Laserfiche WebLink
Section 2: How is the system funded? <br />Understanding how the current transportation funding system works is critical for decision makers who <br />want to deal responsibly with the maintenance and preservation needs of roads and bridges in <br />Minnesota cities. Minnesota's cities finance their road and bridge infrastructure through a variety of <br />local, state and federal resources. The emphasis in this report will be on local and state funding <br />sources, since the intended audience of this report is state and local officials. Federal resources are <br />described briefly, but since they do not represent a significant source of funding available to finance <br />roads and bridges in most Minnesota cities, a detailed discussion of federal aid to cities is not included <br />in this report. <br /> <br />Local Funding Sources <br />With few exceptions, Minnesota cities are reliant on their own, locally generated sources of revenue to <br />finance most road and bridge infrastructure improvements. Figure 4 shows the share of state and local <br />revenue sources supporting roads and bridges in Minnesota cities in 2000 according to data reported by <br />cities to the State Auditor. As the chart indicates, the largest three sectors of the pie - proceeds from <br />the sale of bonds, property taxes/special assessments, and local general funds -are all locally generated <br /> <br />sources of revenue <br />that are reliant on <br />property taxes. <br />These sources <br />representing nearly <br />75 percent of all <br />revenues used to <br />support road and <br />bridge construction <br />by Minnesota cities. <br /> <br />The distribution of <br />revenues to cities <br />shown in Figure 4 is <br />consistent with the <br />information reported <br />by Minnesota cities <br />in the 2002 City <br />Road and Bridge <br />Funding Survey <br />conducted for this <br />study. Figure 5 <br /> <br /> Figure 4 <br />Distribution of ~nnesota Cities' Revenues for Roadw ay Furposes <br />Maintnenance and Construction Costs, FY 2000 <br /> <br /> [] Interest · Miscellaneous ~ State General <br /> Earnings $37.2M Funds <br /> $52.3M % $116.5M <br /> 5% ~ 3% <br />· Proceeds from 10% <br /> Sale of Bonds [] State Highw ay <br /> $168.7M User Taxes <br /> 15% $100.7M <br /> 9% <br /> <br />[] Property <br /> Taxes/Special <br /> Assessments ~ <br /> $215.6M N <br /> 19% <br /> SAOuudr,~;:r Office of the State <br /> <br /> [] Local General <br /> Fund <br />~.~~ $437.6M <br /> 39% <br /> <br />indicates that for cities under 5,000 who responded to the survey,, two-thirds of the road and bridge <br />revenues come from property tax based revenues including bonding, special assessments, and general <br />(property tax) revenues. For larger cities that are more reliant on state aid and other state and federal <br />funding, the portion of property tax based revenues is well over 50%. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br /> <br />