6.3. SR 07-10-2006
City of Elk River
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Agenda Section Meeting Date
W orksession ul T 10, 2006
Item Description
Discussion on Funding Street Improvements Through Special
Assessments and Pro er T Tax Le"\ r
Item Number
6.3.
Prepared by
Lori ohnson, Ci Administrator
Reviewed by
Introduction
The City Council asked staff to provide information on the use of special assessments and property taxes
for funding street impro~lelnent projects.
Discussion
Currently, the city funds street impro'vements through both property tax levies and special assessments.
Ivlaintenance, including sealcoating, is funded by the General Fund through the property tax levy. The
Street Rehabilitation Program is funded partially by special assessments with the remainder funded by
resel\Tes and a debt service tax levy used to repay the bonds issued to fund the project. Overlay projects
are funded entirely tllfougll special assessments to the benefiting properties.
Elk River is sunilar to otller cities in that they often use a combination of assessments and tax revenue to
fund improvements. City Engineer Terl)T IYfaurer has information from 1:\vo cities that l1ave recently
completed sUl'leys on ho\v cities fund street impro\Tements. Of the 26 metropolitan cities sUIyeyed, all 26
assess all or a portion of tlleir street improvements to benefiting property o\vners.
lYIost cities assess because tlle property o\vners \VI10 are benefiting from the improvements are the ones
\vho are paying for the impro\Tement. The city's goal is to maintain the streets so that the useful life of the
street is maxitnized, \vllic11 lneans tllat sealcoating and overlays need to occur on a regular schedule. The
ability to assess for o\Terlay projects provides that opportunity \vhen le'v.y limits and political desires to
limit levy increases may otllel"\vise delay the needed improvements. The League of :tYlinnesota Cities
(LIvIC) recently did a study on funding street improvements. The LIvIe's report states, "special
assessments are often preferable to financing road impro\lements \vith general property tax levies or
bonding because tl1ey are 'vie\ved as a more equitable \vay to distribute the cost to those who benefit the
most, \vhile lninitnizing tl1e delnand on the city tax lev.y and statutory debt limits." In an environment of
le"vy limits, the LIvre report states, "the affect of le\ry limits on transportation investments is that city
officials have had to be \Tery selecti'Te in determining which projects and programs are appro'Ted and
incorporated into capital itnprovement and maintenance plans."
In general, bodl the LIvIe report and survey information support levying special assessments for at least a
part of the street unpro\jel1lent cost. The burden of placing all street impro\Tements on the tax levy
\vould limit tlle number of impro\Tements that could be done eacll year.
Financiallmpoct
None
s: \ Council\Lori\200G \Street Improyement Funding.doc
Attachments
lvIemo from City Engineer Terl)T rvlaurer
Action Reauested
This is a discussion item only.
Council Action
:0Jotion by _
Second by _
\Tote
Follow Up
S: \ Council\Lori\2006 \Street Improyement Funding.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lori Johnson, City Administrator
FROM: Terry Maurer, City Engineer. ~
DATE: July 5, 2006
SUBJECT: Street Assessment Policies for Metropolitan Cities
As requested, I have researched street assessment policies for metropolitan cities. I have
done this using two venues. First, is a survey that was conducted by the City of Anoka late
last year of which I participated, and therefore received the results. Secondly, I contacted
the W oodbuty Engineering Department which had recently conducted a similar survey and
they provided written assessment policies for approximately 17 cities in the metropolitan
area that they had gathered through their analysis. Between the two sources I have
information on 26 metropolitan communities. All of these communities assessed for street
construction in one fashion or another. Assessments are typically spread on a unit or front
footage basis. It appears that generally, the city participates in the cost of the project
reducing the assessments to the benefited properties. Assessment policies are written in a
nlll11ber of different fashions, some vety specific in that 1/3 of the project cost is to be
assessed; others much more general such as up to 100 percent of the project cost can be
assessed by either front footage or unit basis.
I was unable to find any communities in the metropolitan area, although there may be some
that exist, that do not assess for street reconstruction but rather, use general tax revenue to
fund 100 percent of these types of projects. I will be available at Monday evening's meeting
should you or the City Council have any questions for me as this issue is discussed.
S:\Engineer\2006 CCmemos\Survey meta cities 7-5-06.doc