10.1. SR 01-22-2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Option #2. As discussed briefly at the July meeting, street improvements could be funded through a general tax levy or,with legislative changes, a city-wide street utility fee approach. Current state legislation does not allow for charging of a street utility fee. There have been attempts to have this included in state statutes as an option for cities,but so far it has fallen short of being passed into law. Funding through a general tax levy or street utility fee would continue to use state aid funding on projects as available, but would eliminate the need to levy special assessments on property owners when improvements are made adjacent to their property. Property owners would pay for street improvements through the existing property tax system.. Some communities,including St. Louis Park,Minnetonka,and Ramsey,who have struggled to prove the benefit of special assessments,have transitoned to or have been considering alternative means of financing their pavement management plans. There are positives and negatives to a tax levy-based approach just the same as with the assessment approach. Below are staff's opinions of positives and negatives of each option: Private Property Assessment Option Pros 1) Property owner can see where their money goes 2) Continues past practice in Elk River,making it fair for all 3) Accepted process used by many cities Cons 1) Property owners don't life large assessments for a city street 2) Potential challenges regarding the benefit of improvement 3) Can only collect what is determined to be the benefit 4) Costly to develop and administer assessment process 5) Project approvals are subject to emotional public hearings G) Residents often challenge or delay projects based on financial impacts to them T) Residents feel the street network is community good, not personal good Tax Levy Based Option Pros 1) Projects are proposed,approved,and proceed based on approved,non-biased Pavement Management Plan 2) Lower administration costs of projects 3) Stable revenue stream 4) Can be readily adjusted to meet funding needs 5) Residents have favorable response to street projects G) Smaller monthly-or yearly fees instead of large lump sum or financing 7) Collects money from all users of the system 8) No need to prove benefit to property owner 9) Funds are direcdy used for corresponding service Cons 1) Change in policy doesn't benefit previous assessments Z) Larger tax levy p 0 W E H L 9 0 NATUREI