Laserfiche WebLink
City 6 <br />City 6 stated that equity, where all taxpayers contribute to the pavement management program while <br />also avoiding a significant burden that may come from a special assessment for a major road <br />project, was an important factor in their decision making Also, the City values long-term <br />sustainability-focused approach to capital planning and resource management which has served <br />them very well in ensuring they have current resources to fund the pavement management program <br />and can avoid further issuance of debt for road projects. <br />City 7 <br />City 7 stated that their funding structure exists in its current form because they believe in the <br />importance of maintaining pavement infrastructure. The city's approach is based on the idea that <br />benefiting properties should be assessed construction costs. In other words, residents who receive <br />the benefit pay the cost. The city mentioned that the plan was created while considering its <br />efficiency, adequacy, and feasibility. <br />City 8 <br />City 8 has used special assessments for 25 years for road funding needs, while also tapping into <br />state aid, taxes, and bonds. In addition to the length of time for special assessments, City 8 has <br />done no public outreach to gage whether they public needs or even wants a new funding <br />mechanism. While it did mention they were keeping an eye on street improvement districts as an <br />innovative approach to road funding, City 8 shows no sign in changing their funding method as <br />the current model continues to meet their needs. <br />DISCUSSION <br />Funding Techniques <br />Overall the cities involved in this study seemed to be satisfied with their current funding structures <br />with a number of the cities having updated their road funding policies in the past decade. Each of <br />the cities used the funding techniques at their disposal in unique ways and summarized in the below <br />tables. While general funds, supported by property tax levies and special assessments, seemed to <br />be the most common funding techniques in our sample aligning with the reports background <br />research findings, franchise fees seem to be increasing in importance and popularity as cities search <br />for new ways to raise dedicated road improvement funds. Below is a short summary of our findings <br />for usage of each technique and their respective pros and cons. <br />Technique <br />Franchise <br />Fees <br />Special <br />Assessments <br />Usage Summary <br />Multiple cities reported that franchise fees are used to adequately address local <br />road funding needs. <br />Assessments were a common way for cities in our sample to allocate costs of <br />road funding to the properties that directly benefit from the improvements. The <br />majority of cities in our sample are limiting the extent to which they use special <br />assessments, so as not to overly burden property owners. On the other hand, two <br />