05/26/1992 - City Council Special AGENDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday
May 26, 1992
5:00 p.m.
I. ROLL CALL/ADOPT AGENDA
II. DISCUSSION WITH ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS
• REVIEW SIGN/BILLBOARD REGULATIONS
• OTHER
III. STREET RECONSTRUCTION POLICIES
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
V. ADJOURNMENT
CO
e w co
z 1_
2
E 0
0 ƒ R cc
Q Um
m02 qk Z g 2o & R m $
� 0 z 0 w � � /
« < � u
M 022 CC
CC Zw �� we I- L Lu
E w BOO
> q ƒ I-2 _ / C ® 0 6 z2c
UJ
co c) CCw k2 5 $ w 3 _2 n_ UJ
3 ? �n 8L L 2 / / /
?E � O LA C C CO
cc
cc
0 7 7u
m
CC
CC u- ul == .
L UU 0 > ()
E k k � CCk \
Z w Ili N
« U)
_
u
S
=
, w LU < 0
UJ CC
- k w w E
¥ \ « 2 0 ap k 0wQ ti z
<
1.11 Z
CL LLI � � 2a � / ƒ _J w
0 VJ
z a w L w � � CO
2R k qz E O c « Q %
ƒ Q o aL Q Z ƒ Ib z
_z 2 J 2 = E ±
c / ca
0
z w
0
.1 2w
08 0
¥ R
9_ 2 20 . ƒ
z � Sc,)
m Q � .
2 > U ¥ k % 5
6 z< < 0 ƒ / 0 n m k
R
0 L /W <
« Cl- �
w
Cr
a. 0 a- < L U 0
R « Q c
CI
0 z K ur
2
L m o 2 w m
I w >
a o
P
E z � 0 z � _ z w cx
z «
a2 k S � 0 / k ci)
MEMO TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: MAY 22, 1992
SUBJECT: STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE C.I.P.
NEEDS AND FINANCING ISSUES
INTRODUCTION
Early in 1992, the City Council formally adopted the 1992-96 Five Year C.I.P. for
the City. A significant part of that overall C.I.P. is associated with the
proposed reconstruction, repair and/or upgrading of our street infrastructure
system. Since Eagan is such a young community, our past involvement has been
primarily involved with constructing new streets. However, as our community
continues to mature, some of the first streets built within our community have
reached or exceeded their original life expectancy and have deteriorated to the
point where reconstruction is necessary. In evaluating the condition of our
street infrastructure system, the Public Works Department has attempted to
prioritize these needs and create a five year C.I.P. However, since this is a
new phase of our community's growth, it is very important that we evaluate the
financial impact of implementing a long term reconstruction/maintenance program.
This memo will provide some of the basic information that should be taken into
consideration in discussions relating to creating a comprehensive program with
related policies that the community will follow from here on out.
HISTORY
Eagan originally started as a farming community with access provided through
limited State and County roadways. In the mid-1950's (35-40 years ago) , the
first cluster of local residential developments started to appear in the northern
portion of Eagan, (i.e. Country Home Heights and McKee Addition) . This was
followed in the late 50's by the Cedar Grove, Oslund-Timberline and Valley View
Plateau Additions. With Eagan being a Township at that time, these residential
streets were constructed privately by the developer prior to the establishment
of any standards. However, with the exception of Country Home Heights, they were
constructed with bituminous surfacing and bituminous curbs, with limited (if any)
storm sewer facilities.
In 1983, the City recognized that these streets had reached the end of their life
expectancy and were in need of reconstruction. Subsequently, the Cedar Grove 1st
and 2nd Addition was reconstructed to current City standards with concrete curb
and gutter, 7-ton per axle bituminous surfacing and additional storm sewer
facilities. Approximately 55 percent of the costs associated with this
reconstruction was assessed to the adjacent property owners on a per lot basis
with the City assuming all remaining costs. Although the City did not have a
formal five-year capital improvement program, it was anticipated that the City
would proceed with a progression of reconstruction and upgrading of these older
streets as their useful life had expired. In 1984, it was proposed that Rahn
Road would be reconstructed as a second phase of this informal program. However,
1
i
due to significant opposition by the affected property owners, the City Council
at that time canceled the program and decided to wait until there was more public
concern and support for these projects.
Subsequently, the City's street maintenance program was limited to isolated patch
and repairs, crack sealing and seal coating. However, during the late 1980's,
the City started to receive increasing complaints and editorials regarding the
deteriorating condition of Rahn Road. Subsequently, in 1990 Rahn Road was
reconstructed with a certain amount of opposition still remaining.
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Recognizing the continual deterioration of all City streets as a natural process
of its life cycle combined with the rapid expansion of our transportation system,
there was a need to create a program where staff would inventory and evaluate the
system to economically prioritize the maintenance requirements with a shrinking
budget. In 1989 and 1990, the City created a Pavement Management Program (PMP)
whereby every square yard of public street was reviewed and evaluated based on
its current condition, year of construction, structural design and past
maintenance history. With this information, a computer program then was able to
determine where any particular street was in its life cycle. Certain streets had
been subjected to an accelerated aging process either due to traffic loads, poor
soil conditions, poor drainage or any other combination of factors.
