Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 04 01 PC Memo Street System Communication Plan Update 2014COMMUNICATION MEMORANDUM Meeting Date: 3/19/2014 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Brian Conlon/DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-1674 Estimated Time: Communication Packet S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Council Goals: Provide Financially Responsible and Innovative Government Services ITEM TITLE: Street System Communication Plan-Update ACTION REQUESTED: This is for informational purposes only. ISSUE STATEMENT: The City’s street system condition decline continues to steepen considerably year to year without adequate funding to operate and preserve the many working parts of the system. Staff has been working on the Street System Communication Plan since 2012 as a step in providing a conduit for speaking with the public about finding a solution to optimally preserve and maintain this vital infrastructure. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Street System Communication Plan Update CBM-WS 10-28-2013 2. Street Conditions Report-2010 3. Street System Communication Plan 4. Street Funding Survey Results 5. Street Video Handout 6. Presentation Questions DISCUSSION: Dating back to 2008 City staff and the Council have struggled with the problem that the City’s Street Operating Fund is not generating sufficient revenue to support desired levels of street system operations and preservation. Staff now estimates a $3.5M to $4.5M annual unfunded need to effectively satisfy the City’s transportation system operations and preservation objectives. The Council and City staff have consistently kept this important issue forefront for many years and although the focus of street program information dating back to the 2003 local gas tax implementation consistently pointed to the cost benefit of preserving the working parts of the City’s street system versus the higher cost of rehabilitation, the concept of proactive street preservation was not well understood by the public. Recognizing this communication disconnect, the Council directed staff to develop a Street System Communication Plan to deliver a three tiered message; the street system is a valuable asset for the entire community, actively preserving the system is more cost effective than rehabilitating at a later date, and revenues are no longer keeping pace with preservation needs. The plan outlines a strategy to present consistent and simple messaging and encourage an open dialogue with community members. Staff worked with a local videographer to develop a short-informative video that focuses on the many facets that comprise a multi-mode street system, and the importance of a well-maintained street system. Over the last year, a team of Development and Public Works staff has presented the Street System Communication Plan initiatives with the video to several civic organizations and business groups including the HAWKS, Springfield City Club, Springfield Rotary, Twin Rivers Rotary, the McKenzie Business Association, the Kiwanis of Springfield and the Economic Development Committee of Springfield. At the suggestion of the Council to reach out to a broader audience, staff also presented this information at various community forums. On the whole the community presentations were effective toward stimulating conversation with citizens on how important it is to preserve the City’s street system in fair or better condition. We found that audiences were very perceptive in seeing the benefits of doing timely preservation verses delaying preservation treatments which result in more costly rehabilitation at a later date. The majority of the suggestions revolved around two potential revenue generating approaches: debt financing, such as voter approved general obligation bond, a revenue bond, or municipal loan tactic; or a “pay as you go” method, such as increasing local fuel tax or establishing/implementing a street system user fee, whereas the strategy is to balance the revenue generation to the need. The “pay as you go” options include increasing the local fuel tax and /or the implementation of a utility user fee, similar to the stormwater and wastewater user fees. The debt financing options include the prospect of General Obligation or Revenue bonding, and municipal loans. Council has directed staff as the next step to research these options and investigate how other cities are providing funding solutions for street system preservation and operations. Staff is scheduled to present to the Council May 27, 2014 on this item. Attachment 1 Page 1 of 4 1 M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield Date: October 28, 2013 COUNCIL BRIEFING MEMORANDUM To: Gino Grimaldi, City Manager From: Brian Conlon, Operations Division Manager Rhonda Rice, Senior Management Analyst Subject: Street System Communication Plan Update ISSUE: For several years City staff and the Council have struggled with the problem that the City’s Street Operating Fund is not generating sufficient revenue to support desired levels of street system operations and preservation. Staff now estimates a $3.5M to $4.5M annual unfunded need to effectively satisfy the City’s transportation system operations and preservation objectives. At the May 13, 2013 Council Work Session, the Council recommended that staff continue doing public outreach to educate citizens to the important role that the street system plays in their daily lives. The Council also directed staff to bring this issue back in the Fall to provide a public feedback update and discuss revenue options. COUNCIL GOALS/ MANDATE: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities BACKGROUND: The condition of the City’s street system has declined from 2007 SCI rating of 77% to a 2013 SCI of 50%. What does this mean? Over this six year period the condition of the City’s street system, once rated at fair-good, has fallen to a rating of fair-poor. The street system condition decline continues to steepen considerably year to year, and without adequate funding we are resigned to operating and preserving it at less than optimal levels. In essence, the consequence of deferring preservation will affect furthering the downward spiral and huge rehabilitation costs in the near term can be expected. The Council and City staff have consistently kept this important issue forefront for many years and although the focus of street program information dating back to the 2003 local gas tax implementation consistently pointed to the cost benefit of preserving streets versus the higher cost of rehabilitation, the concept of proactive street preservation was not well understood by the public. Information gathered from the 2009 and 2011 public surveys indicated that there was a general lack of understanding of the difference between the perceived state of the City’s street system and the structural deficiencies that were cropping up and adding to the preservation burden. Recognizing that our communication was not connecting with some Springfield citizens, the City Council and staff saw the need to reshape our communication approach. Staff developed a Street System Communication Plan to deliver a three tiered message; the street system is a valuable asset for the entire community, actively preserving the system is more cost effective than rehabilitating at a later date, and revenues are no longer keeping pace with preservation needs. The plan outlines a strategy to present consistent and Attachment 1, Page 1 of 4 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 4 simple messaging and encourage an open dialogue with community members. DISCUSSION: Staff worked with a local videographer to develop a short-informative video that focuses on the many facets that comprise a multi-mode street system, and the importance of a well-maintained street system. Over the last year, a team of Development and Public Works staff has presented the Street System Communication Plan initiatives with the video to several civic organizations and business groups including the HAWKS, Springfield City Club, Springfield Rotary, Twin Rivers