Loading...
CR 93-166 Hennepin County Funding Policies (' '\ .. ,I ' , i Y I ~'" > I' 0 I .' ~ Iv '" I ml , -S- ~, i . September 28, 1993 i, 0 P K \ ~ i Council Report 93-166 HENNEPIN COUNTY FUNDING POLICIES FOR ROADWAY PROJECTS Pro~osed Action. Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution No. 93-105 reauestina the Hennepin' Countv commissioners to support amendments . as proposed by County staff. to' the 'proposed Hennepin county fundina policies for roadway projects. overview Hennepin County is currently considering amending their 1978 policy for cost participation in cooperative highway projects. The proposed changes as originally written would increase a city's, share of roadway projects over what currently exists in the present policy. In addition, one of the more troublesome policy changes related to a city's use of tax increment financing to pay for the local share. The proposed TIF policy was intended to strongly discourage cities ,from using tax increment funds to pay for their share of the project. This discouragement was accomplished by significantly increasing the local community'S share of the project if tax increment dollars were' used. The changes as proposed would have had,a significant impact on Hopkins ability to participate in an improvement project such as County Road 3. . At the direction of the County Board, City staff members from communities in Hennepin County met with Hennepin County staff to ,discuss the proposed policy changes. From this discussion, the City, and County staffs were able to come toa consensus on amendments to the proposed policy changes. . county' staff has indicated a willingness to bring these amended policy changes to the County Board for consideration. primary Issues to Consider o Why is the County considering changes to their existing funding policy? o What are the proposed funding changes as agreed to by City and, County staff members? SUDDortinq Information o Detailed background o Analysis of issues o Resolution 93-105 o Summa y of proposed cost participation policy as agreed to by Cou and city, staff members , '~ . Thomas K. Community Director . CR93-166 Page 2 . Detailed Backqround In 1978 Hennepin County established parameters for determining an appropriate division 'of cost participation to be used by the County in funding cooperative roadway and street construction projects within municipalities. since this time municipalities have adhered to Hennepin County's participation policy and cooperated with the County in many construction projects. Municipalities have established long range capital improvement programs including improvements to county roads based upon receipt of county funds as outlined in their 1978 policy. Analvsis of Issues 0 Why is the county considering changes to their existing funding policy? The County is claiming that changes are needed to reduce the County's participation in cooperative construction projects. The justification for this proposed reduction is based on their belief that County property tax funds are becoming increasingly limited. If the proposed changes are adopted, the tax burden is shifted once again from a higher level down to the communities in Hennepin County. . 0 What are the proposed funding policy changes as agreed to by City and county staff members? A copy of the proposed funding changes as discussed by County and City staff members is attached. The major changes are related to street lights, sidewalks, utility relocation arid tax increment financing use. With respect to cost participation for street lights, sidewalks, utility relocation, etc. the City and County staff were able to come to a consensus on the proposed changes. with respect to tax increment financing, the County staff members indicated that it would be very unlikely the County Board would agree to eliminate any language in its proposed policy relating to the use of tax increment financing. However, City staff and County staff were able to come to an agreement on a proposed change to the tax increment portion of the proposed policy. In this case, County staff agreed to submit a policy change which would only penalize cities who use Economic Development Tax Increment Districts to generate revenues for paying for the city's share of a roadway project. As it is unlikely that Hopkins, and communities similar to Hopkins, would . use economic development tax increment districts to fund roadway projects, this policy seemed to be an acceptable compromise. , CR93-166 Page 3 . Please note that the City staff members feel very strongly that the County should not change its present policy for. roadway projects, and certainly not include any restrictions relating to tax increment. However, it has become very evident that the County is going to be making changes to its policy, particularly with regard to tax increment financing. As a result, it appears necessary for the cities to try to reach some compromise with the County Board. It appears that the County staff is willing to suggest this compromise. It remains to see whether the County Board will accept this compromise. Alternatives The City Council has the following alternatives regarding this matter: o Approve staff's recommendation. o Approve staff's recommendation with modifications to the resolution. o Continue matter for further information. In light of the fact the County Board will be discussing this matter during a meeting