HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 04 Street System Condition Update AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 1/25/2016
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Anette Spickard, DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-3697
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and
Facilities ITEM TITLE: STREET SYSTEM CONDITION UPDATE
ACTION REQUESTED: Provide staff direction on preferred strategy for street system preservation and maintenance investments.
ISSUE STATEMENT: Staff will present the 2015 pavement condition rating survey results and will review options for addressing the backlog of street system preservation and repair projects.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memorandum
2. Street Condition Survey Results 3. High Priority Street Preservation and Repair Projects
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT:
At Council’s goal setting session on April 13, 2015 Council identified the development of financing strategies for the street system’s preservation and
maintenance needs as a priority project.
Staff will review the current revenue sources and spending priorities of the Street Fund and the Street Capital Funds. Springfield relies primarily on gas tax revenues
and Right-of-Way fees for street system operations which have not kept pace with the demand for services resulting in a drawdown of reserves and elimination of
maintenance positions to keep the budget balanced.
While the City no longer has a pavement preservation program the City has been
successful in leveraging federal and state dollars to maintain our most critical
arterial and collector streets. Even with these investments 42% of arterials and more than 50% of the collectors and local streets are now rated in poor condition. The
estimated cost of the repair backlog is $30 million.
The City can address the repair backlog in a number of ways through the issuance
of General Obligation Bonds and/or seeking voter approval for a fuel tax increase. Staff seeks Council’s input on your preferred strategy so that staff can prepare and implement the strategy as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 1/21/2016
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Anette Spickard, DPW Director
Brian Conlon, Operations Division Manager
BRIEFING
Subject: Street System Condition Update MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: Staff will present the 2015 pavement condition rating survey results and will review options for addressing the backlog of street system preservation and repair projects.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
BACKGROUND:
One of the City’s fundamental responsibilities is to maintain our infrastructure systems, such as the street system, to provide quality neighborhoods, safe and efficient modes of travel, and to
support commerce. A key element of the street system is the quality of the roadway itself. Staff
conducts a pavement condition survey every other year as part of our asset management program. The 2015 condition survey results are summarized in Attachment 2. More than half of
the City’s streets are now in poor condition and the need for an investment in street repair and
preservation projects is reaching a critical point.
Previous efforts to address street preservation funding
As you can see from Attachment 2 our street conditions continue to deteriorate and our street repair backlog continues to grow as a result of not having an active pavement preservation and
repair program for the last eight years. The program had been funded by $1 million in annual
federal pass through dollars from the county road fund to the City. Those funds ended in 2007 and the pavement preservation program ended as well.
The Mayor appointed a Street Preservation Task Force in 2008 to make recommendations to Council for preservation funding. The Task Force recommended a Street Preservation Fee which was not implemented. In 2009 the Council referred a two cent increase in the gas tax to
the voters which did not pass. In 2013 the Council considered a Transportation Utility Fee but chose not implement. In 2014 the Council supported the County’s effort to pass a Vehicle
Registration Fee but that too did not pass.
Current Street Operations and Capital Fund priorities
The City’s recent philosophy has been to “keep our good streets good”. In other words focus on
keeping the situation from escalating into an insurmountable problem. The City has been successful in leveraging federal and state dollars to fund preservation of our most important
arterials and collectors, for example Gateway Boulevard, to avoid costly future reconstruction
and major traffic disruption. The primary source of funds has been STP-U which is the most flexible federal transportation dollars available to local communities.
The City has also used one-time savings to do small slurry seal projects over the last two years.
Other street repairs have occurred when sewer and stormwater projects damaged the streets and we can justify using sewer or stormwater funds to pay for the repairs.
The City receives approximately $5 million of gas tax revenues each year which are used for:
emergency road and bridge repairs; electricity to run the street lights and signal system; traffic
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM 1/20/2016 Page 2
signal maintenance and operation; pavement markings and signage; design and traffic flow engineering; future system planning and regional partner coordination; bicycle/pedestrian safety
projects; development review; traffic control for community events; sanding and winter storm
cleanup; street tree and landscape maintenance; pothole repairs; surveying; mandatory 8-1-1 utility locates; right-of-way permitting; sidewalk repairs; liability and property insurance; and a
portion of street sweeping. Any savings at year end are split between a transfer to the capital
program for slurry seal projects and the reserve.
The City has prioritized these services through the Priority Based Budgeting program with all
but one (street trees) ranked at priority 1 and 2. The Department continues to evaluate
efficiencies in operations and has left positions vacant over time to generate savings.
