SR 05:223 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ifa street meets these criteria, City funding for traffic calming improvements will be considered. If the criteria are not met, the City will not consider funding improvements. If the residents wish to fund consultants of the devices themselves, the City would participate in design and contracting. I The City believes that shared funding between the City and residents is the most equitable approach to funding traffic calming projects and should reflect the character of the traffic on that street. volume streets generally serve a greater community travel need and therefore are eligible Higher for more City funding that streets whose primary purpose is to serve the abutting residences. The City uses the following guidelines for establishing the residents' share of traffic calming project costs: I · Less than or equal to 1200 cars per day - residents responsible for 25% of the cost Greater 1200 and less than 2000 cars per day - residents responsible for 15% of the cost · 2000 to 3000 cars per day - residents responsible for 10% of the cost · Greater than 3000 cars per day - City pays the entire cost of improvements Those who receive a direct benefit from the improvements will be responsible for the residents' portion of the costs. These residents will have a chance to support or oppose the program as part of the final petition process. One of the greatest amenities offered by several of the calming devices is the increased opportunity I for landscaping in the neighborhood. Landscaping can increase not only the attractiveness and effectiveness of traffic calming projects, but also the cost. The cost of water taps and water use for irrigated landscaping can be picked up by adjacent residences or the homeowner association. Maintenance agreements between the City and residents can also ensure that the landscaping is maintained at little or no cost to the City. The use of these cost sharing mechanisms can increase the affordability of landscaping, making these projects more attractive to the neighborhood. Regardless of the source of resident funds or the percent of the project paid for by residents, the I sharing of costs has several advantages. First, by involving residents in the funding of the project, there is an increased sense of ownership on the part of the neighborhood. Secondly, residents are more sensitive to the impact of costs on the project if they participate financially. Finally, by sharing the cost of neighborhood calming projects, the City can stretch the budget 1 farther to provide more projects to more neighborhoods. It is realistic to assume that the more financial involvement a neighborhood has in a project, the I easier it will be to fund and build the planned improvements. Therefore, funding opportunities should be considered in the scheduling and, in some cases, the prioritizing of neighborhood projects. I Plan Implementation I The final engineering drawings and cost estimates will be presented to the neighborhood prior to that they represent what was agreed to by the neighborhood. This is I actual construction to ensure important to ensure that there are no surprises once construction starts. These drawings will be available to all the stakeholders for review. I I