on October 7, it would be helpful to provide some type of input to the County Board regarding the staff . agreed changes to the policy. . " . CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota . RESOLUTION NO: 93-105 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSED POLICY REGARDING HENNEPIN COUNTY FUNDING OF COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY PROJECTS WHEREAS, in a policy dated June, 1978 Hennepin County established parameters for determining an appropriate division of cost participation to be used by the County in funding cooperative roadway and street construction projects with municipalities; and WHEREAS, municipalities within Hennepin County have expressed strong reservations regarding the proposed policy as reviewed by the Hennepin County Board during a public hearing on September 9, 1993; and WHEREAS, as a result of this public hearing the Hennepin County Board. requested that the County staff work with various city staff to attempt to come..to a resolution regarding the proposed policychangesi and WHEREAS, although the City of Hopkins strongly desires Hennepin County to continue to use the roadway policy as adopted in 1978, the City of Hopkins is willing to come to some compromise with Hennepin . County regarding a new roadway policy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the city of Hopkins that the City Council respectfully requests that the Hennepin County Board consider the amendments to the proposed policy changes as agreed to by County and City staff as illustrated on the attached Exhibit Ai and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city of Hopkins will assist Hennepin County officials to obtain increased funding through the county State Aid Formula which is currently an unfair allocation according to population. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 5th day of October, 1993. Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor ATTEST: . James A. Genellie, City Clerk SEP-24-1993 10:59 FROM HENN CTY PUBLIC WORKS TO 99351834 P.03 .' , ," ~ . " . HENNEPIN COUNTY BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS . POLICIES FOR COST PARTICIPATION BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND OTHER AGENCIES FOR COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY PROJECTS The following sections of the draft "Policies for Cost Participation Between Hennepin County and Other Agencies for Cooperative Highway Projects". dated August, 1993, are proposed to be revised as follows: 1) Page 1 - SECTION III - PREMISES is amended to read: III. GENERAL POLICIES A. The basic premise is that the County pays for costs peculiar to County needs and municipalities pay for costs peculiar to municipal or local needs. B. OR the COURt)' State Aid Hi~hHay (CSAH) System, tfie CSl-lAty's parth:ipJtion may be limited to the Cel:mty's State .t'.id el igibi1 ity. IA order for the County to ut i 1 i ze CSAH-- funds to the fulle~t extent, tA€ municipality may be precluded from using HtiRicipal State Aid funds fer ecrtain clemeAts af its project costs. . In the absence of other available County funds. the County may limit its participation to items eliQible for reimbursement with County State Aid Highway (CSAH) funds, notwithstanding the soecific policies contained in this document. However. the County will not request CSAH funds for project costs assiQned to the municipality as a result of the aOQroved cooperative construction aqreement. in order not to preclude the municioality from usinQ its Municipal State Aid funds for those project costs. C. A greater degree of County participation is afforded municipalities having a population of less than 5,000 because of the function of the County roadways in these areas. It is generally true that these roadways are of greater benefit to County-wide users, and of less benefit to local users than is the case for roadways in more urbanized areas. In addition. this would be a form of compensation for the absence of direct State Aid allocations to these municipalities; notwithstanding the present County program of Aid to Municipalities under 5.000 population. D. It is recognized that there may be occasional differences between these policies and written participation policies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 1n those cases. participation will be negotiated by the County Engineer. . E. When federal aid hiqhwav funds are utilized on a County hiQhwav project. these cost carticioation policies will be applied to the non-federal share of any sQecific item of work. In the event federal or state grant funds are made available to a p.J:oject on a 1 ump sum basi s. the County wi 11 determi ne the items for which those funds will be utilized. SEP-24-1993 11:00 FRQM HENN CTY PUBLIC WORKS TO 99351834 P.04 ". . . " . - 2) Page 4 - SECTION V - ROADWAYS - ITEM A - RIGHT OF WAY is amended to read: v. ROADWAYS . The County's participation in roadway projects will be as follows: A. RIGHT OF WAY Under 5,000 100% Over 5)000 50% The County will not participate in right of way for parking lanes requested by a municipality. The County's oercentage of participation in retaining walls constructed in lieu of right of way will be the same as for right of way. Right of way required for wetland mitigation and for surface water retention basins will be at the same participation ratio as the remainder of the project even if the locations of these facilities are not contiguous to the project. 