Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Streets Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hillsdale council adopts special-assessment policy amendment, directs scaled street work; rejects sinking-fund millage and orders Oak Street RFP
Summary
The council adopted Resolution #3669 to allow select local street projects to proceed without special-assessment districts and without property-enhancing features, directed staff to pursue a reduced-scope approach for three streets, defeated a 0.5 mill sinking-fund levy for Oak Street, and instead voted to issue an RFP for the repaving.
The Hillsdale City Council on March 16 adopted Resolution #3669 to update the city’s Special Assessment District policy so that some local street projects may proceed without creating assessment districts and without replacing curb, gutter, sidewalks or driveway approaches.
Assistant City Manager Sam Fry presented staff’s analysis, saying the change responds to a funding gap that would arise if the city moved away from cost-sharing via special assessments; staff estimated the gap at roughly $935,000 for the three proposed projects and noted the Street Sinking Fund has 1.4 mills available (estimated at about $310,000 per year) that the council may levy in years of need.
Council discussion included technical reviews of pavement condition and treatment options by DPS Director Jason Blake and City Engineer Rob Stiverson. Staff described “Option 2,” a reduced-scope approach that would omit property-enhancing elements to trim costs (curb/gutter replacement, sidewalk repairs/replacement, driveway approach reconstruction) while providing new pavement and extending roadway life. Council members debated tradeoffs between preserving property-facing improvements and advancing pavement preservation citywide.
On a motion by Councilman William Morrisey, seconded by Councilman Bob Flynn, the council unanimously adopted Resolution #3669 (8-0) to revise the process used to establish and allocate costs for Special Assessment Districts.
The council then voted to direct staff to proceed with Option 2 — the reduced-scope surfacing approach — for three streets identified by staff: Oak Street, South Street and Arch Avenue. That motion passed 8-0.
Council later considered a separate motion to levy up to 0.5 mill from the Street Sinking Fund to repave Oak Street (Fayette to College). The motion, moved by Councilman Robert Socha and seconded by Councilman Morrisey, failed 3-5 (Aye: Bob Flynn, William Morrisey, Robert Socha; Nay: Mayor Scott Sessions, Matthew Bentley, Jacob Bruns, Joshua Paladino, Greg Stuchell).
Following the failed millage motion, Councilman Matthew Bentley moved and Councilman Joshua Paladino seconded a separate motion directing staff to prepare an RFP and bid package to repave Oak Street between Fayette and College; that motion passed unanimously, 8-0.
The council’s action changes how the city will prioritize funding for local street projects in 2026: projects proceeding without an assessment district will likely omit curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveway approach work unless property owners form and support an assessment district that pays for those features. Staff and council described the reduced-scope approach as a means to stretch limited funds while improving driving surfaces, but it does not provide the full property-enhancing rebuild originally envisioned.
