2.1.
CC Work Session
- Meeting Date:
- 01/18/2011
- By:
- Tim Himmer, Engineering/Public Works
Title:
Discuss street reconstruction policy and consider public informational campaign
Background:
The concept of developing an assessment policy for street reconstruction has been talked about numerous times over the past couple of years. The discussions really escalated with the advancement of the Andrie Street/164th Lane Municipal State Aid (MSA) improvement project in 2009. The only existing City street assessment policy pertains specifically to the Street Maintenance Program (SMP); where overlays are assessed at a rate of 50% and sealcoats are being phased out through the year 2014, from a previous rate of 50% to the current rate of 22% in 2011.
A majority of the discussion related to this matter to date has leaned towards the use of additional revenues, and to get away from one time assessments. Doing so would most likely require the levying of additional taxes or the establishment of fees, but it could also eliminate or greatly reduce the amount of projects that are counter-petitioned due to cost factors (assessments) to the residents. Conversely, it could also result in a large amount of petitions requesting improvements. Advancement of this policy will establish a more concrete funding mechanism, and allow for more consistent resident interaction on future street improvement projects.
Utilizing the general fund alone to offset these costs led to a few concerns and topics of discussion:
- Tax exempt parcels would receive benefit without any contribution.
- The City would not be able to issue improvement bonds unless a minimum of 20% of the project is assessed, thereby eliminating a potential funding source.
- How would levy limits affect this process?
- The loss of $300,000 per year in TIF money (in 2013) that is currently being used to offset the general fund contribution.
At a work session meeting in November of 2009 staff was directed to review what it would cost to continue with our standard street maintenance activities, and add reconstruction costs into the program in five year increments. Staff completed this analysis and then evaluated how much funding would be needed over the next ten years; since approximately 45% of the roadways in the City were constructed between 1975 and 1985 (a 40 year design life was assumed). This information was presented to the Council in work session on June 15, 2010. See attached information on the 5 year breakdown and a history of road construction in the City.
This analysis was done based upon an ideal maintenance schedule, and it is not realistic to assume that we would be able to generate the dollars necessary to fund such a program. Initially this matter was strictly dealing with a reconstruction policy, but we could not lose sight of the fact that we need to actively maintain our roadways (sealcoat and overlay) so they can reach this 40 year intended design life. The sealcoating assessment is being phased out over the next few years, and we continue to fall behind on maintenance activities due to funding constraints; we always seem to have more roads to maintain than available funding. We ultimately perform maintenance activities based upon available funding and the road rating performed by public works, with some improvements being extended into subsequent years. There are situations, however, that we must forego necessary repairs due to the counter-petition process, which eventually leads to increased costs in future years as the roadway may deteriorate faster. Therefore we needed to take a broader look at the overall longevity of our system to include both maintenance and reconstruction.
Observations:
In simple terms we have approximately 178 miles of roadway in the City. Taking out 36 miles of MSA roads that have their own funding source leaves 142 miles of local roads, but we are also underfunded with regard to our planned MSA needs. If we were to reconstruct the local roadways every 40 years we would need $142M, or approximately $3.5M annually. If you include sealcoating every 7 years at a price of $25,000/mile and an overlay every 19 years (but only occurs once during the design life) at a price of $105,000/mile we would need another $500,000 and $400,000 respectively, for a total of approximately $4.4M of required funding each year for both maintenance and reconstruction. Currently the only revenue options we have to offset these costs are assessments, MSA, TIF, and the general fund.
Other issues that have been discussed with regard to the reconstruction policy include the following:
- What is the standard for reconstruction
- utilities, cross-sections, trails/sidewalks, load limits, etc.
- How to address tax exempt parcels
- How to address residents that live on private or County roads
- Should it be a flat fee (tax), assessment, or combination
- Affects of levy limits and potential bonding as a funding source
- Impacts to funding when TIF closes in 2013 ($300,000 reduction in SMP)
- A public participation process
At the September 21, 2010 Council work session discussions focused on a franchise fee and public participation campaign to educate the residents of the imminent need for roadway improvements, and solicit their feedback on the potential scenarios that exist for a long term sustainable funding source. Staff discussed this matter with Himle Horner, a consultant currently working on marketing for the COR, and requested a proposal to assist the City in completing a public participation program (see attached). Staff is now looking for input on implementation of such a program in an effort to advance this critical infrastructure funding dilemma.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends award of a Contract to Himle Horner for a cost not to exceed $43,000 to assist with the public informational campaign and data gathering to initiate a street reconstruction policy.
Funding Source:
Since this is an activity that will directly benefit the street system and general state of repair for the street system, it would be appropriate that this money come from the street maintenance account. However, since that account is already being fully utilized for the 2011 Street Maintenance program, it would mean that we would have to eliminate a section of roadway to afford this effort. Staff recommends that this effort be funded from the Public Improvement Revolving fund which has an adequate fund balance and that this amount be reimbursed by the street reconstruction fund when that gets created.
Council Action:
Based upon discussion
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Form Review
| Inbox | Reviewed By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Diana Lund | Diana Lund | 01/13/2011 02:29 PM |
| Kurt Ulrich | Kurt Ulrich | 01/13/2011 02:56 PM |
- Form Started By:
- thimmer
- Started On:
- 01/13/2011 09:19 AM
- Final Approval Date:
- 01/13/2011