Regarding letting a property owner defer his SID
payment until the sale of his property, is the city charging interest on what
amounts to a loan? What happens if there isn't enough money from the
proceeds of the sale to pay what he owes?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN class=407473907-15022009>The
cost of financing of the recent park rebuild SID seems to point to marked
benefits that could be made available to city residents if the city created
something along the lines of a municipal credit union to help them finance local
governmentally imposed financial obligations. From what I heard from the
committee meeting during which the financing of this park rebuild was discussed,
only ~$250k of the cost is going to outside contractors, who obviously won't
want to wait to get paid. Another ~$250k is actually budgeted items being
provided by the city, such as the use of a dump truck, that are being billed to
the SID as if the SID is renting them from the city (and that's as it should be
given the financial design of this project). Surely, the city doesn't need
to paid right away for these items - it's paying for the dump truck
regardless. Therefore, this project is incurring ~$65k of legal and
underwriting fees to produce ~$250k of revenue that's needed decently
soon. Maybe this is indeed the absolutely only way to finance this
project, and maybe the SID members find this ratio of fees to revenue acceptable
in order to get the park rebuilt, but these kind of numbers suggest that there's
a very strong need to put in place a program for the future that makes it
possible to cover the cash flow before SID income is available without spending
money on lawyers and underwriters.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN class=407473907-15022009>BTW
- am I correct in assuming that the members of this SID are, in effect, donating
this park rebuild to the city?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009>Finally, because parks are really something for
everyone, both within and without the city, to enjoy, and because there's quite
a business function aspect to running the park system, it seems to me that a
separate Missoula Park District would be something well worth
consideration. This District could be, by design, larger than the city
itself, and since it would be a separate taxing district, people could more
readily determine how much they're will to pay for their Park District and
whether they're getting what they're paying for.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=407473907-15022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana color=#000080 size=2><SPAN class=407473907-15022009><BR>
<HR align=left width=450 color=#990000>
<FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#990000 size=-1>“Be the
change you want to see in the world.” - Mahatma Gandhi</FONT>
<BR></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>