2025-11-12 Budget and Finance Committee: Public Works Five-Year Capital Plan
2025-11-12 Budget and Finance Committee: Public Works Five-Year Capital Plan
The City Council Budget and Finance Committee convened to review the Public Works Five Year Capital Plan (2026-2030), presented by Nick Peterson and Sean Kershaw. The presentation detailed funding sources, including street reconstruction bonds, Municipal State Aid (MSA), the Common Sense local sales tax, and external partnerships with Metro Transit and MnDOT. The committee focused heavily on the 20-year Common Sense program, the complexities of downtown utility reconstruction, and recent performance gaps in Metro Delivery Fee (TAA) revenue.
Consent Calendar
- No items were explicitly listed or acted upon under a consent calendar; the meeting proceeded directly to the committee presentation and discussion.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No separate public comment session was recorded in the transcript; the discussion focused on Council Member questions and public works staff responses.
Discussion Items
- Funding Sources and Strategies:
- Street Reconstruction Bonds: Identified as a primary source, providing $3.15 million annually for residential mill and overlay, totaling $15.5 million over the five-year period, with funds judiciously carried over.
- Municipal State Aid (MSA): Primarily funded by state gas tax and license tab renewals. Staff confirmed MSA funds must adhere to specific routes and standards based on municipality size and infrastructure needs.
- Common Sense (Local Option Sales Tax): A 0.75% tax approved in 2023 for a 20-year program. Staff explained that while the goal is one mile per project per season, staff capacity limits delivery to approximately three projects annually. Council Member Jones expressed strong support for building internal staff capacity to reduce reliance on consultants, to which Council Vice President Kershaw agreed, noting a "sprint" phase requires consultants but long-term strategy aims for in-house expertise.
- Transportation Advancement Account (TAA): Council Member Johnson raised concerns about TAA revenue performance. Staff confirmed the program is not meeting expectations, with anticipated $740,000 revenue projected to be only around $400,000 this year. Staff attributed this to conservative budgeting and acknowledged the shortfall hinders leveragable federal funding.
- Project Specifics and Challenges:
- Downtown Reconstruction: Nick Peterson described downtown reconstruction (e.g., Robert Street) as exceptionally complex due to aging, undocumented utilities. Staff member Ann Weber confirmed Ground Penetrating Radar and potholing are utilized to map these utilities before excavation.
- Metro Transit Collaboration: A unique partnership was highlighted for Selby Avenue between Snelling and Summit, where Metro Transit will perform mill and overlay work using special funding deadlines, while the city handles concrete work in 2027 to align with transit routes.
- Solar Lighting Pilot: The Pleasant Avenue project was identified as a pilot for solar lighting, funded by a partnership with a university and the Local Road Research Board to test scalability.
- Railroad Crossings: The Cleveland Railroad crossing project was cited as a success story for Capital Improvement Bonds (CIB), taking approximately 10 years of funding accumulation to complete.
- Business Impact Mitigation: Council Member Johnson expressed support for coordination efforts following concerns about business displacement on Grand Avenue. Staff emphasized that long-term planning, business workshops, and daily onsite coordinators (like on Grand Avenue) are critical tools more effective than financial mitigation alone.
- Common Sense Program Staging:
- Ruben Collins outlined the 20-year Common Sense program divided into four stages. Stage 1 (2024-2029) includes projects already prioritized or in advanced design. Stages 2-4 prioritize projects based on technical scores (35% pavement condition) but are subject to coordination with partners (MnDOT, Metro Transit) to avoid simultaneous construction on parallel detour routes.
- Project Scheduling Changes: Council President and Council Member Johnson inquired about changes from the previous year's plan. Staff confirmed the primary changes include the addition of 2030 data, minor shifts of county/MnDOT projects (e.g., West 7th) to later dates, and the inclusion of pre-construction (design) funding, particularly visible in the Common Sense column.
Key Outcomes
- Plan Review: The committee received and discussed the draft Five-Year Capital Plan (2026-2030); the plan is scheduled for final approval by the full City Council on December 3rd.
- TAA Revenue Gap: Staff confirmed a significant shortfall in Metro Delivery Fee revenue ($340,000 less than anticipated), prompting a more conservative approach to programming federal matching funds.
- Strategic Agreement: The committee and staff reached a consensus on the need to balance the immediate "sprint" of using consultants for the Common Sense sprint phase with a long-term goal of increasing internal staff capacity to reduce outsourcing.
- Coordination Protocols: The committee noted the department's active strategy to coordinate with MnDOT, Metro Transit, and Ramsey County to minimize construction conflicts and business disruption, with future updates on budget-to-actuals to be provided via a status report.