3) Page 4 - SECTION V - ROADWAYS - ITEM I - MUNICIPAL AND PRIVATE UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION is amended to read: v. ROADWAYS 1. MUNICIPAL UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION . 1. Initial installation performed without a permit or not in compliance with a County permit Under/Over 5,000 0% 2. Relocation, reconstruction, improvement, or replacement of unserviceable existing facilities (County Engineer shall determine if existing facility is serviceable or unserviceable} Under/Over 5,000 0% 3. Relocation necessitated because of addition of parking lane requested by the municipality Under/Over 5,000 0% 4. In-kind relocation required solely because of County construction procedures UnderlOver 5,000 100% 5. Adjustment of existing utility structures to accommodate elevation changes at the street surface. This includes items such as adjustina manhole castinQs and valve boxes. Lateral extension of utility aDDurtenances such as hYdrants. water service valves, etc. required by the road construction are not included in this cate9or~ unless they are reauired solelY due to the addition of a . oarkino lane reauested b~ a municioality. Under lOver 5.000 0% J. PRIVATE UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION l. Initial installation was within County right of way Under/Over 5,000 0% SEP-24-1993 11:00 FROM HENN CTY PUBLIC WORKS TO 99351834 P.05 ':a ., , '. 4) Page 5 - SECTION VI - TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS - ITEM C - Temporary Traffic Signal Installations is amended to read: . VI. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS C. Temporary Traffic Signal Installations The County orefers that permanent traffic signals be installed initially wherever feasible. In the event that germanent traffic sianals are not feasible. the followina cost oarticioation Dolicies applY for temQorary traffic sianal installations: The municipality will pay the full cost of a temporary traffic signal and will not receive any credit for those costs when a permanent traffic signal is installed if, at the time the temporary traffic sianal is installed. the accident severity factor is less than 10 or if the priority factor is less than 40. For those temporary traffic signal projects with an accident severity factor of 10 - 19 or ~ a priority factor of 40 - 49, the municipality will receive credit for 50% of the cost of the temporary traffic signal when the permanent traffic signal is installed. For those temporary traffic signal Drojects with an accident severity factor of 20 or more or a priority factor of 50 or more. the municioalitv will receive credit for 75% of the cost of the temoorary traffic signal when the oermanent traffic sianal is installed. The costs for temporary traffic signals installed only for traffic . control during construction of a County project shall be paid 100% by the County. 5} Page 6 - SECTION VIII - STREET LIGHTING ;s amended to read: VIII . STREET LIGHTING The County will not participate in the installation of new street lighting. Participation in the relocation or reconstruction of existing street lighting will be on the same basis as for municipal utility relocation or reconstruction (see Section V.,I.). 6) Page 7 - SECTION XIII - UTILIZATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING is amended to read: XIII. UTILIZATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Rationale: This policy has been included to address the use of Tax Increment Financing on County projects by municipalities. Tax Increment Financing limits expansion of the tax base for new development and, thereby, limits the availability of additional County Property Tax . funding which might be used on the County highway system. The County sees Rat have a '/oi ce as to ',:ActRcr T.ax Increment Di stri cts wi11 be crcated nor the length of time that the taxiflcrcffiCFlt ~4ill be in effect, Since tRe Use of Tax IRcrcmcnt Financing dees Rave a negative impact OR Ca~Rty Property Tax funds, tAC established policy is intended t& SEP-24-1993 11:01 FROM HENN CTY PUBLIC WORKS TO 99351834 P.06 . ~ I - XIII. UTILIZATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING - continued . dl$ee~rage the use of Tax Increment Financing and. where used far th~ m~nicipal snare of a County project, to require a higher municipal eost share. This Dolicy does not imQact existinq or future Tax Increment Financinq Districts established for housing and redevelopment purDoses. The County's participation in a project where Tax Increment Financing is utilized by a municipality will be as follows: At the time a municipality is re~ue5tcd to appr0vc provided with a preliminary cost estimate of the municioal share of the project cost and is reauested to aDQrove the preliminary plans for a project.. the municipality must identify, by resolution, the source of funds for municipal participation and whether it intends to use Tax Increment Financing for any Dortion of the oroject cost. If the municipality elects to use Tax Increment Financing from an Economic DeveloDment District established after December 31, 1993 for any portion of the project cost, municipal participation lA the €anstrijcti6R cost will be 50% of the total engineering and construction cost and 100% of the right of way cost for any portion of the project within that municiDalitv. - .