In one regard, the transportation utility that's in the beginning stages of consideration in Monroe city government accomplishes one good thing. Rather than forcing a small number of residents and business to pay special assessments for sidewalk installations and street repairs, as is the case now, a transportation utility would spread that cost among all property owners.
In every other regard, however, a transportation utility would be a complicated mess. There's a reason transportation utilities have been discussed before by Wisconsin municipalities but never instituted - it's a bad idea. The Monroe City Council should abandon the idea. It certainly should not commit to spending the $40,000 a consulting firm is requesting to conduct a feasibility study and community outreach.
How the city pays for street improvements and the installation of new sidewalks has been a contentious topics for years. Last year, residents along two blocks of 16th Avenue successfully petitioned the council to waive special assessments the city was readying for street construction in front of their properties. Residents would have been forced to pay between $1,060 and $2.971 for street work depending on lot size. Dropping the assessments was a kind, and correct, decision by the council.
But if street improvements and sidewalk installations are to be done in the future, the cash-strapped city will need to come up with some form of funding to get all of the work done it wants.
The transportation utility isn't the answer.
The city's Finance and Taxation Committee May 19 was presented the idea by a representative from Ruekert-Mielke, a municipal economics and engineering consulting firm from Madison. The firm is proposing the city pay $40,000 for it to determine whether the utility is a feasible idea. Given the city's financial state, it's awfully difficult to justify that sort of expenditure for a study of an idea that already has failed to pass muster in other communities.
A transportation utility would work much like a water utility or stormwater utility, which the City of Monroe recently instituted. Every property in Monroe, including schools and churches, would pay a utility tax. That tax would be based on the theoretical number of "trips" to and from the property daily. The number of trips generated would be statistically figured using a survey and a "generational manual" placing users into 150 different categories.
If that's not confusing enough, continue reading.
Properties would be assessed a value based on the number of times people come and go from the location. A single-family home, for example, would only be assessed two trips - one from home and one back to home. Larger, higher-traffic generating structures like a church, school or business would be assessed a higher value and billed more under the utility.
In other words, homeowners would pay less, and businesses would pay more. Sounds like a good deal for homeowners, right? Until you consider that utility payments made by schools are your tax dollars, and businesses likely will recoup their expense by raising the prices of goods and services. You'll pay either way.
And another tax based on property size, like the stormwater utility, certainly could be seen as an obstacle to business recruitment in Monroe.
There are better ways to approach funding for roads and sidewalks.
The city could ask voters to approve a referendum for additional taxes that would be used for street work and sidewalk installation. If the voters say no, they have no right to complain about the condition of streets and sidewalks.
The city could ask voters to increase the sales tax, with the additional revenue devoted to streets and sidewalks. A sales tax would collect from visitors who buy goods in Monroe and prevent the entire burden from falling on Monroe residents.
Or the city could just decide to fix what it can, and let the rest go until there are better financial times.
Any of those approaches are better than the convoluted transportation utility being considered.
In every other regard, however, a transportation utility would be a complicated mess. There's a reason transportation utilities have been discussed before by Wisconsin municipalities but never instituted - it's a bad idea. The Monroe City Council should abandon the idea. It certainly should not commit to spending the $40,000 a consulting firm is requesting to conduct a feasibility study and community outreach.
How the city pays for street improvements and the installation of new sidewalks has been a contentious topics for years. Last year, residents along two blocks of 16th Avenue successfully petitioned the council to waive special assessments the city was readying for street construction in front of their properties. Residents would have been forced to pay between $1,060 and $2.971 for street work depending on lot size. Dropping the assessments was a kind, and correct, decision by the council.
But if street improvements and sidewalk installations are to be done in the future, the cash-strapped city will need to come up with some form of funding to get all of the work done it wants.
The transportation utility isn't the answer.
The city's Finance and Taxation Committee May 19 was presented the idea by a representative from Ruekert-Mielke, a municipal economics and engineering consulting firm from Madison. The firm is proposing the city pay $40,000 for it to determine whether the utility is a feasible idea. Given the city's financial state, it's awfully difficult to justify that sort of expenditure for a study of an idea that already has failed to pass muster in other communities.
A transportation utility would work much like a water utility or stormwater utility, which the City of Monroe recently instituted. Every property in Monroe, including schools and churches, would pay a utility tax. That tax would be based on the theoretical number of "trips" to and from the property daily. The number of trips generated would be statistically figured using a survey and a "generational manual" placing users into 150 different categories.
If that's not confusing enough, continue reading.
Properties would be assessed a value based on the number of times people come and go from the location. A single-family home, for example, would only be assessed two trips - one from home and one back to home. Larger, higher-traffic generating structures like a church, school or business would be assessed a higher value and billed more under the utility.
In other words, homeowners would pay less, and businesses would pay more. Sounds like a good deal for homeowners, right? Until you consider that utility payments made by schools are your tax dollars, and businesses likely will recoup their expense by raising the prices of goods and services. You'll pay either way.
And another tax based on property size, like the stormwater utility, certainly could be seen as an obstacle to business recruitment in Monroe.
There are better ways to approach funding for roads and sidewalks.
The city could ask voters to approve a referendum for additional taxes that would be used for street work and sidewalk installation. If the voters say no, they have no right to complain about the condition of streets and sidewalks.
The city could ask voters to increase the sales tax, with the additional revenue devoted to streets and sidewalks. A sales tax would collect from visitors who buy goods in Monroe and prevent the entire burden from falling on Monroe residents.
Or the city could just decide to fix what it can, and let the rest go until there are better financial times.
Any of those approaches are better than the convoluted transportation utility being considered.