Strategies for consideration
Given that the backlog continues to grow; that current street fund resources are not enough to invest in a preservation program; and that it is far more cost effective for the city to invest in
preservation activities than reconstruction, staff recommends consideration of these options.
In 2015 the City retired one of its general obligation bonds and the city’s bond rate dropped 24 cents from approximately 73 cents per 1,000 to approximately 49 cents per 1,000. The current
bond rate is to finish repayment of the Justice Center bonds.
Option 1 – Status Quo. Staff will continue to pursue federal and state funds for the key
corridors only. The next time Springfield is eligible to apply for STP-U funding is 2019. Staff will continue to repair streets damaged by City stormwater and sewer projects. Overall
conditions will continue to deteriorate.
Pros – no impact to taxpayers
Cons – does not resolve the problem and creates higher future costs to city, to residents and to
businesses. STP-U funds cannot be spent on local streets.
Option 2 – Eliminate the repair backlog over twenty years. Prepare a general obligation
bond package for Council consideration in 2016. A new $30 Million bond repaid over twenty
years would add approximately 50 cents per 1,000 to the existing rate.
Pros – Ask voters one time to invest in their community. Resources are available to proceed
with backlog elimination. Creates private sector construction jobs over many years with corresponding secondary impacts to local economy. Allows City to use STP-U funds for economic development projects instead of street repairs.
Cons – Does not consider other capital construction needs the City may wish to pursue such as a Library. Increases tax rate.
Option 3 a – Eliminate a portion of the repair backlog over ten years. Prepare a smaller general obligation bond package for Council consideration in 2016. An $8 Million bond repaid
over ten years would equate to a bond rate of approximately 23 cents per 1,000.
Option 3 b – Eliminate a portion of the repair backlog over twenty years. Prepare a smaller general obligation bond package for Council consideration in 2016. A $15 Million bond repaid
over twenty years would equate to a bond rate of approximately 21 cents per 1,000.
Pros – Provides resources to address highest priority critical projects to avoid higher future costs. Creates private sector construction jobs with corresponding secondary impacts to local
economy over many years. If Council choses 3a, Council could return to voters for another
bond in ten years to complete remaining projects with a demonstrated track record of street repairs and the ability to keep taxes down. Allows City to use STP-U funds for economic
development projects instead of street repairs. Tax rate returns to just below 2015 level.
Cons – Does not address the full backlog and does not consider other capital construction needs the City may wish to pursue.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 3
MEMORANDUM 1/20/2016 Page 3
Option 4 – Prepare a general obligation bond package that addresses all street preservation
projects plus other high priority capital construction projects identified in the Capital
Improvement Program that are unfunded such as a new Library and/or seismic retrofits to City buildings. Potentially a $50 - $100 Million bond request.
Pros – Addresses many if not all of the City’s capital needs with one vote.
Cons – Increases taxes depending on size of bond measure.
Option 5 – Ask Springfield voters to approve an increase in the local fuel tax. Springfield’s
current tax rate is 3 cents per gallon and over the last three years has generated an average of $1.1 Million per year that is used to support current operations as described above. Each
additional penny of tax is estimated to raise $370,000.
Pros – fuel taxes provide a steady revenue stream and provide an efficient method for collection. The tax is directly related to the use of the roads. The state collects the tax and there is no new
administrative cost if the tax is increased.
Cons – Consumers may be concerned about a tax increase and the impact to their pocketbook. However the full tax is unlikely to be passed through at the pump to consumers. The gas price
market is volatile as we have seen with the recent pricing. On average about 39 percent of an increase in fuel tax is implemented at the pump and an additional 16 percent of the gas tax
increase is passed through over the next 30 days.1 Market dynamics are the major drivers of
gasoline prices, not fuel taxes alone. The four factors that drive the retail price Americans pay at the gas pump, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), are: (1) the price of crude oil; (2) refining costs and profit margins; (3) retail and distribution costs and profit
margins; and (4) taxes.2 This is further supported by the Association for Convenience and
Petroleum Retailing which says factors that contribute to different retail gasoline prices within a given geographic area include distribution costs, regulatory mandated fuel blend requirements,
business costs, market conditions, the brand of fuel, taxes and the pricing strategy of the
individual retail outlet.3
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council discussion of all options or variations thereof and provide direction on what to bring back to Council for further action if any.
