Laserfiche WebLink
maintenance spending. Although not all cities submitted responses to the question, the answers that <br />were provided offer anecdotal evidence suggesting that many cities are actively pursuing measures <br />designed to get the best possible value out of their existing road and bridge capital spending programs. <br />The results from the survey are presented in Figure 23. <br /> <br /> Figure 23 <br /> Frequency of Responses: Strategies Used by Cities to Maximize <br /> Efficiency of Capital Construction / Maintenance Program <br /> 140 Minnesota Cities Surveyed <br /> Cities <br /> Utilizing <br /> <br />Spending Side Strategy <br />Delay reconstruction (lower acceptable standards), 38 <br />emphasize maintenance <br />Implementing Pavement Management Program 16 <br />Allowing narrow or "rural" sections, no curb/gutter, less 9 <br />storm sewers, gravel surface <br />Use cheaper materials/miscellaneous cost saving measures 7 <br />Recycle materials 4 <br />Public education to reduce expectations 2 <br />Delay non-essential building and equipment purchases 2 <br />Combine street reconstruction with utility replacement 2 <br />Set-aside funds for future needs 2 <br />Reduce street reconstruction by televising sewer lines 2 <br />Revenue Side <br />Increase reliance on bonding, assessments, tax abatements 16 <br />Partnerships with other government agencies 11 <br />Expanded Developer Fees 5 <br />More aggressively seeking federal, special state funds 3 <br />Aggressive grant, loan opportunities 3 <br />Increase use of reserves 2 <br />Looking to Utility Districts to pick up costs 2 <br /> <br /> Source: 2002 City Road and Bridge Funding Survey, Transportation Policy Institute <br /> <br />25 <br /> <br /> <br />