If you recall we have streets failing at Shoppes on Maine after just a few years, when they should have lasted 50. We have staff that worked for the private contractor on that project and can explain in detail how that construction process was deliberately flawed to meet a schedule. I have been told that will not speak publicly because they fear the influence developers have over the city and certain city council members.
My position is that we shall set the rules that ensure the quality of construction and have developers execute to our standards at their cost. If they choose not to do this they can wither not build, or build understanding the infrastructure shall remain private.
Here are links to the report.
I object to the notion that taxpayers should pay for a new fee to subsidize development when we are simply asking them to build quality infrastructure before the tax payers accept the liability. Here are the comments I sent to staff.
OK so here are my comments.
- Almost every new roadway that comes into the city is a money loser for the community, we are knowingly accepting infrastructure where by the beneficiaries (usually low density housing) will never pay anywhere near enough in property taxes to cover both their portion of shared service costs and infrastructure maintenance. The rare exception may be cases where significant density or for profit commercial / industrial development occurs. My understanding is that you both agree with the factual accuracy of this statement.
- The city is under no obligation to ever accept infrastructure as a public good, often we do not such; as is the case with Fox Valley Villas. This is potential win-win for developers.
- The 1st – 15th bullets seem like common sense for the city. Seems like we should already be dong this.
- The 16th bullet in the summary suggests that we will contribute subsidy to private development. I would only be willing to do this if they can provide documentation showing how the direct tax benefit of properties using the infrastructure is greater than the public cost. In most cases this is unlikely. The city has the right to have the developer pay the full amount to meet our expectations if they wish us to then take over their infrastructure.
- Same comment for #17
- #18 & #19 make sense. I could see the city creating a program where some upfront costs of concrete are to be paid for by the city, but would be recouped in a TID from later development.
The people I represent do not support addition development subsidies on top of the huge amount that they are already paying. As such I oppose that tax increase. I support the creation of the pilot program without the tax increases.