1 How a Gas Tax Increase Affects the Retail Pump Price An Economic Analysis of 2013-14 Market Impacts in
5 States, Dr. Alison Premo Black
2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, What Drives U.S. Gasoline Prices?, October 2014.
3 NACS Gas Price Kit
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 3
POOR
51%
FAIR
29%
GOOD
20%
Street Condition Survey
All Streets 2015
POOR
42%
FAIR
34%
GOOD
24%
Street Condition Survey
2015
Minor Arterial/Arterial
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 2
POOR
57% FAIR
15%
GOOD
28%
Street Condition Survey
2015
Collector Streets
POOR
54% FAIR
28%
GOOD
18%
Street Condition Survey
2015
Local Streets
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 2
St
r
e
e
t
N
a
m
e
Fr
o
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
a
m
e
To
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
a
m
e
S
q
.
Y
a
r
d
s
Ac
t
i
o
n
t
o
T
a
k
e
Possible Cost
MA
R
C
O
L
A
R
D
19
T
H
S
T
CI
T
Y
L
I
M
I
T
S
A
T
B
R
I
D
G
E
4
9
8
2
8
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$1,245,000
TH
U
R
S
T
O
N
R
D
58
T
H
S
T
69
T
H
S
T
26
1
5
2
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$1,200,000
CE
N
T
E
N
N
I
A
L
B
L
V
D
PI
O
N
E
E
R
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
W
E
S
T
M
O
H
A
W
K
B
L
V
D
26
6
1
1
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$1,000,000
MO
H
A
W
K
B
L
V
D
G
S
T
18
T
H
S
T
33
5
9
4
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$895,000
28
T
H
S
T
MA
I
N
S
T
MA
R
C
O
L
A
R
D
29
2
0
0
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$782,000
JA
S
P
E
R
R
D
S
3
2
N
D
S
T
S
4
2
N
D
S
T
24
4
6
5
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$606,000
HI
G
H
B
A
N
K
S
R
D
52
N
D
S
T
58
T
H
S
T
17
4
0
2
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$473,000
14
T
H
S
T
MA
I
N
S
T
G
S
T
12
3
7
4
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$307,000
S
3
2
N
D
S
T
BO
O
T
H
K
E
L
L
Y
R
D
JA
S
P
E
R
R
D
67
9
8
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$169,000
42
N
D
S
T
EU
G
E
N
E
-
S
P
R
I
N
G
F
I
E
L
D
H
W
Y
M
A
R
C
O
L
A
R
D
66
5
6
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$165,000
S
4
2
N
D
S
T
MT
V
E
R
N
O
N
R
D
JA
S
P
E
R
R
D
51
8
4
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$129,000
58
T
H
S
T
TH
U
R
S
T
O
N
R
D
HI
G
H
B
A
N
K
S
R
D
39
0
9
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$97,000
HI
G
H
P
R
I
O
R
I
T
Y
M
I
N
O
R
A
R
T
E
R
I
A
L
$
7
,
0
6
8
,
0
0
0
05
T
H
S
T
CE
N
T
E
N
N
I
A
L
B
L
V
D
HA
Y
D
E
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
P
L
22
5
2
3
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$557,455
42
N
D
S
T
MA
I
N
S
T
IN
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
A
V
E
21
4
1
4
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$591,812
52
N
D
S
T
EU
G
E
N
E
-
S
P
R
I
N
G
F
I
E
L
D
H
W
Y
H
I
G
H
B
A
N
K
S
R
D
17
9
7
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$44,468
CE
N
T
E
N
N
I
A
L
B
L
V
D
I-
5
PI
O
N
E
E
R
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
W
E
S
T
3
3
1
1
6
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$819,621
CE
N
T
E
N
N
I
A
L
B
L
V
D
MO
H
A
W
K
B
L
V
D
28
T
H
S
T
17
3
3
6
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$429,077
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
A
V
E
41
S
T
S
T
42
N
D
S
T
43
6
5
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$108,034
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
S
T
IN
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
W
A
Y
I-
5
37
8
0
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$93,555
OL
Y
M
P
I
C
S
T
MO
H
A
W
K
B
L
V
D
28
