Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~~ <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION <br />Topic Report: Street Reconstruction <br />Assessment Policy <br />By: Tim Himmer, City Engineer <br /> <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />The concept of developing an assessment policy for street reconstruction has been talked about <br />numerous times over the past few years. The discussions really escalated with the advancement <br />of the Andrie Street/l MIi Lane State Aid (MSA) improvement project last spring. The only <br />existing City stre.et assessment policy pertains specifically to the Street Maintenance Program <br />(SMP); where overlays are assessed at a rate of fifty percent (50%) and sealcoats are being <br />phased out from a fifty percent (50%) rate through the year 2014 (29% in 2010). The purpose of <br />this case is to receive direction on the development of a policy for the assessment of street <br />reconstruction projects. <br /> <br />A majority of the discussion related to this matter to date has leaned towards the use of <br />additional revenues, and to get away from one time assessments. Doing so would most likely <br />require the levying of additional taxes, but it could also eliminate or greatly reduce the amolint of <br />projects that are counter-petitioned due to cost factors (assessments) to the residents. <br />Conversely, it could also result in a large amount of petitions requesting irnprovernents. <br />Advancement of this policy will establish a more concrete funding mechanisrn, and allow for <br />more consistent resident interaction on future street improvement projects. <br /> <br />At a work session meeting last November staff was directed to review what it would cost to <br />continue with our standard street rnaintenance activities, and add reconstruction costs into the <br />program in five year increments. We completed this work and then evaluated how rnuch funding <br />would be needed over the next ten years; since a majority ofthe roadways in the City were <br />constructed between the late seventies and early eighties (a 40 year design life was assumed). <br /> <br />Other issues that were discussed included the following: <br />. What is the standard for reconstruction <br />o utilities, cross-section, trails/sidewalks, load limits, etc. <br />. How to address tax exempt parcels <br />. How to address residents that live on private or County roads <br />. Should it be a flat fee (tax), assessment, or combination <br />o Affects oflevy limits and potential bonding as a funding source <br />o Impacts to funding when TIF closes in 2013 ($300,000 reduction in SMP) <br />. Public participation process <br />