Rotary, the McKenzie Business Association, the Kiwanis of Springfield and the Economic Development Committee of Springfield. At the suggestion of the Council to reach out to a broader audience, staff also set up City information booths to present the communication plan at the National Night Out event in July and six (6) neighborhood parks in August, for which the Mayor and Council participated Additionally, the video has been displayed at the Springfield Mall kiosk and on the government channel 29. Street System Communication Plan Outcomes On the whole the community presentations were effective toward stimulating conversation with citizens on how important it is to preserve the City’s street system in fair or better condition. We found that audiences were very perceptive in seeing the benefits of doing timely preservation verses delaying preservation treatments which result in more costly rehabilitation at a later date. Another notable theme is that many folks identified that Springfield had a long history of maintaining its streets to a high standard, but have seen a dramatic decline in recent years. A common sentiment amongst audiences is that all users are responsible for paying their fair share for the system. While the presentations and accompanying street system did not intentionally center on potential funding mechanisms, the conversations with folks often took on a problem solving direction. Staff received a surprising amount of feedback from people offering ideas and suggestions as how to raise the additional revenue needed to re-establish proactive operations and preservation programs. The majority of the suggestions revolved around two potential revenue generating approaches: debt financing, such as voter approved general obligation bond, a revenue bond, or municipal loan tactic; or a “pay as you go” method, such as increasing local fuel tax or establishing/implementing a street system user fee, whereas the strategy is to balance the revenue generation to the need. A few other unconventional ideas mentioned included charging a large vehicle fee to Lane Transit District and the commercial trucking industry, and dedicate that revenue to maintain arterial and collector streets (see Attachment 2). Street System Revenue Options Assessment Observing and researching potential street system funding sources has been a primary focus for staff since 2007. At the May work session the Council began high level discussions of potential revenue generating options to address the unfunded $22M backlog of streets needing preservation and rehabilitation, and resolving operational shortfalls (see Attachment 3). Springfield is not alone in dealing with street system funding; funding that has been primarily reliant on State and Local Fuel Tax. Both State and local fuel tax revenues have remained relatively flat, continuing a trend that began in mid-FY08. What have other cities done? According the League of the Oregon Cities there are 22 cities that have implemented a local fuel tax. Also there are 23 cities that established a street utility fee (see Attachment 4). Attachment 1, Page 2 of 4 Attachment 1 Page 3 of 4 Staff provides the following pros and cons of debt financing and pay-as-you-go methods to inform further discussion about potential revenue sources and/or combinations of options. Debt Financing- “when a firm raises money for working capital or capital expenditures by selling bonds, bills, or notes to individual and/or institutional investors. In return for lending the money, the individuals or institutions become creditors and receive a promise that the principal and interest on the debt will be repaid.”i General Obligation Bonds: Pros; voter approved so elected officials are aligned with public opinion, provides immediate capital to fund system preservation and rehabilitation, spreads cost over several years, property owners share debt burden. Cons; debt service on interest reduces capital value, requires voter approval, only property owners share burden and may be intolerant to increasing taxation, Municipal Loan: Pros; simple to arrange, generally easier to obtain, Cons; higher interest rate than bonds, debt service is generally shorter term, requires debt service revenue pledge. Revenue Bond: Pros; long term debt instrument, does not require voter approval, interest usually less expensive than municipal loan, spreads debt over 20 years plus, Cons; requires debt service revenue pledge, public is paying for system upgrades well beyond the lifecycle of the preservation or rehabilitation treatment. Pay-As-You-Go- “the principle or practice of paying for goods and services at the time of purchase, rather than relying on credit.”ii Local Fuel Tax: Pros; equally taxes system users on per gallon basis, fairly predictable fee, adjustable fee. Cons; quantity based fee that has trended flat as users move to more fuel efficient vehicles, or alternate fuel vehicles, petroleum dealers are inclined to lobby to refer local fuel tax increases to voters, difficulty in achieving funding goal. Street Utility Fee: Pros; can size fee to match revenue needs, 2008 Street Preservation Task Force # 1 recommended solution, Council has authority to enact fee, all residents and businesses pay fee, ratio of revenue used on system is only offset by collection costs, can size to build reserves, public familiarity with utility fee concept. Cons; public can refer to vote, collection of fee may be problematic, public intolerance to user fee. Next Steps The Streets System Communication Plan has been successful in increasing awareness among citizens about the street system operations and preservation requirements. Moreover, the presentations have been effective in engaging citizens in the problem. Now that some members of the Springfield community are actively engaged in a conversation about the community’s street system it is important to maintain that link. It is also timely to consider an exploration of the ideas that the citizens have suggested to address the funding problem, as well as other opportunities that either Council or staff might consider reasonable solutions. One approach is that Council could proceed by directing staff to poll citizens on how best to fund the problem RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council direct staff to poll the community on how to resolve the street system funding problem and report back in the Spring with community feedback on solutions. i Investopedia,. http://www.investopedia.com Attachment 1, Page 3 of 4 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 4 ii Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com Attachment 1, Page 4 of 4 Street Conditions Report City of Springfield Prepared by: Public Works Department Maintenance Division 201 S. 18th Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 November 2010 Attachment 2, Page 1 of 27 Executive Summary One of the City’s fundamental transportation objectives is to maintain and improve the street system through strategic pavement preservation.For the City of Springfield,this objective is a coordinated effort by the Public Works Department’s Maintenance Division and the Engineering and Transportation Division.The ultimate goal is to achieve an effective preservation program,which,in conjunction with maintenance program activities,maximizes the useful life of the system.The Street Conditions Report provides information about the streets that includes street surface conditions for each street type or classification and its associated mileage,recommended surface treatments,the pavement management method,and preservation programs and funding needs scenarios. The City of Springfield’s street system is an important infrastructure asset comprised of a network of streets with an estimated value of $400 million (2008).The system is measured in linear (center line) and lane miles.Currently,there are 382.86 lane miles of streets within the city limits.The street system is described by pavement type,level of improvement,functional classification,and street category or type. The street inventory data is collected by staff trained in the pavement management