T
H
S
T
22
2
5
2
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$550,737
OL
Y
M
P
I
C
S
T
28
T
H
S
T
42
N
D
S
T
23
3
6
5
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$578,284
PI
O
N
E
E
R
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
E
A
S
T
Q
S
T
HA
Y
D
E
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
W
A
Y
13
2
6
5
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$328,309
PI
O
N
E
E
R
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
W
E
S
T
W
Q
S
T
HA
Y
D
E
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
W
A
Y
10
8
3
3
T
H
I
N
L
I
F
T
O
V
E
R
L
A
Y
$268,114 $4,369,465
TO
T
A
L
MI
N
O
R
/
A
R
T
E
R
I
A
L
BACKLOG $11,437,465
HI
G
H
P
R
I
O
R
I
T
Y
-
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
p
r
i
n
g
f
i
e
l
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
IN
F
O
R
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
y
s
t
e
m
St
r
e
e
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
-
B
A
C
K
L
O
G
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3,
Pa
g
e
1
of
3
Street Name From Street Name To Street Name Sq. Yards Action to Take Possible Cost
Q ST 05TH ST 19TH ST 29643 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $750,676
E ST 14TH ST 28TH ST 19796 OVERLAY $554,119
A ST 05TH ST 10TH ST 8947 RECONSTRUCT $500,000
LAURA ST W Q ST SCOTTS GLEN DR 8979 OVERLAY $500,000
MILL ST MAIN ST W CENTENNIAL BLVD 17227 OVERLAY $494,477
G ST 10TH ST 21ST ST 18300 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $452,914
Q ST LAURA ST 05TH ST 13694 OVERLAY $411,550
E ST 05TH ST 14TH ST 15804 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $391,144
FAIRVIEW DR MILL ST FAIRHAVEN ST 12868 OVERLAY $352,334
58TH ST MAIN ST THURSTON RD 12678 OVERLAY $348,691
18TH ST OLYMPIC ST MOHAWK BLVD 7348 OVERLAY $300,000
21ST ST MAIN ST D ST 4836 OVERLAY $300,000
36TH ST MAIN ST COMMERCIAL AVE 9331 OVERLAY $286,372
66TH ST MAIN ST THURSTON RD 10748 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $274,403
MILL ST W CENTENNIAL BLVD FAIRVIEW DR 4568 OVERLAY $250,000
E ST MILL ST 05TH ST 7051 OVERLAY $208,122
G ST 21ST ST 28TH ST 6720 OVERLAY $206,237
G ST 05TH ST 10TH ST 6857 OVERLAY $202,622
21ST ST J ST OLYMPIC ST 7311 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $187,719
52ND ST G ST EUGENE‐SPRINGFIELD HWY 3542 OVERLAY $108,711
HIGH PRIORITY BACKLOG $7,080,089
DAISY ST S 48TH ST BOB STRAUB PARKWAY 18805 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $480,332
10TH ST S A ST CENTENNIAL BLVD 17097 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $431,036
07TH ST S A ST CENTENNIAL BLVD 15790 OVERLAY $423,015
W D ST MILL ST ASPEN ST 14612 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $371,109
05TH ST MAIN ST CENTENNIAL BLVD 14667 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $363,000
RAINBOW DR W D ST W CENTENNIAL BLVD 11760 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $291,060
S 67TH ST MAIN ST IVY ST 10902 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $279,833
OAKDALE AVE PHEASANT BLVD GATEWAY ST 10528 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $260,579
MT VERNON RD S 57TH PL S 59TH ST 9523 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $235,703
S 58TH ST MAIN ST DAISY ST 9411 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $232,925
DAISY ST S 42ND ST S 46TH ST 8726 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $215,974
21ST ST D ST J ST 7580 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $187,616
S 02ND ST S A ST S E ST 7556 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $187,003
31ST ST MARCOLA RD V ST 7476 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $185,031
