10/21/13
Last Monday night's council work session on budgets didn't provide much clarity as to how to fund trails going forward. See: http://lmcc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=a1a37dbc-882d-1031-84e6-4d4a8ee9e3b7 and the last item on the agenda (work session video) to watch the work session and the discussion.
It appears that the funding need will be tied together with a sanitary and storm sewer rate study council has authorized. The study results are supposed to be presented during a work session on 10/28.
What does seem probable is that significant money will be pulled from the sanitary sewer fund reserves. Pulling reserves from the drinking water fund looks unlikely as this seemed to be felt unfair since water customers represent less than 50% of Shorewood homes. Sewers, on the other hand, are paid for by all property owners.
Some comments were made about raising sewer rates to, in part, fund future trails. One comment was that the rate increase might only be a few dollars per month. With Shorewood having about 2700 households, a $5 per quarter sewer rate increase would raise about $54,000 per year. At that rate, it would take more than ten years to fund, for example, the Galpin Lake Rd. trail segment. Who's going to be on the Council in ten years to see this through?
The discussion next Monday night should be fascinating.
Happy Reading!
The Insider
Leave the sewer money where it is. Team Excelsior is trying to sell the concept of trails being of equal importance with sewer projects- so why not raid the sewer fund? Infrastructure is infrastructure, right?
ReplyDeleteThis is shameful.
Where is the petition demanding more trails at any expense?
ReplyDeleteIf council is relying on a survey, did the survey include the associated tax increase? That might change the results of the survey. But why would we want to risk obtaining accurate survey results?
What if only 15 people want more trails at the proposed cost? Does that matter? Is this just something to put on councilmembers' campaign literature next election, at our expense?