Serving Gogebic, Iron and Ontonagon Counties
Serving Gogebic, Iron and Ontonagon Counties
By RICHARD JENKINS
MONTREAL, Wis. — It seems there are no easy answers, and no final decision was made, but the Montreal City Council discussed possible ways to fund much-needed road work throughout Montreal and Gile Tuesday.
Mayor Erik Guenard said the city tries to set money aside in each budget for road work, but the amount often isn’t enough to do much.
“We try to … set aside money on a yearly basis for road improvements, typically it has been $35,000-40,000,” Guenard said. “But again, that’s general fund revenue. So that isn’t set aside in a restricted or designated fund, it’s set in the general operations fund. So at the end of the year that fund disappears into the fund balance — if we have any, which we typically don’t.”
Guenard said the city has explored using grant funding to pay for projects, but that often requires matching funds that are beyond what the city can afford.
He brought up the idea of the city funding a study into the feasibility of a transportation utility fee.
The proposal — which the council has had some preliminary discussions about in the past — would impose a fee on property owners in the city, with the generated revenue devoted to road work.
He said the council would set what the fee would be and the money would go into a designated fund where it could accumulate until there was enough to fund larger projects or be used as a local match on grant applications.
He also repeatedly stressed throughout the discussion the idea would only work if the council was open with residents and explained why the fee was needed.
If the city did hire its engineering company to complete the study and help the city with the process of establishing the fee, it would mean much of the roughly $24,000 set aside for roads this year would be used to pay for the study’s $18,000 cost.
He acknowledged this would mean there would be virtually no money left over for road work, but said the idea of the fee was more about planning for more permanent fixes in the future rather than short-term bandaids.
Although no one on the council questioned the need for road work and a better way to fund it, some weren’t sure that pursuing the study — or at least pursuing it at this time — was the right answer.
“We need money for roads, there’s no question about it,” council member Ken Saari said. He asked whether the city could commission the study next year when some of the city’s other financial obligations end.
“When we take a look at the condition of the roads, the longer we put some of those big repairs off, it’s just going to get worse and more costly,” Saari said.
Guenard argued that the city can only control what it does know and it’s not yet known how much money will be able to be set aside next year and whether that amount would be enough to fund the study.
Saari also raised the possibility of the council agreeing to spend the money pursuing the implementation of the fee, only to have residents reject the proposal after the initial money was spent.
Council member Kelly Traczyk suggested some other possible revenue streams for road projects and questioned whether it would be better to focus on more comprehensive opportunities that weren’t limited just to road work. She said that if the city only repaired its roads, it might wind up having to tear them up again if repairs to the sewer and water lines under them were needed.
This led to a discussion of whether the Community Development Block Grants — one of the grant opportunities the city stopped pursuing due to a shortage of matching funds.
Even if the city does implement the fee, Guenard made clear it will likely take several years to build up enough cash reserves to undertake significant projects.
He also suggested the council consider pausing its discussion temporarily to allow the members who joined the council Tuesday some time to familiarize themselves with the issues before any final decisions were made.
Whether the council chooses to pursue the fee or an alternative, there seemed to be consensus that the road work was needed and the current way wasn’t enough anymore.
“If we take anything out of this (discussion), let’s think about where do we want to be five years from now,” Guenard said. “Because today we’re broke and we don’t have a lot of money to fix anything. And if we don’t do something that’s going to fix our future, we’re not going to move forward.”
In other action:
—The council tabled acting on the contract for auditing services to allow the council to receive additional information from its current auditor before making a decision.
—Prior to its regular meeting, the council held an organizational meeting. The meeting included Traczyk and Maleah Cummings being sworn-in as members of the council and receiving committee assignments.
—During the reorganizational meeting, the council also renewed agreements with the city’s building inspector, legal counsel and fire chief to have them continue serving in their roles, as well as designated a bank to be used as the city’s depository and named the city’s newspaper of record.
