Albany council reviews draft street maintenance fee, gives policy direction on structure

Albany City Council members on Aug. 11 heard a detailed presentation on a proposed street maintenance fee that would appear as a monthly utility charge and directed staff to refine a policy-based rate structure, but did not adopt any rates.

Consultants and staff framed the fee as a transportation utility similar to water or sewer rates: costs would be allocated to customer classes in proportion to trip generation. Deb Gallardi of Gallardi Rothstein Group, who led the technical analysis, told the council the packet’s numbers are illustrative only. “Rates are for illustration purposes only. They are subject to change. Do not get too attached to these particular rates. This is not a specific rate proposal. Council is not being asked to adopt these rates,” Gallardi said.

The presentation explained the methodology: classify customers into rate classes (residential tiers and six nonresidential bins), estimate trip generation using the Institute of Transportation Engineers manuals, allocate a chosen revenue target among classes, then calculate unit rates. Staff used a $6,000,000 annual revenue target for illustration; Gallardi and Public Works Director Chris Bailey noted that the city’s full funding gap for streets was previously estimated at about $12.3 million per year. The consultants showed two scenarios: an “unadjusted” cost-allocation based on straight trip rates and a “policy-adjusted” scenario that moderates extreme bill swings (floors/caps and discounts).

Under the illustrative $6 million target, the average single-unit detached residence (tier 3) would face about $9.43 per month in the unadjusted scenario and about $10.92 in the policy-adjusted scenario. The consultants proposed a 35% low-income discount in their examples and a 50% discount for K–12 schools in the adjusted scenario. They also proposed a floor (about $5 per month per thousand square feet) and caps for the highest trip generators to reduce very large nonresidential bills.

Councilors asked for clarifications and expressed preferences. Several councilors favored the policy-adjusted scenario because it reduced the range of bills and is easier to explain to the public. Councilors also directed staff to: - Preserve residential tiering (four tiers for single-unit homes) and include a low-income discount; - Use six nonresidential bins (the consultant’s preliminary framework) with floors and caps to moderate impacts; - Refine the allocation toward a roughly 50/50 split of total cost between residential and nonresidential customers (the presentation’s alternative to a 45/55 allocation); and - Continue work on discounts or adjustments for school districts and community college users and report back later this year.

Staff emphasized that the $6 million illustration would require a separate council action (a rate resolution) to implement and that the city could elect a different revenue target, a different mix with a local fuel tax, or choose not to implement the fee. No formal vote or rate adoption occurred at the work session; the council provided policy direction for staff and the consultant to return with refined analyses and recommended ordinance/resolution language.

The council also asked staff to prepare stakeholder outreach materials and to bring back comparisons and bills for common customer types in any subsequent public packet so the community can see bill impacts before decisions are made.

The next steps are further refinements from the consultant, additional outreach, and another council work session or meeting where staff will present adjusted scenarios and a draft rate resolution for consideration.