Please find attached the information regarding the Street Utility, using 2009 budget information. Roads & Streets operating budget is about 17.07% of the property taxes for the average residential single family dwelling.
The operating costs include debt retirement rather than the capital expenditures. The 2009 Capital Budget included $59,315,250 for Major Streets. Of that amount, $34,110,000 came from General Obligation Debt, which could be considered to be largely recovered from debt retirement or about 58%. As much as I dislike mixing Operating Budget expenditures with Capital Budget Expenditures, if we take the total of the 2009 Capital Budget and the Net Operating Budget less debt retirement, we could postulate that the property tax would pay for 64% of the Street and Highway expenses less contributions made by developers and that is pretty close to what I understand that Steve Hiniker came up with. Having taken a look again at the City Budget detail, there are some other details that complicate the separation of the expenses by service. For example, the Operating Budget for Roads and Streets includes funding to maintain pavements for buses and snow clearing of bus stops. But the state and federal revenues to provide that service ($23,500,700) go to Transit. I suspect that those funds are largely derived from gasoline taxes and a portion of these revenues should offset the Street and Highway expenditures. This would increase the actual property tax impact of the Transit service. (The impact on Transit was the second most important impediment to getting a Street Utility.) The expenses for the Street Utility include the cost of maintaining bike paths and sidewalks. The cost of installing bike paths and sidewalks (and major repairs) is not included in the debt retirement for Streets and Highways, as that is a separate budget category. In summary, I think you can use the 60 – 60% figure for property tax financing of Streets and Highways, with the caveat that it doesn’t include the contribution of developers. From: Larry D. Nelson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 8:50 AM To: 'Mad City Biker' Subject: RE: [Bikies] County Highway KP Communities that I am familiar with require that all new roads are constructed by the Developer or, if constructed by the City, special assessed to the property owner. I have never seen the data that Steve Hiniker relies on regarding the percentage of property taxes for road maintenance. I would like to see the details. I do have some of my own that I developed to assess the costs of a “Street Utility.” I shall try to obtain those from the City and provide them to you. I understand from your message that bikers use the property tax data to justify their use of the roads. From: Mad City Biker [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:23 PM To: Larry D. Nelson Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP Sorry for dredging up an old thread, but I'm just getting caught up. Quote Larry Nelson: "Steve Hiniker doesn’t include the developer’s contribution for local roads, which is generally 100%." Could you please expound on this statement? (in layman's terms please!). Bikers (myself included) tend to use talking points similar to Hiniker's to justify our right to use the roads. Are we incorrect in quoting this? Just how do developers $$$ fit into the equation? Thanks! -MCB _____ From: Larry D. Nelson <[email protected]> To: burleigh chorus.net <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Wed, April 28, 2010 5:10:42 PM Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP The cost to widen a road for bike lanes is greater than just the proportion of pavement as the road bed has to be widened whereas the existing road doesn’t require the replacement of the road bed. Also, the road side ditches have to be excavated beyond their current location and new turf established. Bridges and storm sewers need to be widened beneath the roadbed and the storm water culverts for driveways have to be relocated. I suspect that the County Transportation Engineers have estimated the costs quite closely and I am not surprised by the cost increase. Steve Hiniker doesn’t include the developer’s contribution for local roads, which is generally 100%. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of burleigh chorus.net Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:36 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP Al, thats great to hear. Unfortunately, the Town of Middleton is waffling on bike lanes on Old Sauk Road: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_b3533244-507e-11df-bb09-001cc4c03286.html Does it really cost 50% more money to add 25% more width to a road? Anyway, Ivey hits on the real problem here: "Hiniker says most drivers assume the taxes on gasoline cover the expense to build and maintain roads. But he notes the state's transportation fund — which is basically the gas tax combined with vehicle registration fees — provides only 60 percent of local road funding. The rest falls to property taxpayers." On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:55 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: Greetings fellow bikies: Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk sent out a letter I thought you'd be interested in. County Highway KP, a favorite route for bicycling in west/northwestern Dane County, is scheduled for reconstruction. Two elected officials from the Town of Black Earth expressed interest in having a bike lane/shoulder included in the construction project. The County Executive's office agreed to make this addition, and noted a price tag of $600K. -- .......... -darin
090925 Street Utility Prospectus.xlsx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