- Pre-Construction Funding: Clarification was provided that pre-construction (soft) costs are funded within project-specific buckets (e.g., Common Sense) or internal state aid pots, though Common Sense explicitly highlights these for transparency due to the scale of consultant engagement.
Meeting Transcript
Calling the city council budget and finance committee to order. Today we have one presentation, which is the Public Works Five Year Capital Plan. Today our presenter will be Nick Peterson from Public Works. Welcome to the chambers. Thank you, Council Vice President. Nick Peterson with Public Works. Happy to present our five-year plan to you today for the next five-year term of 2026 to 2030. This is done annually, starts in the fall of every year that we'll start to have really rigorous interactions, and then of course, in December, the five-year plan is uh asked for approval by the city council. So this year that will be December 3rd when the item comes before council. It actually slid up a little bit. And so we tried to get in here as quickly as we could to have this conversation with you. So outline of our presentation, we'll we'll talk through the kind of the chart of the five-year plan, show a map of what it looks like uh graphically, and then also talk through funding sources and projects we did this year and projects that'll come up next year. If he hasn't met with with you and your office uh in the process of trying to have those conversations occur. So I I know we're we're reaching out trying to have those and give the one-on-one attention that you you deserve. So this is what the five-year capital plan looks like. Um this chart and and really the the focus here, we've got uh number of columns, we've got a number of rows, the columns, of course, are the five years, the rows are the funding sources, and so this is what it looks like generally speaking. Um the the five-year plan is funded. There's just one year of funding that comes with it. So it's that first year of 2026 that I really want to talk about in particular that we're that we're focused on here. So we can see that uh, and I'm gonna go through each of the funding sources individually, but um, I just know that there's a lot of numbers here, and so I don't want to dwell on this as uh as our primary graphic. So geographically what our projects would look like for uh 2026. Um you can see there's a whole lot of uh stuff throughout the city, and actually for all five years uh between the county, the state, and and city-led projects. This is what uh a lot of the transportation improvements look like in the city. And uh, you know, in in particular, we will have some collaboration with the county, some collaboration actually with Metro Transit, which I'm gonna be excited to talk about a bit later, which is uh kind of a first of its kind type of collaboration with uh with Metro Transit. But um a lot of continued mill and overlay and and reconstruction here. And want to jump through these at a greater level of detail. Um if you look at that chart, the first row is street reconstruction bonds. These are issued annually for infrastructure improvements. Um reconstruction funding comes through uh street reconstruction bonds and three million dollars for residential mill and overlay on an annual basis, so that's a total of 15 and a half million dollars. Um funding is is able to be carried over in a judicious fashion as allowed, but um every year it's about 15 and a half million dollars. The next big chunk is municipal state aid. We call it MSA. The primary funding source for this is gas tax. There are a couple of other elements like your uh your license tab renewal and and that sort of thing that that also help fund this, but primarily it's the state gas tax. It's formula funding based on the size of a municipality and also the needs that that municipality has, needs is just uh it's the the way that the statute tries to elaborate on or quantify how much infrastructure we have that is eligible for for our state aid funding. So it's population and needs evenly between the two, and that funding can be used on MSA routes, but it also must follow MSA standards. So it can't be used on any corridor throughout the city. Then the next big city uh funding bucket is common sense, and that's the local option sales tax, and that is three quarters of one percent. And you know, as I noted, we'll have some time at the end to walk through that. But um the 20-year program that has some identified corridors and uh a lot of good work happening there. Then if we continue through city sources of funding here, we've got the general fund and general fund is one of those really I would call it the gold standard funding source because it can pay for things that some of those other sources just simply can't pay for. So the MSA again must be spent on MSA routes and according to MSA standards, but uh general fund is really helpful that we can spend it on the local system. So we can't uh we can't spend just uh any any source of funding on our our local residential streets, for example. So uh sidewalks and mill and overlay and alley work are gonna require that there be general fund uh revenues available for those types of improvements. It's also used in projects if things come up that are not eligible for those other funds. So we always try to hold on to general fund until the end of a project, and even when construction is complete, sometimes we're still going through a process of trying to close out that contract with a contractor, and even after construction is complete, that that money might still be needed for uh a year or two after that. Capital improvement bonds, uh, there's a uh funding program for capital improvement bonds, and we've got some some exciting additions for uh for the the future of the the five-year plan where uh sidewalk grinding is anticipated to be something that's funded for uh a number of years, uh a much more cost uh effective way of of uh maintaining sidewalks and improving sidewalks. Of course, assessments, uh assessments are applied for reconstruction uh to re reconstruction costs and the mill and overlay costs as well. Externally, we have county, min dot, and also federal funding. Uh the county and the state both have uh competitive solicitations that are available, and we also may cooperate on projects with those entities.
openpublica.com