method,which relies on a Surface Condition Index (SCI)calculated on the basis of detailed inspections.It is important to have an inventory assessment method that is scientifically based,that standardizes the collection and processing of data,and that can be used to produce credible information on which to base strategic maintenance and preservation plans.The Hansen Pavement Management System (PMS)is used to prioritize and identify street segments,and identify the need for preventive maintenance treatments. The street surface condition inspections are completed every two years. There has been a consistent longterm decline in funding for the street system.In 2004 a three (3)cent Local Fuel Tax was implemented in order to arrest that decline and restore funding specifically for the preservation of the streets.These Local Fuel Tax and Highway Trust Fund revenues consisting of State Fuel Taxes and associated license and registration fees,are the major source for funding street maintenance.These two funding sources have not kept pace with the rising cost of street maintenance, let alone street preservation.In fact,revenues from these sources have been on a generally declining trend,and now the cost of maintenance and preservation has offset the gains from the 2004 Local Fuel Tax. In 2007,the City Council directed that staff develop a program of public outreach to inform citizens of the issues surrounding a perceived need for increased revenues for the Street Fund.This 2008 Street Task Force received information from staff and then reported back to the Council on the need for additional revenue for the Street Operations Fund.The Task Force recommended implementing a funding source,the Street Preservation Fee.The Street Preservation Fee was not implemented.In 2009, a proposed new revenue source,an increase in the Local Fuel Tax by 2 cents,was rejected by the voters. Attachment 2, Page 2 of 27 The lack of consistent funding has led to the nonexistence of a funded pavement preservation program, particularly for the last two fiscal years.The only preservation that has occurred has been funded by external sources,like the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (federal stimulus funds),Federal Surface Transportation Planning grants,and internal sources like Transportation Reimbursement System Development Charges. At the time of the last street system inventory in early 2008,there were approximately 170 linear miles that had been fully improved to City construction standards,which includes an engineered structure, curbs,gutters,sidewalks,street lights,and other standard amenities.Th e 2008 Task Force concluded, using a combination of citizen feedback and the Hansen PMS,that the streets in Springfield were generally in good condition,and it was considered that 77 %met the professional surface condition standard of Fair or Better.At that time,the Task Force concluded that an average of $1.6 million annually was needed to maintain the inventory at a targeted level of 85%Fair or Better condition.But without adequate revenue,the City has not been able to fund preservation activities and a backlog of declining streets has been growing.The standard of 85%Fair or Better,which was established by Council in 2008,has not been achieved and the allowable 15%of poor street conditions has grown to 43.6%,from 50.45 lane miles to 146.68 lane miles. The declining condition of the street surface is continuing at a faster pace.Traffic,weather,and axle weight loads continue to wear on the street surface without timely costeffective remediation or preservation.This results in shortened life spans for streets and the need for costly reconstruction at six to ten times the cost of life extension through preservation.The funding that is available is project specific for new construction or reconstruction to increase capacity.It is not applied to the street system in a holistic manner,which does not enable the pavement preservation program to accomplish its objective,i.e.preserving the pavement in a costeffective manner. Based on the current street system condition assessment and cost estimations,Springfield’s street system preservation and maintenance funding needs are approximately $2.5 million to $3.5 million annually based on engineering estimates.This range reflects,in addition to routine maintenance,at the low end,what is needed to maintain Springfield’s street system in its current condition,and at the high end,what is needed to return the condition of the street system,over time,to the Council’s target of 85%Fair or Better condition.Maintaining the status quo requires approximately $1.3 million annually for preservation and $1.23 million for street maintenance operations. Attachment 2, Page 3 of 27 Introduction to the Street System A street system is an important asset to any city and its citizens.It provides for multiple modes of transportation to move citizens from one area to another,to move customers from out of the area to inside the city,and to enable businesses to meet their needs to move goods and services throughout the area.A street system needs to be preserved if it is to meet those needs.Preservation requires labor, time,and monetary resources.In order to determine how to preserve the system,and how its needs change over times,there must be a periodic analysis and review.This report documents the most recent review and assessment. What is the street system? The City’s street system is identified by three functional classifications:Local streets,Collectors,and Arterials.In addition,the City classifies streets by three types depending on the level of construction design and the extent of amenities (i.e.sidewalks,curbs,and gutters)provided in addition to the travelling surface.These are Improved Streets,Partially Improved Streets,and Unimproved Streets.The distinctions between these classifications and types are discussed in more detail below.Each type inherently requires a different treatment in the preservation and maintenance process,and is on a different preservation cycle.In addition,the choice of surface material (asphalt or concrete)affects both design life and preservation techniques.By design,the surface life cycle of asphalt streets for these three street types is on average 20 years,but through active preservation can be extended to 50 years, whereas concrete streets are designed for a 40plus year surface life cycle. Condition Assessment The street surface conditions for all street types are analyzed by engineering and maintenance staff using data collected in the Hansen Pavement Management System (PMS).The outputs from the surface assessment are used to update the street condition inventory,which acts as a planning tool for preservation project selection,maintenance prioritization,and project construction. Street Surface Treatment Options There are several surface treatment options for each street type and functional class.The recommended preservation or corrective treatments are determined by the Surface Condition Index (SCI),which is the guide used to rate the current surface conditions of the street system.As the street surface deteriorates,the SCI drops and the intensity (and cost)of the street surface treatment increases. The preservation treatments range from crack sealing on local streets to overlays for collectors and arterials.The lowest SCI or worst street surface condition requires a total reconstruction of the street, including the subsurface.Several factors affect the street surface deterioration:ultraviolet rays, weather,axle load,and traffic volumes. The City’s Preservation Program The purpose of the preservation program is to extend the life of the street utilizing an approach designed to minimize life cycle costs and maximize the useful life of the street.Through this process, citizens maintain the value of the public street assets at the least overall cost over time.The guiding Attachment 2, Page 4 of 27 principle for the pavement preservation life cycle is derived from professional engineering and American Public Works Association standards. The Mayoral Street Task Force,created to evaluate the street