My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10.2. SR 11-19-2012
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2011 - 2020
>
2012
>
11-19-2012
>
10.2. SR 11-19-2012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2012 8:13:57 AM
Creation date
11/16/2012 4:16:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
11/19/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Cty of <br />River <br />REQUEST FOR ACTION <br />TO <br />ITEM NUMBER <br />City Council <br />" 10.2 <br />AGENDA SECTION <br />MEETING DATE <br />PREPARED BY <br />Administration <br />November 19, 2012 <br />Justin Femrite, P.E., City Engineer <br />ITEM DESCRIPTION <br />REVIEWED By <br />Pavement Management Program Funding Options <br />Tim Simon, Finance Director <br />REVIEWED BY <br />Cal Portner, City Administrator <br />ACTION REQUESTED <br />Discuss and consider alternative approaches to funding the city pavement management program. <br />BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION <br />At the October 8, 2012, City Council Work Session, staff gave an overview of the pavement management <br />program and funding options. The overview explained the program methodology, highlighted existing <br />pavement conditions, and discussed the trending of city street maintenance over the next 40 years. Staff <br />also presented some pros and cons of funding the pavement management program with a fee or general <br />tax approach instead of a private property assessment approach. Council direction was to come back to a <br />future work session further detailing a general tax approach verses a franchise fee approach. An <br />underlying question to the discussion was how to make a change in policy fair for those property owners <br />that have recently paid a street improvement assessment. <br />As detailed at the July work session, 81% of Elk River's streets were constructed or rehabilitated within <br />the last 20 years. All of these improvements have been paid for by residents, either through special <br />assessments by property owners fronting the improvements or by new homebuyers through the purchase <br />of their home or lot. Ideally, the most favorable time to consider a different funding option for a <br />pavement management program is when the entire system is 100% new or 100% deteriorated. Neither <br />of these scenarios is likely, but with 81 % of our streets less than 20 years old, this may be as close as we <br />can get to a new system. The system's age and the continual challenges associated with the Minn. Stat. <br />429 assessment process make it an opportune time to consider alternative funding for the program. <br />Analysis of the pavement management program details the need to invest approximately $4.5 million for <br />rehabilitation every other year to sustain the current average pavement condition or $2.25 million <br />annually. Our current Municipal State Aid allocation dedicated to construction /reconstruction is <br />$750,000 per year, which leaves a $1.5 million yearly shortfall. The two long -term alternative approaches <br />previously discussed include a general tax increase or implementation of a franchise fee. Both of these <br />options, if implemented fully, would eliminate need to assess costs directly to the adjacent property <br />owners. <br />General Tax verses Franchise Fee <br />The first option is a general (special) tax levy against all properties in the city. Under this approach, we <br />would propose to generate the $1.5 million through the collection of a tax over all properties in the city. <br />Through this approach, the highest valued properties end up paying the largest share of the costs. <br />PO N ER E 9 e r <br />NATURE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.