E 22ND AVE GLENWOOD BLVD HENDERSON AVE 4545 OVERLAY $139,471
S 05TH ST MAIN ST S A ST 885 RECONSTRUCT $138,255
F ST 52ND ST 54TH ST 4733 OVERLAY $138,158
ASPEN ST OKSANNA ST KELLOGG RD 1757 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $43,489
S 05TH ST S A ST S B ST 1696 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $41,976
S 57TH ST GLACIER DR RIDGE CT 1695 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $41,949
GAME FARM RD GATEWAY ST WEST I5 1320 OVERLAY $40,511
DAISY ST BOB STRAUB PARKWAY S 58TH ST 1409 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $34,881
S MILL ST MAIN ST S A ST 748 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $18,519
HENDERSON AVE E 21ST AVE E 22ND AVE 630 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $15,593
$4,797,014
TOTAL COLLECTOR BACKLOG $11,877,103
HIGH PRIORITY-Asphalt streets
City of Springfield Development and Public Works Department
INFOR Infrastructure Management System
Street Survey Collector Streets-BACKLOG
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 3
Street Name From Street Name To Street Name Sq. Yards SCI Value Possible Cost
Ward 1
NORTH CLOVERLEAF LP NORTH CLOVERLEAF LP OAKDALE AVE 2822 18.71 $10,667
BEVERLY ST HARLOW RD BEVERLY ST 1414 16.63 $5,346
BEVERLY ST DARLENE AVE HARLOW RD 1569 29.70 $5,932
V ST 02ND ST 05TH ST 2424 29.70 $9,162
SHADYLANE DR T ST U ST 1753 29.70 $6,628
SHADYLANE DR V ST WOODLANE DR 1027 29.70 $3,881
U ST SHADYLANE DR U ST 2510 29.22 $9,489
GROVEDALE DR WOODLANE DR GROVEDALE DR 395 19.60 $1,492
WOODLANE DR SHADYLANE DR GROVEDALE DR 3022 22.90 $11,424
SHADYLANE DR WOODLANE DR GREENVALE DR 726 26.40 $2,744
$66,764
Ward 2RIVERVIEW BLVD CITY VIEW BLVD LEVEL LN 1132 16.83 $4,281
RIVERVIEW BLVD W D ST CITY VIEW BLVD 688 19.60 $2,599
RIVERVIEW BLVD SUMMIT BLVD RIVERVIEW BLVD 626 23.00 $2,365
SUMMIT BLVD SUNSET DR CREST LN 806 23.33 $3,046
LEVEL LN RIVERVIEW BLVD CITY VIEW BLVD 1733 26.63 $6,552
CITY VIEW BLVD LEVEL LN CREST LN 405 29.55 $1,532
SUNSET DR SUMMIT BLVD WALLACE LN 3965 29.70 $14,987
RIVERVIEW BLVD LEVEL LN SUMMIT BLVD 762 29.93 $2,881
SUMMIT BLVD RIVERVIEW BLVD SUNSET DR 482 26.63 $1,823
$40,066
Ward 3
OLYMPIC ST 12TH ST MARKET ST 3880 29.60 $14,666
PLEASANT ST 12TH ST MARKET ST 3680 29.60 $13,910
M ST 10TH ST 11TH ST 1232 26.30 $4,657
M ST 13TH ST MARKET ST 2605 29.60 $9,848
M ST 11TH ST 12TH ST 1283 26.63 $4,848
L ST 12TH ST 13TH ST 1587 26.63 $5,998
$53,928
Ward 4
CHEROKEE DR S 38TH ST HAZELNUT LN 825 26.30 $3,118
S 37TH ST CHEROKEE DR DOUGLAS DR 889 25.54 $3,362
S 37TH ST S REDWOOD DR JASPER RD 3201 26.30 $12,100
CHEROKEE DR S 37TH ST S 38TH ST 2754 26.63 $10,410
A ST 22ND ST 23RD ST 1381 26.40 $5,221
23RD ST MAIN ST A ST 1159 29.70 $4,382
24TH ST A ST D ST 3505 29.70 $13,250
$51,844
Ward 5
S 44TH ST ASTER ST S 43RD PL 880 19.80 $3,326
S 44TH ST S 43RD PL CAMELLIA ST 1070 26.40 $4,045
S 44TH ST CAMELLIA ST DAISY ST 867 26.40 $3,276
S 43RD PL S 44TH ST DAISY ST 2817 16.50 $10,647
S 50TH PL MAIN ST BLUEBELLE WAY 2591 25.91 $9,793
FORSYTHIA DR S 51ST PL S 53RD ST 2833 29.70 $10,710
$41,797
Ward 6
G ST 58TH ST 60TH ST 3967 26.40 $14,994
E ST 58TH ST 60TH ST 3464 26.96 $13,093
GLACIER DR S 68TH ST S 69TH ST 2677 29.93 $10,120
GLACIER DR GLACIER DR S 70TH ST 1867 28.61 $7,056
S 71ST ST BLUEBELLE WAY S E ST 1847 23.00 $6,980
S 71ST ST ASTER ST BLUEBELLE WAY 1520 29.93 $5,746
$57,989
HIGH PRIORITY‐Crack Seal and Slurry Seal projects by Ward
City of Springfield Development and Public Works Department
INFOR Infrastructure Management System
Street Survey Local Streets-BACKLOG
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 3