system and its funding in 2007, recommended in 2008 that the Council set a standard that 85%of the Street System be maintained in Fair or Better condition.That standard was adopted by the Council as a target for preservation planning, budgeting and funding.The current survey demonstrates that that standard is not being met.In order to preserve the street surface condition to meet that standard,staff recommends a preservation cycle for Local Streets of 7 years,and 10 years for Arterials and Collectors.An alternative preservation cycle of 9 years for Local Streets and 12 to 15 years for Arterials and Collectors can have the effect of reducing short term costs,at the risk of increased long term costs because of a higher potential for street surface failure.Given the inherent uncertainty in trying to achieve precision,that slightly longer than optimal cycle might be viewed as a reasonable lower range to assure a good balance between risk and benefit. For example,a Local Street has an optimum preservation cycle of 7 years with the treatment of slurry sealing,or an alternative cycle of 9 years.Another example is an Arterial has the optimum cycle of 10 years for overlays,or an alternative cycle of 12 to 15 years.The precise timing of a treatment is normally based on a variety of factors,such as funding,long term effects of weather conditions,and vehicle impact. If the preservation cycle is followed,and the lower intensity treatments are applied diligently,the need for more intense treatments will be deferred or eliminated.For example,on Local Streets,if the optimum preservation of slurry seal every 7 years is performed,the more intensive treatments,such as Thin Lift Overlays may not be required.In this case,the life of the street could be extended indefinitely. In the case of Collectors and Arterials,the application of overlays on a timely basis,can eliminate the need for overlays within the design life of the street and can,also,extend the life of the street well beyond the design life,which is typically 20 years. Preservation Program Status There has not been an effective pavement preservation program for the street system for approximately three years because of the lack of funding,and no locallyfunded preservation is contemplated in the upcoming budget cycle for fiscal year 2012.Currently,some limited crack sealing and slurry sealing is occurring (as a result of the impacts of recent wastewater system rehabilitation projects on the street system).More significant work happens only when externalresources become available for a specific project,such as funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)for overlay of Pioneer Parkway.Local Streets have become last in line for preservation money primarily because of their functional classification.Federal funding,which is the primary existing resource can only be used on Arterials and Collectors.The lack of preservation activity has resulted in declining condition ratings for all street types and classifications and increasing risk of street surface failure. Attachment 2, Page 5 of 27 87% 13% Improved Streets UnimprovedStreets Improved Unimproved Streets 88% 12% Improved Streets Unimproved Streets Improved UmimprovedStreets Street System Inventory Street Category There are three categories of streets that receive maintenance and preservation activities:Improved Streets,Partially Improved Streets,and Unimproved Streets.The current Council directive is that available funding for preservation and maintenance activities is primarily designated for Improved Streets. An Improved Street Segment is an engineered street segment constructed to the full urban standards appropriate for its classification and location.That typically includes all of the following:paving,curbs, gutters,drainage,sidewalks,street trees,street lights,and traffic control devices.It receives the highest preservation priority. A Partially Improved Street Segment is an engineered street segment along which development has occurred and is missing one or more of the full urban standards improvements appropriate for its classification and location,including street segments constructed as partial width (“2/3”)streets.A 2/3 street is a street segment that has been constructed to full standards on one side by the abutting developer,but has not been constructed on the other side by that abutting property owner.Typically, these streets segments are constructed to a minimum width of 24 feet plus 7 feet for curb,gutter,and sidewalk and get their name from the width of 24 feet being 2/3 of the total width of 36 feet for a fully improved local street. An Unimproved Street Segment is a street segment with gravel or an asphalt mat surface that has little or no engineered structural base and typically lacks any of the full urban standards improvements.It is repaired only when necessary to minimize road hazards.An Unimproved Street normally has a very low maintenance priority that might include minimal sweeping or annual graveling.That priority reflects the Council’s policy that the residents abutting an Unimproved Street are responsible to fund the cost of bringing the street to improved conditions,at which time the City accepts perpetual maintenance responsibility. 2008 Street System2010 Street System Attachment 2, Page 6 of 27 1 mile 1 linear mile =2 lane miles Measurement of the street The inventory measures the street types in two ways,linear miles and lane miles.A linear mile is the distance of a street measured along the center line of the street,while a lane mile is a distance or sum of distances measured along the centerline of each travel lane of a street.This report mainly uses lane miles to emphasize the total surface area. Functional Classification The 2010 inventory,completed during the summer of 2010,consisted of the Improved streets in the street system within the city limits.The City’s street system has 336.34 lane miles that are in the Improved street category and 46.52 street miles that are in the Unimproved streets category,of which 14.77 miles are gravel.For the purpose of this report,lane miles were the common measurement used and were used in the calculations of preservation and maintenance needs. The City uses the functional classification system of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)to classify its streets.That system identifies four classifications local,collector,minor arterial and major arterial.Three of these classifications of Improved streets are maintained within the city limits;Local Streets,Collectors,and MinorArterials.Major arterials are high speed limited access roads,such as I5 or State Highway 126.The City does not have jurisdiction of any major arterials.Each classification of street can be a different width,starting with a Local Street,which can be a twolane paved street with no striping,to an Minor Arterial that includes up to four travel lanes,turn lanes and bike lanes.The quantity and type of vehicles that travel a street are critical factors in the rate of deterioration of the street surface.The weather and axle load are two of the largest factors in the rate of deterioration of street structure. Local Streets are mainly twolane paved surfaces that have little to no striping.They do not have bike lanes.They are located in residential areas of the City and have the lowest daily traffic volumesup to 1,500 vehicles per day.Local streets receive the minimum priority for maintenance and preservation and only when funding levels allow.There are 228.04 lane miles of local streets. Collector Streets are streets that can be found in residential,commercial,and industrial areas and act as feeders from areas of limited traffic to major streets or highways.Th ey normally have daily traffic volumes between 2,500 to 7,500 vehicles.Collectors have three or four lanes and can include bike lanes. Collectors receive a higher priority for maintenance and preservation than Local Streets,however,this activity is still limited by funding availability.There are 50.23 lane miles of Collectors. Attachment 2, Page 7 of 27 0 50 100 150 200 250 Local Collectors Minor Arterials 228.04 50.23 58.07 Total