HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 02-24 City Council Manager Workshop PacketAGENDA
CITY COUNCILIMANAGER WORKSHOP
Monday, February 24, 2003
6:00 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Nora Slawik
2. Funding Street Construction and Maintenance in Minnesota's Cities
3 City Manager's Performance Review
E. FUTURE TOPICS
1. Exploring the Possibilities of a Sister City
2. Sidewalk Study - Overall City Plan
3. Street Scape Plan
F. ADJOURNMENT
City Council/Manager Workshop 11 -24 -03
4 �
AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA REPORT
Aeti ®n by Council - �
TO: Richard Fursman, City Ma ty er g
Endor ed
FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Modified
g
Rejected
SUBJECT: Funding Street Construction and Maintenance in Minnesota's Cities
DATE: February 18, 2003
Introduction
Information on the funding of roads within our area will be presented as information to the City Council
as part of the Council — Manager Work Session.
Background
The League of Minnesota Cities in cooperation with the Minnesota City Engineers Association and the
Minnesota Public Works Association has prepared a report on funding of city roadway and bridge
systems in Minnesota. Attached is the Executive Summary from that report.
The report identifies funding options and suggestions that policy makers at the local and state level
can consider to start addressing the potential* transportation crisis facing Minnesota as our roadway
infrastructure begins to fail. The intent of the presentation is that the City Council will have a better
understanding of the transportation issues facing the City and State. This information can be then
used to develop improved public policy on roadway funding.
Recommendation
No action is required on this item.
RCA
Executive Summary
Introduction
� T - -
he purpose of this report is to assemble in one place much of the "need-to-know" information � ow information on
municipal road and bridge funding in Minnesota's 854 cities. This report builds
p off of the
outstanding work done by Mn/DOT and others in their efforts to inform policy ma citizens
. p y keys and citizens of
r the state who are interested in gaining a better understanding f the workings of
g g road and budge
infrastructure investment in M Our intent in preparing this report is
� p p g p twofold: First, the
report can serve as a resource for policy makers, city officials, citizens, the news media and others in
order to inform the discussion on city road and bridge infrastructure and t '
g , he way it i s currently
financed. Second, the report proposes seven specific recommendations that t '
he Legislature can
consider to address the funding challenges identified in the report.
Section 1: What does the city road and brid e s stem 1 ?
�Y •�k. l ike?
➢ According to the most recent information from the Minnesota Department p ment of Transportation
(Mn/DOT), Minnesota has over 135,000 miles of roadway n the state. A bout out 14 percent of
that total, equal to more than 19,000 miles is owned and operated b Minnesota's ' ties.
p sota s 854 cities.
� Y
➢ This report distinguishes roadway mileage in Minnesota cities on t '
he basis of two variables:
funding source and city size. The report separately discusses the re '
p Y suiting three categories of
city roads: 1) locally funded in cities under 5,000 -population (1,703 miles '
, nine percent of
total city mileage), 2) locally funded in cities over 5,000 14 072 miles 7� e
. .. ( , percent), and 3)
state funded in cities over 5,000 (2,818 miles, 15 percent ).
➢ Minnesota cities are responsible for a total of 1,247 bridges representing g p rating 6.4 percent of the
1 total bridges in the state.
Section. 2: How is the system funded?
➢ Minnesota's cities finance their road and bridge infrastructure through
ugh a variety of local, state
and federal resources. The emphasis in this report will be on local and state
funding sources,
since the intended audience of this report is state and local officials.
➢ The majority of funding for city streets, -even among-:cities eli. 'ble t '
g � o receive state aid, comes
primarily from local resources: property taxes, special assessments and
bonding-The most significant state source of funding s the Municipal State '
g p e Aid program which is '
available only to cities over 5,000 in population and ' only supports 20 percent cities'
Y pp p of those cities '
total mileage. MSA funding since 1988 (the last state as tax increase -has f ailed to keep up
g )
with inflation. .
➢ Cities derive only a very mall proportion of thei
rY p p t total funding from federal sources.
Section 3: Wh are existffia fundina sources insufficient?
➢ This section details a ..number of the most important demographic
p trends that are important to
transportation system planners and elected officials as the consider options to addres
' Y � p s the
current and future demands on roads and bridges in the states 8 54 cities.
