Laserfiche WebLink
Second, a significant number of Minnesota cities responded to the 2002 City Road and Bridge <br />Funding Survey prepared in conjunction with this report. (See Appendix 1 and 2 for a list of <br />responding cities, and Appendix 3 for a copy of the survey.) This survey was prepared in an effort to <br />collect specific information on the recent funding trends and challenges facing local officials. The <br />survey requested that city officials report on their road and bridge funding histories over the last five <br />years, and also that they describe some of the future challenges anticipated in their efforts to invest in <br />their road and bridge capital assets. <br /> <br />As indicated above, each subsection also identifies policy options relating to the specific road system <br />addressed in that subsection. Each of these policy options merit consideration by state and local policy <br />makers as a means of addressing the city road and bridge infrastructure financing shortfall. While <br />these policy options are simply identified briefly in this section of the report, they are spelled out in <br />slightly greater detail in Section 5. It is important to note that the options presented in this section <br />were the outcome of collaborative effort on the part of many representatives of Minnesota city <br />governments, including city staff with responsibility over road maintenance, and elected officials. <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br /> <br />