Monroe city government continues to stick to its promise to relieve some 16th Avenue property owners of a burdensome assessment for street reconstruction costs.
Tuesday, the Board of Public Works voted to start the process of eliminating assessments from the project. It's another positive step toward solving a short-term problem. Instead of charging 23 property owners between $1,500 and $3,000 each for the portion of street construction costs unable to be covered by grant money, the city will pick up the tab. Work on the street begins June 9.
This year, $20,000 will come from budgeted but unspent dollars. Curb and gutter work came in $10,000 under budget, and a project to replace curbs and gutters along Lake Drive will be delayed - saving another $10,000.
How the remaining $23,000 for the project will be covered next budget year remains to be seen. It certainly can be done. Finding this year's dollars didn't seem too difficult. It's usually easier to find a way to fund something by including it in a budget than to find money after a budget's complete. In a city budget, $23,000 is not a huge expenditure.
While the city deserves credit for finding the funds in its current budget, the apparent ease with which it did so raises a question about a proposed utility that deserves consideration by the Monroe City Council.
Mayor Ron Marsh has proposed creating a transportation utility to replace the unfair and random assessments. With a utility, the costs would be shared by all taxpayers through a fee - an additional tax.
While the idea of a shared burden is preferable to assessments, the short-term solution reached in recent weeks makes one wonder whether the city couldn't routinely replace assessments through tighter budgeting and spending.
Marsh admitted creating a utility would take time. Other municipalities have tried and failed to create similar fees. It's extremely unlikely a utility will be established before the next budget year. Which means the city will have to address the second half of the 16th Avenue costs the old-fashioned way, by making them a priority and budgeting for them.
Which at least raises the question why that couldn't be done every year.
Tuesday, the Board of Public Works voted to start the process of eliminating assessments from the project. It's another positive step toward solving a short-term problem. Instead of charging 23 property owners between $1,500 and $3,000 each for the portion of street construction costs unable to be covered by grant money, the city will pick up the tab. Work on the street begins June 9.
This year, $20,000 will come from budgeted but unspent dollars. Curb and gutter work came in $10,000 under budget, and a project to replace curbs and gutters along Lake Drive will be delayed - saving another $10,000.
How the remaining $23,000 for the project will be covered next budget year remains to be seen. It certainly can be done. Finding this year's dollars didn't seem too difficult. It's usually easier to find a way to fund something by including it in a budget than to find money after a budget's complete. In a city budget, $23,000 is not a huge expenditure.
While the city deserves credit for finding the funds in its current budget, the apparent ease with which it did so raises a question about a proposed utility that deserves consideration by the Monroe City Council.
Mayor Ron Marsh has proposed creating a transportation utility to replace the unfair and random assessments. With a utility, the costs would be shared by all taxpayers through a fee - an additional tax.
While the idea of a shared burden is preferable to assessments, the short-term solution reached in recent weeks makes one wonder whether the city couldn't routinely replace assessments through tighter budgeting and spending.
Marsh admitted creating a utility would take time. Other municipalities have tried and failed to create similar fees. It's extremely unlikely a utility will be established before the next budget year. Which means the city will have to address the second half of the 16th Avenue costs the old-fashioned way, by making them a priority and budgeting for them.
Which at least raises the question why that couldn't be done every year.
