I hope they don’t do the same stupid stupid resurfacing thing they did in Brown’s Point / NE Tacoma last year. The road is far rougher, noisier and there’s not even as much traction in the ice (which we can’t seem to get rid of anymore).

Well Bravo! The City “found” some money…

Now, if City Manager Anderson will fix the section of Pine Street between S. Tacoma Way and S.35th street, that would be F****** MIRACLE! It’s only been that way for a year.

We, the taxpayers got screwed by Pierce County on the share of the money for their building.

Connie wonders where the other 500K will come from? Well, lets take it from the money for trails that she is so enamored with.

It’s about time this City FIXES THE INFRASTRUCTURE! If Sharon McGavick was still on the council we would hear “This isn’t enough bang for the buck” fixing the streets.

BTW Connie, what about the money for Mr Anderson’s raise? We can use that towards the streets too.

I’m with Squid. Stay away from my free speedbumps, city.

Let’s not forget what is still kicking-around with the Wash. Leg. Sess. 2009-10 as HB-1947 “Concerning the regulation and preservation of urban streets through a local option street utility.” see
apps.leg.wa.gov/bill…
for what this proposed bill says, its benefit, and how it would work.

But, I have a few negative comments about how HB-1947 is constructed with words presently; for example, First, if it as approved and City of Tacoma decided to create and move forward with a new ‘Street Utility Service’ initiative for ‘Citizens’ benefit and supported by ‘Ratepayers’; Second, the Mayor appoints street utility oversight utility board persons, that is just-not-right; and Finally, for any new utility service: maybe new street utility would be required to pay City of Tacoma for mandatory required use of City computer systems, human resources services, employment services, and some City general management fees and costs (just like LESA might be paying for Tacoma support for what benefit its receives for how much money paid?) that would be outside of the ‘Street Utility Ratepayers’ decision choices about what a new street utility should employ as overhead and operational fees then included within the ‘Ratepayers’ billing rates for the delivery of defined services to streets of Tacoma, so that is not-right also to puts those expenses on the street utility, but management and operating support should go for private business support bid for streets utility management and operations overhead required supporting people and systems as provided the private business and not the City of Tacoma. As a result, I am supportive of a new City of Tacoma Streets Public Utility Service formed and to become funded by ‘Ratepayers’ for receipt of defined street services, but I am against the City of Tacoma general governance involved and collecting an fees itself for overhead services proved the new formed street utility!

And, you know or you might have already considered it, with our present City of Tacoma Municipal Public Utilitie(s) ratepayer charges there are utility taxes just tacked on-top of the ‘Ratepayers’ bills, so I would hope that with a new ‘Streets Utility’ the City of Tacoma would not add a tax to the ‘Ratepayers’ street utility bills? And, it does make one just wonder; for example, with the existing City of Tacoma Municipal Public Utilities and their ‘Ratepayers’ billing that might include any city tax; it follows, how can any city just like City of Tacoma provide overhead, management, people resource management, computers, computer systems support, and operation fees levied against or taking money from within any existing Municipal Public Utility operating and then possibly such city fees might be included within ‘Ratepayers’ defined services delivery fees? Then with their own city provided services added turn around and levy a city tax upon a ratepayers bill? Just-thinking, does make one think; therefore is this double taxing; for example, a ‘Ratepayer’ that is also a ‘Tacoma Taxpayers’ interesting thought with more questions than any current answers I have, and if such taxing schemes exist today upon present Municipal Public Utilities and ‘Ratepayers’ billings of utility defined services use; as a result, such taxing would should not be permitted with any new formed City of Tacoma Municipal Streets Utility defined services provider that is ‘Ratepayer’ supported within City of Tacoma!

Just some food-for-thought: who collects what money from whom related to the common city ‘Taxpayers’ and ‘Ratepayers’ of municipal defined services delivery?