Lane Miles by Functional Classification Minor Arterial Streets are streets that provide direct routes for longdistance travel within different parts of a city,giving direct access to downtown,shopping centers,and other major focal points.They normally have average daily traffic volumes of 20,000 vehicles.They have four or five lanes and can include bike lanes and bus lanes.Minor Arterials receive the highest priority for maintenance and preservation and usually have more external sources of funding.There are 58.07 lane miles of Minor Arterials. Street System by Street Surface Type There are two primary types of street surface compositions:Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)1,which we typically call concrete,and Asphalt Concrete (AC)2,which we typically refer to as asphalt.The engineering definition of concrete is any composite material composed of mineral aggregate glued together with a binder,whether that binder is Portland cement,asphalt or even epoxy.Informally, asphalt concrete is also referred to as "blacktop,"particularly in North America. The Local Street System is largely constructed of Improved Asphalt,93.5%,and to a smaller degree, Partially Improved Asphalt,Improved Concrete,and Partially Improved Concrete.Collectors are largely constructed of Improved Asphalt,92%,and to a smaller percent Partially Improved Asphalt and 1 Portland cement is the most common type of cement in general use around the world because it is a basic ingredient of concrete,mortar,stucco and most non specialty grout.It is a fine powder produced by grinding Portland cement clinker (more than 90%),a limited amount of calcium sulfate (which controls the set time)and up to 5%minor constituents as allowed by various standards. 2 Asphalt concrete is a composite material commonly used in construction projects such as road surfaces,airports and parking lots.It consists of asphalt (used as a binder)and mineral aggregate mixed together,then laid down in layers and compacted. Attachment 2, Page 8 of 27 Improved Concrete.Minor Arterials are constructed of Improved Asphalt,91%,and to a smaller percent Partially Improved Asphalt and Improved Concrete. Improved Street System 2008 Inventory 2010 Inventory 2008 Inventory 2010 Inventory 2008 Inventory 2010 Inventory Attachment 2, Page 9 of 27 Unimproved Street System There are 57.03 linear miles of Unimproved Local,Collector,and Arterials Streets inventoried outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary (UGB)3.The ownership breakdown for these miles is:City owned 7.58,County owned 34.02,privately owned 7.80,State owned 6.76,and unidentified 0.87.The City presently has no maintenance responsibility for any of the non City owned streets,but as annexations occur,there is pressure to assume jurisdiction (and maintenance responsibility)for some of these streets because,like the City,the County,and State are experiencing funding gaps for maintenance and preservation4. Pavement Management System (PMS) The goal of a pavement management system is to reduce the need to reconstruct streets by facilitating timely preventive maintenance and preservation activities that protect the street surfaces.Since 1992, the Hansen Infrastructure Management System has been used to document the City’s street system data.In 2006,the City added the Hansen Pavement Management System (PMS)module to improve the effectiveness of pavement management efforts.The Hansen PMS incorporates a scientific method into the street preservation decision management process.The data management and analyses enabled by the Hansen PMS plays a crucial role in the City’s efforts to prioritize preservation projects and to compete for Federal and State funding.On the Federal side,it is required that submitting agencies certify their data through accredited pavement management methods.Hansen PMS meets this criteria. The PMS combines automated inventory and condition information with staff analysis of the data to determine recommended street maintenance and preservation activities.The data is used to help predict which streets are in need of various levels of surface maintenance.The PMS enables creation of street conditions reports and prioritized schedules for street surface maintenance activities on a regular basis.The Hansen PMS is an important tool in identifying and prioritizing street segments in need of preventive treatments such as crack and slurry sealing and asphalt overlays.It also supports forecasting 3 Most of these segments are located in Glenwood 4 Certain roads within County jurisdiction,called local access roads,transfer automatically to the City upon annexation.These roads are generally small and uniformly unimproved. Attachment 2, Page 10 of 27 extended useful street life achieved from preventive maintenance treatments,estimating trends in the rate of street deterioration,and generating analyses and reports such as street category,functional class,and defects.The system also calculates unit costs for prospective projects,and evaluates and models the street system to identify current and future funding requirements for desired street condition targets. Maintenance and Preservation Treatments Several surface treatment methods are applied to keep surface deterioration to a minimum.These methods include a variety of activities like street sweeping,removing road side hazards,snow and ice prevention,curb and gutter repairs,and crack sealing.Crack sealing is one of the most effective preventive maintenance treatments performed in the Street Maintenance Program because it intercepts water from intruding and contaminating pavement layers and deeper into the base rock.The street base rock,or subgrade is essentially the foundation of the street structure.Crack sealing is always recommended prior to and in conjunction with slurry seal treatments.When funding is limited,effective preservation programs will elect to eliminate crack sealing only as a last resort. On concrete street surfaces the list of maintenance activities is much smaller than on asphalt street surfaces,including:street sweeping,crack sealing,and,at the 30 to 40 year mark,grinding down the wearing surface to prevent hazardous slick conditions.Funding necessary to maintain concrete surfaces is minimal in comparison to the asphalt street surfaces,and for purposes of this report,is not the focus of the preservation program needs.5 Condition Assessment Methodology The City’s structured system of inventorying conditions of the street system uses a grading system based on surface defect,severity,and amount of surface area.This information is processed through a matrix which establishes the Surface Condition Index (SCI).The SCI is an index used by the Hansen software to assign the appropriate street surface treatment type and cost to the street segment’s surface condition. The index level threshold is established based on field information demonstrating that a street surface changes from one condition to another. All streets in the City and UGB are in the Hansen PMS,regardless of jurisdiction,though street mileage measurements do vary for the non city owned streets.The City and urbanizable area are divided into 13 zones that include Cityowned,privatelyowned,and Countyowned streets.Streets in these zones are divided into segments and given segment numbers.A street segmentbegins from the center point of one intersection and ends at the center point of the next intersection.All street segments in the 13 zones were resurveyed in July 2010 by onsite field inspection and analysis.In the field,the street 5 This distinction is a primary factor behind the City’s practice of evaluating proposed street construction projects on the basis of lifetime costs,not simply initial outlay,and a reason that typically bidders are required to bid both asphalt and concrete options. Attachment 2, Page 11 of 27 conditions,as well as information on signs,sidewalks,curbs,gutters,speed,number of lanes,bus routes,wheel chair ramps,etc.are entered into a database for downloading to the Hansen PMS. The following information shows examples of system defects and the resulting impact on condition rating. 