11-26-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

necessary. The Tra+;sportation Advisory Board (TAB) made up of ten ;10) municipal officials, 7 county officials, and a number of other persons representing the public and various metropolitan agencies has as part of its duties, fulfilled the role of advising the Metropolitan Council and M:C on Transit Funding and Policy Issues for many years. This advisory function should continue. THE AMM ENCOURA3ES THE: RTB TO USE THE CURRENT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD FOR INPUT ON METROPOLITAN TRANSIT FUNDING AND POLICY ISSUES AS WELL AS TO ESTABLISH A REGIONAL ADVISORY COMv,I?TEE OF LOCAL OFFICIALS FROM THE DEVELOPING SUBREGIONS TO ?ROVIDE INPUT TO THE TRANSIT PLANNING PROCESS AND TO HELP DEVELOP EFFICIENT COST EFFECTIVE TRANSIT SOLUTIONS FOR THESE AREAS. IN ADDITION THE RTB SHOULD MAKE PROVISION FOR DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING OF PLANNING COMMITTEES ON A SUBREGION BY SUBREGICN OR DESIGNATED AREA BASIS AS DETERMINED BY LOCAL NEEDS TO DEVELOP SPECIFIC TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES FOR THOSE SPECIFIC AREAS. V-D HIGHWAY JURISDICTIONAL REASSIGNMENT AND FUNDING --ee State Highway Study Commission and Metropolitan Jurisdictional .a3,: Force have been studying the possibility of reclassifying =any roadways in the state as to appropriate use classifications an. jurisdiction. This reassignment in the metropolitan area is estimated to shift $6.1 million annually from the state and $1.2 -.::lion annually from the counties to the cities for an increase $7.31 million annually for general maintenance and life cycle 'reatment (i.e. sealcoat, overlays, etc.). Although, this task Wad be appropriate, if pursued, it could have a profound effect on :icy finances and future ability to maintain good road systems, especially if certain criteria are not met and finance �':er-;a to established. Therefore, the AMM offers the following as a gjide to continuing discussion and possible legislation. -1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS THE AM"", SUPPORTS JURISDICTIONAL REASSIGNMEN, OF ROADS BASED ON FUNCTIONAL CLASSIVICATION, SUBJECT TO A CORRESPONDING MECHANISM FOR FUNDING, SINCE CITIES DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO ABSORB THE ADDITIONAL ROADWAY RESPONSIBILITIES WITHOUT NEii FUNDING SOURCES. THE EXISTING MUNICIPAL TUFNBACK FUND IS NOT ADEQUATE BASED ON CONTEMP,ATED TURNBACK:,. A ROAD USER NEEDS STUDY IS UNDERTAKEN, THE AMM RECOMMENDS INCLUSION OF A UNIFORM MEANS OF MEASURING NEEDS AMCNG ALL LEVELS OF JURISDICTION; FULL CONSIDERATION OF ALL FUNDING SOURCES AVAILABLE. TO EACH LEVEL OF JURISDICTION; AND CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL EFFORTS REPRESENTED BY LOCAL TAX LEVIES, SPECIAL ASSESSME.NT.3, DEVELOPER COSTS, ETC. IN THE FORMS OF CREDITS RATHER THAN PENALT IE ) .