Subsequently, every street was assigned a rating of its Pavement Condition Index
(PCI) on a scale of 1-100. The attached graphic showing the relationship of
Pavement life versus PCI shows that Eagan streets have a tendency to exceed the
normal 20 year life expectancy. However, it still reflects the general
deterioration of streets to a point when reconstruction becomes necessary
(approximately 26 years) .
With this program, the City was then able to put together a Five Year C.I.P.
allowing us to address the worst situations first while helping to identify the
extent of reconstruction or repair required.
5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
The benefits of a 5-Year Capital Improvement Program are self evident. They
allow the City staff to prioritize the evaluation and design of future projects
in an orderly manner. It allows the City to project its future expenditures and
to anticipate and plan for the proper financing of those needed improvements.
It also allows the affected property owners an opportunity to anticipate and plan
for those improvements. A community with a present population of approximately
52,000 and a projected future population of 80,000+ is expected to anticipate the
future demands and properly plan for them in an orderly, efficient and economical
manner.
Early in 1992, the City Council formally adopted a 5-Year Capital Improvement
Program for 1992-1996. This CIP estimates the projected costs of these
anticipated improvements as well as identifying the source of funding. However,
the funding source was limited to special assessments or City financing. The
City's ability to identify and ensure adequate revenue sources to cover its
financial participation needs to be discussed in further detail. In addition,
2
the political and increasing judicial restraints on special assessments also
necessitates the need to revisit that source of financing as well.
The following information relates to the proposed 1993 residential
reconstruction/overlay program.
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL RECONSTRUCTION/OVERLAY PROGRAM
1993
Reconstruction
Area Miles Yr. Constructed Age
Cedar Grove 3rd Addn. 1.71 '61 31 yrs.
Cedar Grove 4th Addn. 1.87 '61 31 yrs.
Cedar Grove 5th Addn. 2.36 '66 26 yrs.
Cedar Grove 6th Addn. 1.57 '69 23 yrs.
Timberline 0.97 '69 23 yrs.
Valley View Plateau 0.88 '62 30 yrs.
Wescott Square 0.25 '73 18 yrs.
Subtotal 9.61 miles
Overlay
Area Miles Yr. Constructed Age
Evergreen Addn. 1.29 '68 24 yrs.
Kolstad Lane 0.18 '72 20 yrs.
Blackhawk Hills Rd. 0.43 '74 18 yrs.
Woodgate 1st, 2nd, 3rd Addn. 1.37 '74 18 yrs.
3.27 miles
1993 is the most agressive year of the 5-year CIP due to the fact that a great
many of these streets have exceeded their original life expectancy and are in
need of immediate reconstruction.
As we get into the 5-year CIP, the majority of the work is associated with
limited patch/repair with structural overlays as a means to extend the life
expectancy and subsequent inevitable reconstruction needs.
Due to the advanced planning and design associated with the capital improvement
program, the following is a general schedule recommended for its implementation:
3
CIP Improvement Schedule
• 5-Year CIP General Public Hearing June '92
• Following year's improvement '93 October '92
• Formal plan and spec approval February '93
• Contract award March '93
• Construction April-October '93
With a multiple year program, there is a natural continuous overlapping for this
ongoing program.
IMPROVEMENTS/ASSESSMENT POLICY
The major source of financing infrastructure related improvements has relied
heavily on special assessments to benefitted properties. Subsequently, it has
been anticipated that special assessments would continue to be involved in the
City's CIP reconstruction program. In 1989, the City Council directed staff to
review the current special assessment policy and to recommend modifications
specifically taking into consideration the City's future reconstruction needs.
On September 8, 1989, a report was submitted to the City Council that presented
a proposed special assessment policy resulting from evaluation of previous City
projects and a survey of other older communities. The following is a list of
typical improvements and related financing sources associated with
reconstruction.
A. Any improvement necessary to bring the street up to City standards
is to be assessed 100% (i.e. concrete curb and gutter if none
previously existed, etc. ) .
B. 75% of the costs to remove and reconstruct or patch and repair with
an overlay is to be assessed to low density (R-I, II and III)
residential with 100% of the costs to be assessed to all higher
zoning classifications.
C. Any repair to the City's sanitary sewer, water main and related
services would be financed 100% by the City's Utility Renewal &
Replacement Fund.
D. Upgrades or modifications to the existing storm sewer system would
be financed 100% by the City's Storm Water Utility Renewal &
Replacement Fund. However, if inadequate or no storm sewer
facilities previously existed, any new additions would be included
as a cost of the street improvement and similarily assessed (75%-
100% see "B")
E. The installation of any neighborhood residential streetlight system
would be assessed 100%. However, if only major intersection
streetlights were installed, that would be financed 100% by the
City's Street Light Utility Fund.
4
REVENUE SOURCES
The following is a summation with a brief description for the various revenue
sources available to the City.
County, State & Federal Participation
Improvements initiated by the State or Federal Highway System historically have
been financed 100% by those agencies with limited participation required by the
City for only improvements to local roads as necessary to compliment the major
improvement. The County finances 55% of street and 50% of signal improvements
on any County road. Their participation in storm sewer facilities located within
or as necessary to handle County road improvements is limited to $6,000 per mile.