1. Raveling (sometimes referred to as weather worn); 2. Cracking (linear and vertical separation of the ac mat);and 3. Base Failure (severely distressed pavement). Raveling Cracking Base Failure These defects are rated within two categories: 1. Severity [13](degree based);and 2. Amount [15](%based). The defect values combined derive a total segment score. Scoring sample:1,1 =excellent or very near perfect condition. 3,5 =complete failure in surface street condition. Reports are created to identify the streets by cracking,raveling,and base failure. Inventory Results The Inventory results from the 2010 street surface condition survey indicate a significant decline in condition since the 2008 survey.In 2008,Local Streets that were rated at 77%Fair or Better have fallen to 39%today,Collectors that were rated at 72%Fair or Better have fallen to 40%,and Arterials that were rated at 71%Fair or Better have fallen to 51%.The graphs demonstrate the decline. Attachment 2, Page 12 of 27 2010 Minor Arterials Street System (58.07 lane miles) 28.69 are in poor condition 16.07 are in fair condition 13.31 are in good condition 2010 Collector Street System (50.23 lane miles): 30.15 are in poor condition 7.36 are in fair condition 12.72 are in good condition Attachment 2, Page 13 of 27 2010 Local Street System Conditions (228.04 lane miles): 138.30 miles in poor condition 74.49 miles in fair condition 15.25 miles in good condition Attachment 2, Page 14 of 27 Pavement Preservation Program Maintaining and preserving the streets for the City happens through the Street Maintenance and Street Engineering Programs budgeted in the Street Fund.The Street Maintenance Program includes essential repair and maintenance of the surface and smallscale preservation activities.These activities are primarily performed by Maintenance staff and help preserve the structural integrity of Improved Streets,minimize hazards to motorists and pedestrians,and respond to requests for service in a timely manner.This Program maintains the street inventory data on Improved Streets and Unimproved Streets.The Street Engineering Program includes planning and design,engineering,construction and inspection,which are the core activities of the City’s new construction and major preservation activities. These construction and preservation activities are contracted to the private sector,so that the City will not be required to employ a large staff to perform preservation.This results in much greater efficiency and overall reduced costs.Monitoring and condition evaluation of the system is performed on a biennial basis by the Department to support ongoing maintenance and preservation programming. It is of course optimum to perform timely preventive maintenance to extend the pavement life as opposed to allowing decline to the point of reconstruction.The PMS projects pavement life expectancy. This assessment,in conjunction with the total segment score (or condition rating),provide the core information for forecasting and planning the preventive street surface treatment.It is important to note that there are other factors that may weigh into the decision equation.Some of these factors include: Council priorities and strategic initiatives,project prioritization by street classification, Arterials/Collectors weighted higher than Locals,traffic loads,development driven transportation needs, common maintenance and repair interests with other local agencies,and safety. Street Surface Treatment Types and Related Costs For Improved Streets,there are several preservation techniques and treatment methods that extend the life of the street surface.The primary preventive treatments used on the Improved Street system are crack sealing,slurry seal,thin lift overlays,and overlays.Corrective treatments include base repairs and reconstructs.These will be described in more detail below. This least expensive preservation technique,which is particularly suitable for Local Streets,includes sealing cracks as they occur,and by applying slurry seal coat of asphalt over the entire street every seven to nine years.The cost is approximately $8 per linear foot of street.After the slurry seal has been applied for three successive times,the street has generally declined to the point where in many cases some of the asphalt must be removed and a thin asphalt overlay of at least 2 inches applied.This next stage of preservation,the Thin Lift Overlay,generally costs about $44 for each linear foot of street. Using this approach,streets that are generally designed to have a 20 year life span can be preserved for at least 50 years,and,in the cases of residential streets,which get less use,virtually indefinitely.This contrasts with the approach of providing no preservation and facing the challenge of reconstructing the entire street after 2030 years,at a cost of $400 to $500 per linear foot,which is 10 to 50 times the cost of preservation. Attachment 2, Page 15 of 27 Primary Preservation Treatments Crack Sealing Crack Sealing is the application of a petroleumbased pavement crack and joint sealant into street cracks.The sealant forms a long lasting,resilient seal in cracks and joints which is flexible and expandable.The sealant prevents the invasion of surface water between the layers of asphalt and sub grade rock,thus preventing structural base failures and potholes.Streets scheduled to be crack sealed are usually the same streets identified to be slurry sealed.Using crack seal in conjunction with slurry seal provides the most costeffective method of preventing premature pavement failures and aging. Then cracks in the streets are cleaned using compressed air.Then the sealant is injected in the crack by using a squeegee.Creak sealing is usually done in dry weather,usually in the summer months.Crack sealant is also applied around asphalt seams on base repairs and utility cuts after they are completed. Slurry Seal Slurry seal is application of a thin asphalt overlay/seal coat that fills in small cracks and surface imperfections to give the roadway a uniform color and texture.Most importantly it seals the pavement, thus preventing the infiltration of water,which is the most frequent cause of pavement failure.Slurry sealingis done in dry warm weather around July and August when temperatures are above 65 degrees. It is most effective when done in conjunction with crack sealing.Street closures are generally required for a period of 8 hours to allow the slurry application to cure. Thin Lift Overlays and Overlays Thin lift overlay is the application or paving a second layer of asphalt over existing asphalt.An overlay can be done when the existing asphalt is in overall good condition but may have some problem areas. Depending on the degree of cracking,crumbling or sunken areas,those areas can be cut out,patched and then a new layer can be paved.When a Thin Lift Overlay is necessary to save a road any major failures are first repaired.Then an application of liquid asphalt,to improve adhesion,is applied to cement the new asphalt to the old asphalt.Then a 1 2 inch layer of asphalt is applied over the existing asphalt.When an Overlay is required,it is because the street surface has deteriorated to a very low SCI, and there can be up to a full street width of milling or grinding down of the street surface required dependingof the street condition rating.Then the surface is paved up to the total depth needed for the street’s traffic weight and volume.The work is scheduled when weather is dry,usually in July and August. Corrective Treatments Base Repairs Street base repairs are necessary when the subsurface of the street collects moisture and loses its compaction,which causes a weak spot in the asphalt street.Penetration of water into the street base causes a failure in the street surface.These failures are identified by potholes,cracking or alligatoring of the pavement.Base repairs are identified and prioritized.The asphalt and base rock is removed and new rock is placed and compacted.Sometimes a fabric is installed to prevent contamination of the new Attachment 2, Page 16 of 27 base rock.Asphalt is then overlaid on the new rock base in lifts