On Wednesday night, Aldermen Thurston Hanson and Jan Lefevre spoke out against a City of Monroe tradition of assessing residents who live on streets not considered thoroughfares for part of the cost when those streets are reconstructed.
This summer, residents on both sides of 16th Avenue from Sixth to Eighth streets will get a special assessment of about $476, which is about 25 percent of the cost per resident for $43,000 in reconstruction costs.
"I think assessing for public streets is wrong. It may be public policy, but I think it's wrong," Hanson said.
Residents of 18th Avenue from First to Fourth streets won't be assessed, because the city considers their street a major thoroughfare.
"I feel that if you're not going to assess some streets, then you shouldn't assess anyone," Lefevre said. "It's discrimination, and you are punishing those who are assessed for living on that street."
Hanson said the assessment policy needs to be changed. He and Lefevre are right. That road construction work should be covered by the general fund. The cost of road work done in Monroe, whether on a "major" street or not, should be shared by all taxpayers. Everyone benefits from quality streets in a community. People should not be charged more because of where they live.
That said, now that Hanson and Lefevre have made their stand against the policy, they must lead the charge to change it.
City Engineering Supervisor Al Gerber said the city has been assessing property owners for residential street construction for at least 20 years, maybe more. Gerber said two or three residents a year complain, but it's usually about the cost, he said, not about the fact they're having to pay extra for street work. Gerber also said most municipalities ask their residents to chip in extra to help with street reconstruction costs.
Gerber and City Administrator Mark Vahlsing said Wednesday that reconstruction work on main thoroughfares is not assessed to property owners along the street. Many of those main thoroughfares are populated by businesses, companies that don't have to pay their share of street reconstruction because many cars travel on a certain street.
Gerber and Vahlsing said residents of residential streets are assessed because they are the main people who use the streets.
"Everyone uses the streets, like sidewalks," Lefevre said Wednesday.
The street and sidewalks debates are very similar. Both streets and sidewalks are city property. Yet city policy requires property owners to share the cost of reconstructing streets and sidewalks. Property owners aren't asked to share in the cost of minor street repairs, such as seal coating and resurfacing.
Hanson and Lefevre voice an opinion that a number of other Monroe residents share - that private property owners shouldn't have to pay any extra beyond taxes already collected for work done on sidewalks and roads, which are public property.
Hanson encourages anyone upset with the current street construction policy to attend an informational meeting April 22 and the council meeting May 6, when a public hearing will be held on the policy.
In addition to asking residents to speak their mind on the policy, Hanson and Lefevre should be working to propose an alternative plan. That way, the public, other aldermen and city administrators will have time to assess what effects a change in policy would have and assess whether it's the best road to travel.
This summer, residents on both sides of 16th Avenue from Sixth to Eighth streets will get a special assessment of about $476, which is about 25 percent of the cost per resident for $43,000 in reconstruction costs.
"I think assessing for public streets is wrong. It may be public policy, but I think it's wrong," Hanson said.
Residents of 18th Avenue from First to Fourth streets won't be assessed, because the city considers their street a major thoroughfare.
"I feel that if you're not going to assess some streets, then you shouldn't assess anyone," Lefevre said. "It's discrimination, and you are punishing those who are assessed for living on that street."
Hanson said the assessment policy needs to be changed. He and Lefevre are right. That road construction work should be covered by the general fund. The cost of road work done in Monroe, whether on a "major" street or not, should be shared by all taxpayers. Everyone benefits from quality streets in a community. People should not be charged more because of where they live.
That said, now that Hanson and Lefevre have made their stand against the policy, they must lead the charge to change it.
City Engineering Supervisor Al Gerber said the city has been assessing property owners for residential street construction for at least 20 years, maybe more. Gerber said two or three residents a year complain, but it's usually about the cost, he said, not about the fact they're having to pay extra for street work. Gerber also said most municipalities ask their residents to chip in extra to help with street reconstruction costs.
Gerber and City Administrator Mark Vahlsing said Wednesday that reconstruction work on main thoroughfares is not assessed to property owners along the street. Many of those main thoroughfares are populated by businesses, companies that don't have to pay their share of street reconstruction because many cars travel on a certain street.
Gerber and Vahlsing said residents of residential streets are assessed because they are the main people who use the streets.
"Everyone uses the streets, like sidewalks," Lefevre said Wednesday.
The street and sidewalks debates are very similar. Both streets and sidewalks are city property. Yet city policy requires property owners to share the cost of reconstructing streets and sidewalks. Property owners aren't asked to share in the cost of minor street repairs, such as seal coating and resurfacing.
Hanson and Lefevre voice an opinion that a number of other Monroe residents share - that private property owners shouldn't have to pay any extra beyond taxes already collected for work done on sidewalks and roads, which are public property.
Hanson encourages anyone upset with the current street construction policy to attend an informational meeting April 22 and the council meeting May 6, when a public hearing will be held on the policy.
In addition to asking residents to speak their mind on the policy, Hanson and Lefevre should be working to propose an alternative plan. That way, the public, other aldermen and city administrators will have time to assess what effects a change in policy would have and assess whether it's the best road to travel.
