STREET FINANCING TASK FORCE             

MARCH 20, 2007 MINUTES

Members Attending: 

Russ Silbiger, Keith Massie, Arlen Gregorio, Pam Hammond, Gary Mallicoat, Pam Marsh, John Stromberg, Paula Brown, Lee Tuneberg, Dawn Lamb

Members Absent:

Don Laws, Bill Hahey

Approval of Minutes:    N/A

Introductions: 

Brown welcomed all members and thanked them for their interest.  The group took time giving background and experience. 

Agenda Review & Edits

Brown put together the agenda and would like to have additional comments and additions if anyone feels anything is missing.  The Street Fund budget has the yearly expenses for all street operations, maintenance, public transit, sidewalk improvements and additions, and bikepaths.  We need to make this fund viable for the future of Ashland.  Brown is looking for results from the committee for service levels the City needs to make.

There are areas of community expectation that need to be explored.  Putting a maintenance plan in place is achievable, but if the costs for this are too high or if there are priorities that the community wants to achieve, they need to be calculated into the budget.  This could mean a deferred maintenance for asphalt in exchange for new sidewalks or bus service. 

Mallicoat questioned where the money currently comes from.  Money currently comes from many different sources and the sources are sometimes strict on what they can be allocated for.  There are SDC charges for improvements and for continuing maintenance, there are grants that can be applied to paving, there are state funds from gas taxes when available and other state funding. 

Stromberg commented that the water, electric and wastewater utilities have their own dedicated funding sources (user fees, etc) and seem to get along alright.  What is the difference about how the street maintenance unit is funded that makes it necessary to have all these people meeting for months? 

Brown agreed that there are currently competing needs in the street fund that need some priority.  The money that comes from taxes or state grants or loans are sporadic.  The budget is complex and the committee will be getting into further definition of the fund.  We need to consider what we can do for additional funds.  Brown was not sure if one pot of money would make the situation better.  It would make it hard to tell where the funds were being directed.  It would still be a situation where some funds are sacrificed to pay for another project.  Stromberg asked if the bus subsidy came out of the street fund also; yes.  Brown explained that the fund is more of a transportation fund then a street fund.  Even the cost for the boulevard maintenance comes out of this fund which includes mowing and irrigation for all the medians on Siskiyou and other streets. 

The goal will be to brainstorm to find new funding sources.  Look at options for support of the financial obligations, how do we get support.  It is hard to get new funds because there is so much competition with other jurisdictions.  New taxes are always a consideration, but the public is usually hesitant.  Hammond asked if there were already set needs to be met.  Brown said that there is a street index that we will be looking at, but it only refers to street condition, not sidewalk or bikepath or any transportation issue. 

The index is how the public works department decides which streets within the City are in need of repair.  The index is broken down by street classifications and each would have a different mechanism for basing the index condition.  The street department will be able to justify why different streets are in worse condition and what kind of repair is required.  Some practices like slurry seal will help to extend the life of the street, while others are so far past repair the entire base beneath the street will need to be replaced.  Brown suggests looking at streets most traveled and how much do we care about what shape they are in.  Look at the evaluation as a whole.  The goal has been to keep the street index at an overall rate of 78.  If the committee looks at this and feels the City should do better than 78, then how.  This component may need to be brought before the public.  The community will need to give input into the amount of repair or disrepair that is acceptable.  Hammond asked if there is an existing City goal to pave all streets.  Brown commented that the council did make this a past goal because of the effect on the storm drain system and the water and air quality, but it is not a mandated goal.  Currently there are only seven miles or so of unpaved streets left in the city limits. 

There are other means of road maintenance like chip sealing that are used and we can look at them in a pros and cons situation.  Once you get to the paving there are other associated costs that will increase the costs like the addition of sidewalks and storm drainage.  And even further are the maintenance costs, the transit situation and bikelanes, these all cost money.  We need to really examine the competing priorities.  Silbiger was cautious as the existing budget will be reduced because we no longer receiving the state funds.  The last few years we have had to do more with less money.  Brown has seen project costs rise up to 20-30% in the last three years because of material cost increases. 

The process of the Public Works Director looking at the fund and determining what would best serve the community if it is repaired needs to be looked at with a community goal in mind.  The street index is very black and white, but there needs to be a more holistic view of the streets.  Other determinations should be made when a street is considered for repair.  The street classification could be used as a factor, but the decision should be based on an overall goal.  A boulevard that carries the most traffic, a collector street or a small residential street could all have a different set of priorities that make them viable for repair.  Look at the evaluation and come up with an overall score.  Is the current OCI rating of 78 good or should we do better according to the community? 