to help facilitate compacting of the asphalt.Base repairs are completed best in dry weather. Reconstruction Reconstruction is needed when a street has deteriorated to a degree that it has reached the end of its useful life and is in need of complete replacement.The deterioration could be the result of traffic,soils, utility repairs,weather or lack of maintenance.To reconstruct a street,the existing street is removed down to base rock including the curbs and gutters.Depending on the condition of the base rock,it may also be removed to sub grade.In extreme depth street reconstructs,sidewalks and street trees may also have to be removed.Utility companies are notified to replace underground pipes and conduits.The City also inspects and determines if the sewer pipes need to be replaced.Then the street is rebuilt from the sub base up.Usually a membrane fabric is installed over the sub grade.Base rock is laid on the fabric and compacted.Concrete curbs and gutters are poured.A layer of leveling rock is then laid followed by layers of asphalt to the finished grade.Each layer is compacted.Sidewalks,street trees, and curb marking are then installed.The process is lengthy and expensive.Detours are inevitable. Attachment 2, Page 17 of 27 Pavement Preservation Program Funding Requirements Methodology Creating a fundamentally sound average annual preservation cost for maintaining the Street System is based upon street type and prescribed preservation activity.To establish some scenarios for the range of costs involved,staff have analyzed the impact of attempting to return to the Council standard of 85% Fair or Better,and the impact of simply preserving the status quo,and preventing further decline.There are,of course,a number of alternatives between those two extremes.Based on the preservation treatment cycles mentioned previously,Springfield’s street system preservation funding annual need is approximately $2.5 million to $3.5 million based on engineering estimates.This also would include street surface maintenance operations.To maintain the status quo would require approximately $1.3 million annually for preservation and 1.23 million for street maintenance operations. Restoring the Standard Springfield’s pavement preservation standard is that the condition of 85%of the City’s street surfaces will be rated as Fair or Better.This standard permits no more than 15%of the street surfaces to remain in poor condition.At present,58.6%of the street system is in poor condition meaning that there is a 43.6%backlog of surface treatments presently needed.Staff have not evaluated the cost of immediately eliminating that backlog.That would be an unrealistic approach,given the financial condition of the City, and the likely prospects for revenue in the foreseeable future.Even if there were not financial constraints,it is not realistic to assume that the City could devote that level of effort,due to insufficient Attachment 2, Page 18 of 27 Scenario1 StreetType TreatmentType Average Life Cycle 2010Total Lane Miles 2010 Lane Milesrated Fairor Better Lane miles 85%Fairor Better Goal 15% Allowable Poor Current (2010) Backlog AverageLane milesper yearTreated Cost Per LaneMile Treatment costperyear Minor Arterials ThinLiftOverlay 10 58.07 29.38 49.36 8.71 19.98 4.94 155,985 769,936 Collectors ThinLiftOverlay 10 50.23 20.08 42.70 7.53 22.62 4.27 181,258 773,891 Local Streets Crack Seal&Slurry Seal 7 228.04 89.74 193.83 34.21 104.09 27.69 35,077 971,275 Total Preservation Costper year 336.34 139.20 285.88 50.45 146.68 36.90 372,320 2,515,103 Preservation Matrix ForPreservationCurrentCondition To Reduce Backlog to15% staffing levels and with the resulting disruption of traffic.Additionally,the reductions in Public Works staffing over the past two years have resulted in reduced capacity to deliver maintenance and preservation projects at this pace. Staff have developed an estimate of the cost to eliminate that backlog over the next seven to 10 years, and ultimately return to the Council standard at the end of that period.As shown in the table below, that approach (Scenario 1)would require approximately $2.5 million annually for preservation and approximately $1 million annually for street maintenance operations.During this process,the City could expect that deterioration of the system will slow and then the decline of street conditions would reverse.Ultimately,at the end of about 10 years,preservation and maintenance needs could be expected to decline on a constant dollar basis,although the impact of long term inflation would mean that in current dollars the cost of preservation could remain near that level.Staff have not separately evaluated restoration back to the Council standard relying on the alternative (lengthened)preservation cycle.Certainly,the initial cost would be lower;however,the increased risk of failure might offset any of those initial savings. Maintaining the Current Street Condition Status A second pavement preservation scenario is maintaining the current 2010 street conditions.This would keep the streets at 41%Fair or Better condition with a backlog of 146.68 lane miles,plus the 15%poor condition for a total of 59%of the City’s streets in poor condition.The Scenario 2 table below shows the financial impact of that approach.The total funding need would be approximately $1.3 million annually for preservation and $1.23 million annually for street maintenance operations.It would use the alternative preservation treatment cycles of 7 to 9 years for Local streets,and 12 years for Minor Arterials and Collectors.The drawback of this program is that the more costly need for street surface reconstruction will grow as part of the inventory of street segments in the poor condition category will slip into lower SCI numbers,which in turn will cause the funding need to grow exponentially.Those costs are not reflected n the table. In addition,there could be significant indirect impacts of this approach,including declining investment and economic development in the City as a result of poor driving conditions and increased congestion and citizen dissatisfaction. Attachment 2, Page 19 of 27 Current Levels of Spending The third preservation alternative is to continue preservation and maintenance at the current funding levels.This program contains little or no local funding for preservation activity.It relies on external funding for preservation activities.This scenario creates the fastest slippage from one street surface condition to the next,from good to fair,and fair to poor.Once in poor condition,the streets will continue to decline and eventually the backlog of street segments requiring reconstruction will grow larger to 187.6 lane miles.The total funding need for this scenario is $900,149 annually for preservation and $1.23 million annually for street maintenance operations.The maintenance and preservation cost of pursuing this approach is shown in the Scenario 3 table below.Like Scenario 2,this table does not reflect the impact of exponential deterioration of the City’s street system on maintenance costs,nor does it reflect the indirect effects on the local economy or citizen satisfaction. Moving Forward on Street Preservation The City is faced with major challenges in funding pavement preservation and rehabilitation projects and avoiding growing the backlog of streets in need of major reconstruction.A backlog is a list of street segments for which preventive maintenance is overdue and unpr ogrammed,and/or major rehabilitation of the street is needed For these segments the overall condition,due to severe pavement distress,either require partial or total reconstruction.The condition has declined to the point where less costly preventive treatments are ineffective. The 2008 Task Force,with Public Works staff,valued the replacement of the system at about $400 million.At that time,the City had been spending approximately $1 million a year on preservation and the Task Force recommended to Council that the optimum level for preservation spending over the next Attachment 2, Page 20 of 27 several years would be about $1.6 million.The Task Force rapidly came to a consensus