STREET FINANCING TASK FORCE             

MAY 2, 2007 MINUTES

Members Attending: 

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

Members Absent:  Don Laws

Guests:  John Peterson, Steve Burkhalter

A.         STREET CONDITION OVERVIEW

John Peterson, Street Department Superintendent and Steve Burkhalter, Pavement Analyst addressed the committee on the process of evaluating the pavement condition.  Brown would like members to consider the most effective way to allocate funds for the operational budget.  The group will need to discuss the wants and needs including the transit piece with the question of how do we look at what we want in terms of street condition.

Mallicoat asked how the departments pay for gas used in City vehicles.  Each department pays for its own fuel.  The cost is estimated each year during the budget season by calculating the Consumer Price Index increase and applying it to the average vehicle usage.  The last few years have seen a steady increase giving opportunity for better research into alternative fuel resources.  The fleet department has been researching green fleet additions to the City motor pool.

Brown introduced Peterson and Burkhalter to the committee for their presentation on the street condition compiled completed by the street department.

The Street department utilizes a program called Cartegraph to index the street conditions.  The raw data is entered in after a street crew has the opportunity to evaluate the asphalt on a specific street segment.  This helps to show areas of decline due to distinctive reasons.  Performance of the asphalt is determined by the proper base mix, traffic type and volume, compaction and environmental influences.  One of the largest environmental issues is water infiltration into the sub-base of the road. 

Large sized vehicles affect the flex the street more than smaller vehicles.  As the flex of the asphalt ages the surface will begin to crack instead of flexing under the weight of the vehicle.  The original mix of asphalt can be modified to better accommodate traffic use.  Some asphalt has higher mixes of polymers and other additives to increase the life of the asphalt if they are going to subjected to larger vehicle use.   Once the asphalt has lost its flexibility and adhesive qualities a higher level of maintenance has to occur.  If the asphalt has been treated to avoid the surface failure, it potentially adds longer life to the street.  Other conditions could exist to shorten the life of the road, but if a good sub-base existed then the road surface treatments are the more proactive way to ensure the longest life out of the road. 

Once a road is in need of more than a three inch lift it is considered a Capital Improvement Project to do the replacement.  The cost of replacement will drive the category from a City maintenance project to a reengineered contracted project. 

A sound base will include a structural fabric that will wick water away and not let it infiltrate the materials in the base to cause structural failures causing sink holes and potholes.  A program with crack sealing and slurry sealing has been the adopted method of preventative maintenance. 

In the last couple years, the cost of oil has increased upwards of 30%.  More street segments have fallen to a degree of failure that will result in a full replacement.  The budget for maintenance has remained steady, but the cost for the supplies has risen so much that less can be done with the budgeted amount.  In the long term it is better to spend the money on a strong maintenance program than to let the streets fail to a complete rebuild.  Deferring the expenses out to see if the cost is less, but this is dependent on the value of money at the given time.  Currently there is a five year projection for the capital street projects.  Again the cost today for the engineering and the construction are going to change.  The current budget allocation for street maintenance is $200,000 a year.  While this cost hasn’t increased, the cost to buy the supplies and perform the work has.  With a 2 to 3% increase in costs less and less work is being done.  The cost of asphalt has increased at such an accelerated pace there is no way to predict the cost. 

Gregorio asked if different materials could provide cost savings.  Different road types with different usage could present cost savings.  There has not been an aggressive research into different materials.  There has been a new increase in the use of concrete surfaces.  The concrete used to be more costly, but with the cost of asphalt rising so much, the concrete is now a reasonable alternative.  Brown would like to look at using the pervious concrete on some of the hillside paving projects. 

The theory has been that if a street has failed, it will not fail anymore.  It has reached the bottom of the rating and can not go any lower.  Instead of rebuilding that street, use the money to do maintenance on twelve other streets to keep them from failing.  A failed street that needs complete rebuilding is more apt to be financed through some form of grant or ODOT financing.  The OCI of 77 was settled on when the OCI was originally calculated.  The number at that time was 79 and it has fallen by 2 points.  The balance will be hard to decide on if the committee feels that the 78 or 79 is too high and the maintenance could be at a level of 75 as a minimum. 

Gregorio asked if there was a general thought on where a street falls beyond maintenance and moves to reconstruction.  Roughly the street can be maintained until it falls below 80, after that the street starts to slide.  Between 65 and 70 there could still be some maintenance, but it is failed.  Mallicoat asked about the jurisdictional exchange of a street and how the maintenance money switched hands.  It seems that if taking over the jurisdiction adds a large amount of maintenance to the street department.  The addition of Siskiyou Boulevard was done with an amount of maintenance funds to go maybe 15 years from now that will cover crack sealing.  The street was failed before we took jurisdiction and because we now have the option of doing repairs the way we want to.  Stromberg commented that the committee is about getting more sources of funding for enough money for maintenance without a continual failure.  Where does maintenance money work the best.  Can we afford to keep the OCI at 77 and what would the cost be to hold the OCI at 75. 

One consideration that has to be remembered is that ODOT grant funds can not be used on neighborhood streets.  The classification and volume on the street does make it eligible for other kinds of grant funding. 

Marsh asked if the classification of the street compare to how they are built.  The weight limits affect the kind of base and other materials.  The TSP shows the classifications of the streets.  The TSP is overdue for an update.  There could be streets whose classification has changed as other streets have been added to the system. 

Brown asked the group to think about the condition for next time.  Think about the shape of the street and should we say we don’t want more than X% in the failed category.  Look at the system ranges we don’t want more than this many street segments in this range.  And do we care as much about neighborhood streets as much as the larger arterials and collectors.

Brown will bring in the transportation system to look at the next priorities listed.  Large pieces of the TSP are for long term projects including sidewalk and street improvements.  Next meeting we will look at the 78 OCI or dropping to a lower number if it is as acceptable.  The failed streets will be left out of the calculation analysis because at this point no maintenance money will help the street, its failed.  We can look at the medium streets and today’s costs to keep them maintained.  Marsh asked if there was a way to show traffic counts for different classifications.  This could help us visualize the City’s best interest in spending the maintenance money. Mallicoat agreed that the traffic counts for each street do matter and they may need to be reevaluated to be sure some of the smaller streets have not increased in use to a higher classification.  Boulevards and Avenues can get some state funding or even some federal funding.  The sidewalk project in the TSP is a five year schedule.

Marsh asked if there was a cost associated with contractors cutting the surface of the street to put in or repair utilities.  The engineering department charges a permit fee based on a flat fee with a per foot cost to any contractor who is cutting the asphalt.  The per foot cost is based on the direction of the cut and on the age of the street. The newer the street, the higher the cost the cost is for the permit. 

Marsh asked if the streets built on hillsides perform differently than streets on the flat land.  Peterson said that because of the nature of asphalt it does slowly creep downhill.  There could be some research into looking at the planning end of the process for these streets to help extend their lives.

Staff will try and line up a field trip before the next meeting.  At the next meeting, we can look at the TSP then start focusing on funding sources.  There needs to be a brainstorming session for other funding opportunities for the long term. 

The RVTD situation will be going to council in June to discuss the goals of council. 

Mallicoat asked how do we keep the funds we gather from going to other departments.  This would be a disappointment.  The gas tax is always earmarked for transportation projects.  The food and beverage tax is allocated until 2010 and there is a lot of competing interest for the money.  Those are the things we need to look at. 

Brown felt the street fund could function at about $900,000 a year and $750,000 a year would take care of maintenance of the streets and maintain them with repairs. 

Brown asked if the next meeting could be moved to the Thursday to accommodate her travel schedule.

Adjourn 6:00 PM