Hammond questioned if the Council goal to pave all streets should be considered and at what priority.  Brown advised that the Council has made that a goal for water and air quality benefits.  

The Street department will be able to come in and discuss the different treatment options and longevity treatments to help keep the road condition at an acceptable level.  Hammond asked if there were communities that have already done similar work that the group could research.  Brown said that most Oregon communities are in similar funding situations with their own transportation problems.  Others will be doing similar work. 

The current funding mechanism is very competitive for the funds.  To have a procedure in place will help to apply for funding.  Funding that used to be guaranteed is now in a competitive pool. 

New streets in new subdivisions are built by the developer and they are charged SDC fees for transportation system use.  This is calculated by the predicted use of increased traffic on adjacent roads to their new development.  The SDC funds are an ongoing stream for the street funds.  The SDC are based on street need for connectivity.  The group’s goals should keep in mind a future plan.  The vision should be in our minds of where in 20 years our streets will be and how we handle the here and now to not strap the future citizens with a hopeless situation.  If we reevaluate the SDC fees, that needs to be a consideration. 

Massie asked if budget shortfalls have been an ongoing problem or if this is a new issue in the last few years because of rising material costs and lack of funding.  Brown suggested going back through the last three years and looking at where the costs were spent. 

Tuneberg felt having a solid direction would help to keep the competing needs more organized.  The lack of funds has been a problem since the state funds have become more competitive and less secure.  Grants are applied for, but again the competition for the funds is very high.  The fractionalizing of the fund with maintenance and operations and new construction keeps the prioritizing hard to achieve.  All these costs have increased causing work to be delayed or deferred.  The pressure continues to grow to not increase the budgetary amount and to remain at the current amount.  A flexibility needs to stay in force to meet the community involvement and priorities.  The funds are stretched to many principalities from the same pot of money.  Look at how much it is going to cost us to do these things.  The community needs to be aware of what the cost for these projects is, and the additional maintenance so that they can work with the City to function within the amount funded.  The funding comes from the same place and we need to go to the community to get direction and input. 

Recommended Street Financing Task Force Goals

a.      Research and evaluate a wide variety of street funding options

b.      Identify, prioritize and recommend to Council likely cost effective street financing options

c.      Council asked that the committee evaluate the needs for not only streets, but also sidewalks and bikepaths

Along with the costs associated with new projects, the cost of maintaining the streets, including street sweeping, sidewalk repair and bikepath maintenance have to be kept intact.  Options need to be weighed as to what is truly needed and what can we do without.   Mallicoat asked if the budget was keeping up with the financial needs.  That is the question, are we keeping up to an acceptable level.  Marsh felt that the answer to that question is very diverse depending on who you are asking.  Good street condition to one person could mean different things to different people on what is important.  The streets are assessed differently and we need to find a balance for the OCI to reflect a grade that we as a community support. 

The committee needs to look at the value based on the community wants.  This gives a voice to the public.  Silbiger agreed that this is a positive direction for the committee to go. 

Stromberg suggested the committee refine and revise our goals and return to them during the process as the committee gets a better feel for the subject.  It will be helpful to revisit the statement to be assured that the direction has not strayed or stalled.  Look at doing this and trying to keep our focus without losing focus of what we are trying to do.   Brown will add the goal to the agenda for each meeting.

Marsh commented that the competing needs for the funds need to be explained to the public so that if any of the funding alternatives for the different interests are considered for taxes or other fee increases that the voters are well aware of the reasons.  When we start to identify the ideas from the community it will come down to being for their expectations. 

Timeframe – the plan is for this committee to meet for 4-6 months and be able to make some recommendations to Council for future budget decisions.

Brown expects to have three or four meetings along with a tour where the group gets out and sees the streets up close.  It would be beneficial to consider having community meetings for public input.  A meeting with ODOT doing a presentation on funding options and competition could be organized.  The Street department and Finance department could both present to give background.  Brown is estimating that this group will be ready to present their recommendations to Council in about 4-6 months.  If this is not enough time we can extend our meetings until we have come up with a product we can all stand behind. 

The meetings will be publicly announced and posted on the website. 

Next Meeting

a.      How often to meet, time of day (or evening)

b.      Next one:  (set date and time)

c.      Focus for the next meeting

Committee discussed best times to meet and frequency, it was decided to meet on Wednesdays at 4:30 every third week.  Staff will supply schedule to committee members.  Staff will set up a listserve for email discussions.  This will facilitate some knowledge sharing to keep the group efficient. 

Next meeting will address the budget funds and background from Financing. 

Adjourn 5:40 PM