1. Traffic volumes are increasing:
2. Growth in city population and new housing s steadily '
g dily Increasing, placing greater demands
on city and - residential street systems.
3. Truck movement is also increasing significantly.
g � y.
-
4. City road and bridge infrastructure is aging.
Section 4: Findings and Policy Options
Sections 1 through 3 of this report discuss general information on the current city road and 'bridge
infrastructure, current funding mechanisms, and future funding challenges. This background "
information is critical to understanding the broad; trends and olicies that affect city policy p y p y as
they strive to maintain and improve their transportation infrastructure while providing the best
possible value to the taxpayer.
In this section of the report, we attempt to identify and describe a handful of key findings that policy
makers should be mindful of as they consider various transportation funding policy options,
particularly as they relate to Minnesota city roads and bridges owned and maintained by Minnesota
cities. The options presented in this section were the outcome of collaborative effort on the part of
city staff and elected officials representing all of Minnesota's cities. .
A. Ali City Systems
Findings:
#A -1: Maintenance costs increase as road systems age.
#A -2: Cities have implemented a variety of strategies to address the maintenance funding
gap-
#A-3: Cities have become more reliant on property taxes and special assessments.
#A -4: City bridges are in needs of repairs.
#A -5: Cities are often required to contribute to Mn/DOT and county road/County State
Aid Highway projects located within city limits.
Policy Options
1. Provide funding for a "Local Road Improvement Program ".
2. Provide cities greater flexibility to generate revenues through special assessments.
3. Provide cities with additional local taxing authority, including the authority to
establish a "Transportation Utility".
4. Enact legislation authorizing cities to establish "Impact Fees ".
B. Locally Funded City Streets - Cities Under 5,000
Findings:
#B -1: Most small cities are not spending enough on roadway capital improvements to
.maintain a 50 year life cycle.
#B -2: Most small cities don't have a regular, annual road budget.
#B -3: Small cities are heavily reliant on locally generated revenues.
##B -4: On the whole, small cities don't receive significant resources from other local units
of government for "shared" projects.
Policy Options:
1. Provide funding for a "Local Road Improvement Program ".
2. Allocate a portion of the existing 5% special fund to cities under 5,000 p o p ulation.
3. Allocate a portion of the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax revenues to a special fund for
cities under 5,000 population.
11
7
t�
i.
.
�f l
C. Locally Funded City Streets — Cities Over 5,000
Findings:
#G 1: Most large cities are not spending enough on roadway capital improvements to
maintain a 50 year life cycle. -
#C -2: The funding gap in MSA eligible cities is more severe on the locally funded roads
than on the state funded MSA system.
Policy Options:
1. Provide funding for a "Local Road Improvement Program".
p gram .
2. Provide cities greater flexibility to generate revenues p
s through , ecial
assessments.
g
3. Provide cities with additional local '
taxing authority, including the authority to
establish a "Transportation Utility".
4. Enact legislation authorizing ities to establish "Impact "
g pact. Fees .
A State Funded Streets — Cities Over 5,000
Findings:
#D -1: The MSA system has grown much more rapidly since its inception p y p on 40 years ago
than the state owned system or the county owned system over the same tim
Y eframe,
yet the funding distribution has remained the same.
#D -2: Current MSA funding levels .do not cover. the full cot cities
s s of improving these
MSA street systems.
#D -3: MSA systems are being unded at a level that 53-
year will result In a 53 year life cycle.
Policy Options:
1. Increase the level of funding to the Municipal State Aid ro
p �am. '
Section S: Recommendations
y This section of the report provides greater detail on .the seven olic
p Y
options identified in Section 4.
C onclusion
➢ The state should provide assistance to cities to _address their current and
future funding shortfall by granting greater local revenue raisin authority
tY
and by providing cities with additional tools to allow them to meet their
specific needs.
➢ The sponsors of this report are also hoe findings' identified
p hopeful that the findings identified
herein will encourage state and local policy makers to examine and
consider capital investment policies, such as a statewide avement
p .
management plan, that would make the most efficient use of scarce
resources as the demands on the road and bridge network increase in the
future.
111