Major Street Fund
Building Permit Road Unit Charge (RUC)
This is a fee collected with the issuance of every building permit to help
finance the oversizing of community collector and arterial streets as
necessary to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this new
development. This amounts to approximately $380 per single-family
residence and $1,140 per acre for nonresidential property.
Connection Fees/Waivers
These are additional contributions collected as a part of the platting or
building permit process in recognition of benefit received from previous
unassessed public improvements or anticipated future roadway improvements.
Property Taxes
A portion of the General Fund levy is collected and allocated to the Major
Street Fund to help finance annual maintenance and/or construction needs.
Municipal State Aid (MSA)
A portion of the State gas tax is allocated to all municipalities over 5,000
population. This allocation is based on a two part formula. The first part is
based on a city's population ratio to the state's population. Subsequently, as
the City of Eagan continues to grow in population, our "piece of the pie" gets
larger. However, a city's population is based on the latest official census.
The second part of the formula is based on the communities "needs" . This is
based on the estimated cost to complete the designated M.S.A. street system
within the community. Again, a city's total construction "need ($)" is
proportionate to the total needs of all communities eligible for state aid
funding. The City of Eagan's 1992 construction allocation is $1,165,660.00. In
addition, the City is allocated $1,500 per state aid street mile which amounted
to $60,960.00 for 1992.
5
Special Assessments
All new construction for local improvements necessary to handle the City's growth
has been financed 100% through special assessments against benefitted properties.
State law restricts the City's ability to levy special assessments against
private property to the extent that the value of the property has been increased
by the installation of those improvements. Historically, there has not been a
problem in recognizing the benefit associated with installing new infrastructure
which provides an improvement to property that previously didn't exist. However,
it has become increasingly difficult, especially in times of economic recessions,
to prove that the value of property has increased by replacing an existing
improvement such as a reconstruction or overlay improvement.
OTHER REVENUE SOURCES
While the previously listed major revenue sources have been the "backbone" of
financing our communities improvements, as we mature, their long term reliability
quickly diminishes. For example, as we are building out, our building permit
road unit charges will quickly decrease. While our population may increase, our
completion of our municipal state aid system will greatly diminish our "needs"
and subsequent share of the gas tax allocation. The judicial system's lack of
support for the special assessment process quickly renders that unreliable at
best for future reconstruction programs. Subsequently, additional/different
sources of revenue must be pursued to create a viable ongoing capital improvement
program as necessary to maintain the City's transportation system. The following
are two potential alternatives.
General Obligation Bonds
This source of bonding is financed through an ad valorem tax addition to the
property taxes. In essence, everyone who owns real property in the City would
be contributing on an annual basis to finance the City's ongoing Capital
Improvement Program. With our property tax system, higher valued property would
contribute proportionately greater amounts to this program.
Transportation Utility Fee
Similar to the City's Sanitary Sewer, Water and Storm Sewer Utility, this would
allow the City to collect a monthly/quarterly fee from every property based on
a traffic generated basis. However, this requires specific permissive
legislation before our community can implement such a utility. Presently, our
community is actively involved in co-sponsoring and promoting such legislation
for consideration in 1993.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
As mentioned previously, the City is entering into a new stage of maturity for
our community. We are at a point in time where careful consideration must be
given to our future transportation maintenance and reconstruction program.
Whether the method is property taxes or utility fees, this requires all property
owners to contribute on an annual ongoing basis for transportation maintenance
6
•
program that may or may not directly affect them. Contrarily, special
assessments are levied only against adjacent properties when their particular
street is improved. Fairness and equity dictates that the City not vacillate
between one method or the other. While combinations of the two major methods
appear to be most practical, it would be best to decide on a method and stay with
it into the future. This becomes the difficult policy decision that we must
establish in the very near future so that this long delayed Capital Improvement
Program can be commenced as soon as possible. Our deteriorating infrastructure
requires our immediate attention.
I will be providing more in depth discussion and will be available for further
clarification at the Council Workshop scheduled for Tuesday, May 26, 1992.
Respectfully submitted,
C---7////
Ufr,/ J,,/°
Director of Public Works
cc: Mike Foertsch, Asst. City Eng.
Arnie Erhart, Supt. of Streets/Equipment
Gene VanOverbeke, Director of Finance
TAC/j f/j j
7
auueualuteW aousualutep
antleluanaid je1n13n�1s uOtlOnilsuOOag
I
I
I CO
1
I I N
I I
I N
■
U ■ I 1
< ct
hi
CD I . I w
CC
W
a
LL1 > 1 , 0 0 Itt=
W W o
H
Q I
Li..
W / !
U
Q , _
.... 1,--.I F"_ 1 W / I 1! O
�
. > 111 I 1 Q- a
V I co 6
/ I 1 I
1 1 I co
I I
/.. I v
. I I
I 1 .
1 • } N
I I
I I
0
O 8 m ti o 8 O V. C O O O
.— N .-
IOd 3OVb3AV