Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Officials outline $2.5M local road plan, discuss placing millage before voters
Summary
City staff presented a plan to spend $2.5 million of a $5 million UBP account on local road projects and seed a sidewalk fund; commissioners asked for clearer project lists, ward representation and voter outreach before placing a road millage on a ballot.
City staff presented candidate local street projects and financing options and recommended using $2.5 million of a $5.0 million UBP/UPP account to support local road repairs and to seed a sidewalk fund.
The presenter said project selection would be based on factors including annual average daily traffic, probability of infrastructure failure, location relative to major routes and service centers, and tie‑ins to HUD census tracts that could bring additional sidewalk funding. He said the local road list is limited by available funds and that grants typically favor major roads and high‑use commercial routes. "The remaining 2.5 of the $5,000,000 UBP money in the fund that will be utilized for grant match opportunities and develop a sidewalk fund," the presenter said.
Staff estimated paving costs at roughly $33,000 to $55,000 per block depending on condition and underlying infrastructure, and said a one‑mill levy would generate about $150,000 per year (about $100 per $100,000 of taxable value). Commissioners asked whether traffic counts and median taxable value had been considered; the city manager responded that median residential taxable value is about $100,000.
Several commissioners requested whether initial project lists included their wards; Commissioner Tenney noted she did not see projects in her 4th Ward and asked for representation of neighborhood priorities. Commissioners also urged more public outreach and clear, itemized examples of what a 1‑mill versus a 2‑mill package would accomplish to make the proposal easier to market to voters.
No millage was put on the record for immediate adoption; staff recommended forming or using an infrastructure committee to refine project lists, consider ballot timing (May, August or November) and develop millage language and outreach. Commissioners discussed the tradeoffs of off‑cycle elections versus fall elections and emphasized transparency in explaining exactly how any new revenues would be used.
Next steps: staff will continue refining candidate projects, coordinate with the infrastructure committee, provide modeled examples of 1‑mill and 2‑mill packages for voter outreach purposes, and return to the commission with recommended ballot language and timing.
