(In an alternate universe where I live in town and can win elections...)
Mayor Lindsay (pounding gavel following raucous discussion of Crazy/Discovery Day): We turn now to New Business, Item 1, Resolution 2013-23, "A resolution to establish a special maintenance fee for the purpose of maintaining or repairing public improvements." Is there discussion on Resolution 2013-23?
Commissioner Heidelberger: Mr. Mayor! Move to amend.
(Uneasy muttering and shifting in chairs.)
Mayor Lindsay: State your amendment.
Commissioner Heidelberger: Strike the following text from Section 4:
4. The special maintenance fee will be assessed at the rate of $1.00 per front foot
with a special 100 foot maximumper lot or lots constituting a single contiguous parcel.
...and replace with the following:
4. The special maintenance fee will be assessed at the rate of $1.00 per front foot, exempting the first 50 feet per lot or lots constituting a single contiguous parcel.
Commissioner Abraham: Second!
Mayor Lindsay: Amendment is moved and seconded. Is there discussion? Commissioner Heidelberger.
Commissioner Heidelberger: The special maintenance fee, as proposed, lays an unfair proportion of the tax burden on small landowners, who are more likely to be low-income or fixed-income residents. A working-class resident with a modest home on a 100-foot-wide lot pays as much as an industrialist or retailer with 1000 feet of frontage. The worker relies on the streets for to get to work and to bring Grandma to visit. The big business relies on the streets to bring workers, suppliers and customers to his facility each day. The fee cap fails to reflect that relative utility. It also unnecessarily limits revenue: a business expansion that acquires adjacent lots removes frontage from the fee. Exempting the first 50 feet of each parcel gives each property owner a break and makes payment somewhat more proportional to available wealth.
Commissioner Ericsson: It sounds to me like Heidelberger's trying to turn our town into Germany—
Commissioner Abraham: It sounds like an excellent idea. Move the previous question!
...and there we go. More money to fix Madison's streets, and more fairness to boot. Amend that resolution, commissioners!
Public notice - Planning Commission will hold a public hearing for the re-plat of certain property located at........ from a single parcel into 10 48-foot lots.
30 days after replat is approved, property is conveyed in a hopscotch fashion to three separate "owners" - thus - no contiguous lots exceeding 48 feet held by any single "owner".
Thank you very much.
There should be NO limits upper OR lower.
Property owners are property owners, and I'm not a fan of disregarding the first 50 ft. With owning a home comes the same maintenance and this is about our responsibilities as property owners. Income should not play a role in my opinion. We are all on a level field when we choose to own property and that is how I see it.
All right then, DB: by your thinking, does owning more property mean having more responsibilities? Does that mean the capped formula Mayor Lindsay proposes is equally bad?
Nick voted tonight, as did all the commissioners, to approve the $1 per foot with $100 cap. An actual owner on South Harth (which is gravel), 4 lots, 2 in the flood plain, will have to pay more than Prostrollo Motors with how many hundred feet on a four lane highway. It's not an equitable way to collect the revenue. Someone suggested some of the alternatives discussed on this blog, but counsel said they are not something a city can impose.
Interesting, John! Which alternative? Did they address the base exemption formula?
Oh, no. Nobody brought up this one. I was thinking of the gas tax, wheel tax, etc. See no reason why this one wouldn't be allowed. Didn't see anything in the statue on how to compute the fee. Mayor Roy L. said the feedback he got from owners of corner lots was put a cap on it, so they did.
Cory, I don't like the caps on either end. With that said, I really wish they could have this apply to every citizen in some way as roads benefit us all. It would be nice to not have it based on property. I just don't know what other options they can legally do. Good roads are something that we all must help support in my opinion, even if you don't own or drive a car.
I don't like sales tax, but an extra-penny sales tax might do it better. The more stuff you buy, the more weight you put on the road to haul that stuff home. A municipal fuel tax would be great, but we'll need to get Senator Russ Olson to propose that as legislation to make it possible.
Or Madison could just use the $286K it cut from its budget this year to fill those potholes.