Laserfiche WebLink
Section 4: Findings and Policy Options <br />Sections 1 through 3 of this report discuss general information on the current city road and bridge <br />infrastructure, current funding mechanisms, and future funding challenges. This background <br />information is critical to understanding the broad trends and policies that affect city policy makers as <br />they strive to maintain and improve their transportation infrastructure while providing the best <br />possible value to the taxpayer. <br /> <br />In this section of the report, we attempt to identify and describe a handful of key findings that policy <br />makers should be mindful of as they consider various transportation funding policy options, <br />particularly as they relate to Minnesota city roads and bridges owned and maintained by Minnesota <br />cities. The options presented in this section were the outcome of collaborative effort on the part of <br />city staff and elected officials representing all of Minnesota's cities. <br /> <br />A. All City <br />Findings: <br /> #A-i' <br /> #A-2: <br /> <br />#A-3' <br />#A-4: <br />#A-5: <br /> <br />Systems <br /> <br />Maintenance costs increase as road systems age. <br />Cities have implemented a variety of strategies to address the maintenance funding <br />gap. <br />Cities have become more reliant on property taxes and special assessments. <br />City bridges are in needs of repairs. <br />Cities are often required to contribute to Mn/DOT and county road/County State <br />Aid Highway projects located within city limits. <br /> <br />Policy Options: 1. Provide funding for a "Local Road Improvement Program". <br /> 2. Provide cities greater flexibility to generate revenues through special assessments. <br /> 3. Provide cities with additional local taxing authority, including the authority to <br /> establish a "Transportation Utility". <br /> 4. Enact legislation authorizing cities to establish "Impact Fees". <br /> <br />B. Locally Funded City Streets - Cities Under 5,000 <br />Findings: <br /> #B-1: Most small cities are not spending enough on roadway capital improvements to <br /> maintain a 50 year life cycle. <br /> #B-2: Most small cities don't have a regular, annual road budget. <br /> #B-3: Small cities are heavily reliant on locally generated revenues. <br /> #B-4: On the whole, small cities don't receive significant resources from other local units <br /> of government for "shared" projects. <br /> <br />Policy Options: 1. Provide funding for a "Local Road Improvement Program". <br /> 2. Allocate a portion of the existing 5% special fund to cities under 5,000 population. <br /> 3. Allocate a portion of the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax revenues to a special fund for <br /> cities under 5,000 population. <br /> <br />ii <br /> <br /> <br />