FONT SIZE
Email this
Print this
POST A COMMENT
LID numbers
On its web site, in the Street LID folder/final assessment roll, the city has powerpoints presented by Robert Macaulay and Ken Lanfear at the public hearing. The Lanfear/city powerpoint includes these numbers (slides 23-24) :city public hearing presentation
Project Costs Attributable to LID 2007-1:
Contractor Costs $32,388,305
Macaulay Special Benefit Analysis $672,293
Monument & Surveying $233,690
City Employee Costs $541,639
Supplies & Services $120,038
Line of Credit Interest $113,267
Interest Expense $5,465,986
Interest Earned (-) $392,743
Contingency $220,613
Total $39,363,088
Post-Construction costs:
Printing Official statement $3,000
Rating agency $15,000
Underwriting costs for the Bonds $444,750
Administration of LID (Public Finance) $500,000
Guaranty Fund requirement for Bonds $4,447,500
Guaranty Fund surplus (715,000)
Rounding Amount 2,162.50
Total Assessment Roll $44,475,000
Obviously they could not be in two places at the same time. So, that is a good question. Maybe that was the $35k used to hire the Code Enforcement Officer. Now we are about $500K short. I suspect that you could also argue that they budgeted as if they were going to cost allocate certain activities to the LID and therefore did not plan those other projects. I am sure we will never know. Our city budget process is in need of major repair. So is the accounting process. New software does not make old methods go away. If you do not change the way things are cataloged or accounted for you get the same result. Clear detailed accounting with appropriate titles for where the money goes would be nice. However, that will never happen.
“We pay then their normal salary and then cost allocate that expense to the LID.”
Then, assuming that the employees involved were Public Works, shouldn’t we expect to see a reduction of the same amount in the GF and/or Water budgets?
Did we? Or was this treated like “found money” and used for some other “pet” or unnecessary project.
We pay then their normal salary and then cost allocate that expense to the LID. That is how they got that number. So, for all those guys watching the other guys work, it costs this much. Also, I suspect that the LID coordinator is paid in that number too.
Can someone explain the City Employee’s Costs? Have we not already paid the City Employees salary? This looks like we are paying for something twice?