STREET FINANCING TASK FORCE             

MINUTES – MAY 24, 2007

51 Winburn Way, Community Development/Engineering Bldg.

I.                     Call to Order        4:30 PM

II.                   Approval of Minutes:  May 2, 2007

III.                  Items for Discussion

A.                 Discuss Field Trip Observations

Most members made it to the field trip.  John Peterson and Steve Burkhalter toured the City showing streets in different levels of disrepair and some newer streets.  This gave opportunity to put a visual quality to the OCI numbers.  Different streets showed different issues such as tree root incursion or water infiltration issues. 

B.                 CIP, Street Fund Long Range Plan and TSP Excerpts – Discussion

In regards to the CIP, how do we plan for the future and for long rang street funding.  A project list has been distributed showing costs and street repair priorities that are shown in the Transportation System Plan.  The plan is in need of a full update from the Planning Department.  The list is used to apply for grant funding and to set priorities for local government agencies to compete for funds.  The list will be updated independently from the entire document. 

The group would like to see what he cost of the routine maintenance is and what the anticipated expenditure would be if the streets were kept at an OCI of 78. 

C.                Discuss the OCI Targets

Silbiger had a hard time telling the difference between an OCI of 75 and 78.  The difference was much more obvious between 70 and 50.  All agreed.  It is hard to determine from what a road looks like what the entire condition may be.  There are many observations made to determine the streets condition.  Some may not be visually evident to the eye.   The difference between what we can deal with and maintain and when they will fail is a fine line.  The economic difference to fix a street before it reaches failure is what we are trying to pinpoint.  What level is the ideal in terms of long term maintenance to be lowest reasonable cost.  Is OCI 78 the number we want to be at?  Laws said that to commit to a fixed amount of streets to be repaired could defer many more streets and in the long run there will need to be a projection for the long term.  Brown said this is very mathematically hard to do to capture that number.  If you pick a set number like 70 this may not be a good place because so many more streets need more attention to attain this number.  Brown said to estimate when a street will fall below 70 is nearly impossible with all the conditions that could affect the street.  The graph showed by Burkhalter did reflect a definite time when a street will go from needing upkeep maintenance to needing more intense repairs.  Between 75 and 80 they are in good upkeep without requiring any severe repair.  With these streets it is a repair here and there.  Hammond commented that all streets may not warrant equal treatment.  She suggested the committee consider setting a classification percentage for the street OCI.  The boulevards could be kept at OCI 80 while a residential street could be lower.  It is more cost effective for the main streets to be above OCI 80.  It may be more cost effective to be above 80 on the boulevards.  Massie agreed with this theory.  We may want to consider having two levels or three levels.  On roads where bikelanes exist there should be a higher level also.  Brown agreed to pay attention to the roads with bikepaths, arterials and neighborhood collectors that carry more than 5000 vehicles per day.  Laws felt that it should be made that a certain percentage of streets never falls below a given OCI.  Mallicoat commented that the slurry seal is a cheap remedy, is there a better way to focus on where we apply the slurry seal.  Massie would like to keep the process as straight forward as possible.  Making this too complicated of a system will make it difficult to explain to the public and the council limiting the support.  The understandability needs to be thought out and maybe a five year look back clause could be instilled.  Laws agreed that public input needs to be considered.  After a project is complete, the amount of interest drops.  If streets are obviously failing it becomes a hot ticket issue.

Brown asked for the group to decide on the number of levels they would consider.  Marsh suggested three levels; Boulevard, neighborhood collector and neighborhood streets.  Brown then asked what the OCI level should be identified with each classification.  Gregorio asked if there was a high degree of confidence an identified OCI where the maintenance of a street is no longer practical.  Brown reviewed the handout from Burkhalter from the previous meeting and felt that above 50 is still maintainable and anything below would require more than a two inch overlay, above 60most likely will require a two inch overlay and above 70 can be maintained with slurry seal, crack sealing other maintenance. 

The breakdown seemed to follow the

OCI 50 = Most expensive per square foot to repair

OCI 70 = Expensive to maintain per square foot

OCI 80 = Least expensive per square foot

Gregorio asked about the difference of quality and expense for a contractor to perform a repair than for the Street Department.  There are state statutes that limit the amount of work a municipality can do.  These rules are in effect to protect the private industry.  Brown commented that the in-house work is done very well.  The department has a better feel and pride in maintaining their own work.  She is proud of the work that the department does.  Tuneberg commented that the in-house work is always considered before a project is put out to bid.  The scheduling and time for the crews to work on a large repair project does take away from time doing maintenance.  This has to be considered into the cost as well as the time and equipment used as it would be for a contractor. 

Marsh would feel better to have an average bottom line.  Have an average of 68 -70 with a bottom line of 50 to maintain at least that level.  If there are three levels than what is the best way to utilize the OCI. 

The group reviewed the current funding.  Given the current funding, what would staff suggest for how to break down the maintenance schedule if they had a 25-40% increase in funds.  Then where would we be in five years time if we had this increase.  It would be nice to have those choices and there was additional funding.  Can we take each of the three sections showing average and give a relative number of dead streets and show where the costs are?  Gregorio asked if it could be shown with a median range instead of an average to get a bottom target?  Brown will come back with numbers for the existing categories.  This can show why we are struggling and then look at our costs. 

The group commented that most of the failed streets shown on the OCI map were on smaller streets and not on major collectors or arterials showing that the main travel patterns are still in decent shape.  The map would helpful if it included the most used travel plans overlaid on the OCI map.  This will give focus to where the OCI needs to be maintained and if there is a risk of falling below OCI 50 then it would be more readily seen.  

There has been no discussion on the effect of the funds for sidewalk improvements and bikepath maintenance.  One of the observations made on the field trip was the amount of damage caused by street trees uplifting sidewalk, asphalt and other areas.  How do we educate residents that this is their responsibility.  There should be stronger rules or an ordinance to clean up.  Marsh did remind the group this is a holistic fund with many different transportation needs.  We haven’t discussed the bus subsidy either.  

For Next Meeting:

Read the excerpts from the TSP included in the packet.

Staff will bring the costs of the three categories and how to improve them.

Look at to get a feel on how to get to new and continue maintenance.

Discuss Local Improvement Districts and what residents should contribute.

D.                Adjourn:  5:30 PM