Pa 512 capstone case analysis
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 19

PA 512 Capstone Case Analysis PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 85 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

PA 512 Capstone Case Analysis. City of Madras Transportation Funding Initiative Plan By Gus Burril Public Works Director for the City of Madras Presented to: PSU Faculty and EMPA Cohort, June 12, 2010. Problem Statement.

Download Presentation

PA 512 Capstone Case Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


PA 512 Capstone Case Analysis

City of Madras Transportation Funding Initiative Plan

By Gus Burril

Public Works Director for the City of Madras

Presented to: PSU Faculty and EMPA Cohort, June 12, 2010


Problem Statement

  • Madras transportation funding is not keeping pace with maintenance needs and a significant backlog of deteriorating streets is increasing in size.

    • 8.9 miles (21.5% of total street system) is in dirt or gravel condition within Madras

    • 8.15 miles of paved streets (25.1% of streets that are paved) are in need of immediate preservation measures


Literature Review/Pre-Research

Findings (two groups of information):

  • Scope and limits of transportation funding for the City of Madras

    • Madras has a heavy reliance on State and Federal revenue sharing (62%)

    • Other funding alternatives exist

  • Political Stakeholder concerns

    • Professional Interests, Taxpayers, Fuel Suppliers, State Government, Local Government, Street System Users


  • Purpose & Significance of Report

    • Main objective of this research study:

      • Prepare a recommended plan of action for implementing an additional funding initiative(s) to increase transportation revenue in the City of Madras for dealing with the significant backlog of street maintenance.

    • The significance of the report is finding a way to protect the City’s economic vitality and public safety through transportation system investment.


    Research Questions

    • Current transportation funding shortfall in the City of Madras?

    • What other types of local funding alternatives are available and how much revenue is estimated by adopting a new measure?

    • How have other cities successfully implemented a local funding initiative?

    • What is the recommended plan of action from the research findings?


    Research Methods

    • Used primary and secondary research

      • Primary – 18 Oregon cities surveyed with local gas tax

      • Secondary – Literature Review of ODOT, FHWA & published reports by League of Oregon Cities and DEA/SERCA - transportation funding consultant: Total of 27 cities researched.

    • Purposely selected cities who have passed an alternative form of local funding

    • Used EXCEL program to analyze data and group common type qualitative responses


    Research Findings to Question #1 (Shortfall)


    Research Findings to Question #2

    Other funding alternatives & estimated revenue

    • Using survey data of 18 cities with a local gas tax, adopting a local gas tax at $0.03 per gallon could mean approximately $200,000 in additional revenue per year for Madras.

      Five funding alternatives (est. annual revenue):

      • Transportation Utility Fee ($420k)

      • Local Improvement District (vary by size)

      • General Obligation Bond ($450k, set # of yrs.)

      • Increase Utility Franchise Fees ($96k)

      • Grant Funding (varies, ability to match)


    Research Findings to Question #3

    How other cities successfully implemented a local transportation funding initiative

    • Make a compelling argument

    • Elected officials clearly understand the need, take ownership of the issue and are willing to act

    • Select a fair and reasonable amount to address the problem


    Research Findings to Question #3 (continued)

    How other cities successfully implemented a local transportation funding initiative

    • Public involvement has to occur

    • Implement a funding initiative campaign effort


    Discussion of the Research Findings

    • State and Federal funding options are not the solution

    • No action postpones and enlarges the problem and jeopardizes the City’s economy, public safety and ability to achieve its mission & goals

    • A local gas tax is not a funding alternative option until 2014

    • Five (5) funding alternatives identified to further analyze for feasibility and priority


    Funding Alternative Analysis – Eightfold Approach (Bardach)

    1) Problem – Street maintenance needs exceed current sources of revenue

    2) Evidence – Research Findings; $910,000 annual shortfall; $25 million backlog

    3) Transportation Funding Alternatives:

    • Transportation Utility Fee ($420k)

    • Local Improvement District (vary by size)

    • General Obligation Bond ($450k, set # of yrs.)

    • Increase Utility Franchise Fees ($96k)

    • Grant Funding (varies, ability to match)


    Funding Alternative Analysis (continued)

    4) Criteria to evaluate the alternatives:

    • Equitability/Fairness to the rate payers

    • Provides a consistent source of annual revenue

    • Value to the community

    • Value to local government – To what degree does the funding alternative meet the vision, mission and goals of the City?

    • Feasibility of addressing the transportation funding shortfall

    • Political acceptability


    Funding Alternative Analysis (continued)

    5) Project the outcomes (Likelihood of the alternative meeting the criteria)

    6) Confront the trade-offs (pros & cons)


    Funding Alternative Analysis (continued)

    7) Decide on preferred alternative(s)

    Scored the alternative probability of meeting the criteria (1 to 5) with highest scores preferred:

    Highest scores ranked first to last

    • Increase Utility Franchise Fees - 26 of 30

    • Transportation Utility Fee – 25 of 30

    • General Obligation Bond – 23 of 30

    • Grant Funding – 22 of 30

    • Local Improvement District – 18 of 30


    Recommended Action Plan (Step 8)

    Step 1: Organize the City Council and or special committee for the funding initiative

    Step 2: Decide on the alternative and amount - Use the research findings

    Step 3: Decide how public involvement is going to occur


    Recommended Action Plan (Step 8) – (continued)

    Step 4: Implement funding alternative(s)

    Step 5: Explore and actively pursue grant opportunities from all available sources

    Step 6: Partner with other public and private organizations

    Step 7: Assess the progress & adjust as necessary to meet the funding goal


    Conclusion

    • All five funding alternatives need to be considered in a phased and leveraging approach to address the significant magnitude of the shortfall in transportation funding.

    • An educated City Council taking action in a campaign effort forum is a key insight learned for how to successfully develop and implement new transportation funding policy

    • PSU’s EMPA program preparation to lead


    Acknowledgements

    A big thank you to:

    • My advisor, Professor Morgan and all of the EMPA program Professors, staff and volunteers

    • Cohort team members

    • My family, especially my wife, Angela

    • My supervisor, Mike Morgan

    • The City of Madras


  • Login