RE: Fire Station Question

["Shahab Mesbah" <meteor2@moscow.com>]

Not to mention that by going the bond route we will be paying interest
payments which will increase the end cost by quite a bit. Remember to
calculate for future/present value of money when you figure the numbers! We
would actually save money if we raised money for the project instead of
getting a loan (or issuing bonds). On the other hand $150 might be quite a
bit for some people to shell our at one time.

I do agree that the decision to expand the reaches of the city should have
taken into account the costs of doing so. It is not surprising that this did
not happen since the government (particularly ours) has had very little cost
management in place. This is the difference between financial accounting and
managerial accounting. The latter is more difficult and requires managerial
skills. Its existence or lack thereof is a direct function of the quality of
management of any organization. The problem here is that we are not basing
financial decisions on facts but politics and tradition. It is no wonder
that efforts to change this system have met with strong opposition.

"Your brother in arms"
Shahab...


-----Original Message-----
From: John Danahy [mailto:JDANAHY@turbonet.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 3:12 PM
To: jon@n-k-ins.com; vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: Re: Fire Station Question

I checked with My insurance company, and was told that an increase in the
fire rating from P3 to P4 would result in no change in my homeowners
insurance rate.  An increase to P5 from P3 would result in an approximate
increase of 10% and an increase to P7 from P3 would result in an increase of
around 30%.

It seems that the fire rating change results from an increase in the
physical size of the city, thus increasing the distance fire trucks have to
go to get to homes.  I think 3 miles is the limit that would increase the
rating.  Also, the rating applies to the entire city, not just those who
live outside the 3 mile limit.

As for impact fees, when I purchased the lot on which I built my house
inside the city limits, I paid for the development of the neighborhood in
which I live.  The cost of maintaining the roads in my neighborhood is paid
for with taxes, but the development was paid for by my purchase of the
property.  The roads are used by me and my neighbors primarily, but also
available for use anyone.  While this may not meet the legal definition of
"impact fees" it is similar to the idea of building a new fire station
because the city has expanded.  It should have been part and parcel of the
planning process that resulted in the approval of the expansion.  To wait
until several years after expansion was approved and then tell the voters
that a new fire station is needed because of the expansion is the sign of a
dysfunctional governmental system.

At $4.50 per $100,000 or $13.50 per $200,00 for ten years, (I think that is
the length of the bond).  My share of the bond would then be about $150.00
Why not ask me directly for the money.  Perhaps I would rather give $300.00
up front than pay taxes for ten years?  This would allow those not
participating in the bond, but enjoying the benefits resulting from passage
to also contribute?  It worked in the past, why not now??

John

John and Laurie Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com