that the current state of the City streets was the standard to be maintained,which was established at 85%Fair or Better because of the poor long term economic consequences associated with allowing the street conditions to decline further.The Task Force noted that the City had been successful in achieving a high standard of quality for City streets and believed that standard should be maintained. Funding Need The Street Conditions Report highlights the street inventory starting with the 2006 base year.As funding becomes scarcer,especially on the local funding side,ability to maintain the 85%Fair or Better condition standard is lost.Today the City preservation program is virtually nonexistent.It relies on the highly unpredictable availability of federal funding,and is directed only to those segments where federal funding can be used.This report documents that the need is between $2.5 and $3.5 million annually. There are no resources available to preserve the current amount of street surface within the city limits, much less deal with any expanded preservation need as the system grows to serve our growing community. The Street System has normally relied on a combination of Federal,State,and local funding.Not only has this funding provided for the preservation of the streets through new constructions,surface treatments,and reconstructions,but it also has provided for the daily maintenance operations and administration of the street programs.The street programs provide services to all aspects of the street system,from bike facilities like bike lanes and bike maps to street maintenance and traffic control.All these programs share the funding with street preservation. Since 2001,there has been a steady decline of consistent funding for the Street System,which has prompted the research of many new local funding sources.These funding sources have included successful ideas like the 3 cent Local Fuel Tax that was enacted in 2003 and has given the City a modest new revenue source,to unsuccessful ideas like an increase to the local fuel tax,which was rejectedby the voters in 2007,a Preservation Fee,and others. Funding Sources The largest sources of funding for Street System maintenance have been the State Highway Fuel Tax6 and (since 2003)the Local Fuel Tax.Highway Fuel Tax revenue has had a range from 67.5%of total street fund revenue in fiscal year 1998 to a projected 53.7%in fiscal year 2011.Local Fuel Tax revenue, which replaced revenue from the County Road Fund,has had a range from 20.1%of total street fund revenue starting in fiscal year 2004 to projected 22.2%in fiscal year 2011.As time passes and technology continues to create more fuel efficient vehicles as well as vehicles which do not use the only fuels taxed under the state and local taxes,the level of funding available from these sources will continue to decrease.7 This will only add to the ongoing structural imbalance (i.e.declining revenues vs. 6 Revenues from a share of license and registration fees are also included in this source. 7 Because alternative fuels are so much more efficient,it appears that,for examples,imposing a tax on electricity used for fuel,at the rate of the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline will not generate sufficient revenue to maintain balance in the Street fund. Attachment 2, Page 21 of 27 External Sources Limitation Federal American Recovery and ReinvestmentAct One timegrant funding,project specific.Program ended;unclear ifprogram willbe replaced by further roundof stimulusin next Congress. Federal –Surface Transportation Program Urban(STP U)Project specific,includingplanning and design. Often not availablefor preservation. OregonDepartment of Transportation (ODOT)Project specific. Developer payments Projectspecific,dependenton developers contributing toimproving astreet to provide additionalcapacity.Typicallynotavailable for preservation. Internal Sources Limitation Improvement and Reimbursement SDCs Revenuedependent on development activity.Only available for capital expenditures.Only Reimbursement Fees may be used for preservation. Minor Arterials and Collectors increasing costs),and will not address the inflationary impact on the costs of personal services and materials. Occasionally,there is funding for specific preservation activities that primarily come from external sources,either other levels of government or private developers,although most of these resources are directed to building additions to the system,not preserving the existing system.As the Lane County Road fund continued to decline,it was not likely to be a significant source of intergovernmental revenue,leaving only Federal sources.Besides these external sources being project specific,they only fund,in the case of Federal money,preservation activities on Minor Arterials and Collectors.Developer funding,as in the case of PeaceHealth’s contributions to Martin Luther King,Jr.Parkway and the Gateway/Beltline project,is not a stable or reliable source of funding,and rarely is available for preservation of the existing system. The other main internal funding sources are Transportation Improvement and Reimbursement System Development Charges (SDCs),which come from development activity within the City and are fees charged according to the specific system needs.An improvement fee is based on a determination of which capital projects are needed to accommodate growth,the amount of additional capacity that is created by those projects,and a determination of the unit cost of additional capacity.A reimbursement fee is calculated by determining the value of the existing system,the amount of capacity available in that system,and the value of a unit of capacity.If the system has existing capacity,then development can be charged a fee based upon the units of existing capacity development will require.These fees are restricted to capital spending.Within that limitation,only Reimbursement Fee revenue can be used for preservation.Improvement Fee revenue can be used only to add new capacity to the system. The following table summarizesthe existing resources available for preservation of the Street System beyond the current fuel tax sources. Attachment 2, Page 22 of 27 Conclusions The following pages detail the most immediate preservation needs and recommendations of staff,based upon the inventory and assessment.They do not take into account the availability of funds to do the work.The results of the street conditions report provide the information necessary to create the preservation scenarios and their related costs.The scenarios range from a current program of $900,000 for preservation and $1.23 million for maintenance to the optimum program of $2.5 million in preservation and $1 million in maintenance.With recognition that current revenue sources do not and are not projected to provide adequate funding to support a street preservation program,the scenarios are presented only to provide the Council with an understanding of the supplemental funding that would be required to meet the Council’s stated objectives and to achieve a cost effective street maintenance and preservation program on a life cycle basis. Attachment 2, Page 23 of 27 Project Priorities Minor Arterial/Collector Overlay list of highest priority streets Segment Location From To Sq.yds.cost Gateway St.Harlow Rd.Beltline Rd.28,162 $1,364,000 Harlow Rd.Gateway Blvd.City Limits 6,425 $237,745 Laura St.Q St.2133 Laura St.8,547 $427,350 E.17th Ave.Glenwood Blvd.Henderson Ave.3,465 $189,000 Q St.Pioneer Parkway West 5th St.8,751 $358,000 W.D St.Mill St.Aspen St.14,665 $902,000 Marcola Rd.42nd St.City Limits 13,133 $521,000 G St.21st St.28th St.6,603 $396,000 19th St.Marcola Rd.2130 19th St.2,360 $107,000 18th St.J St.Mohawk Blvd.8,576 $414,000 28th St.Main St.Olympic St.20,725 $1,020,000 42nd St.Main St.42nd St.UAC 16,124 $578,000 Commercial Ave.21 Commercial Ave.42nd St.2,480 $100,000 Thurston Rd.69th St.City Limits 11,170 $553,000 S.2nd St.S.A St.City Limits 7,663 $383,150 S.5th St.Main St.S.B St.1,764 $88,200 7th St.Main St.Centennial Blvd.14,702 $735,100 10th St.Main St.Centennial Blvd.15,265 $763,250 36th ST.Main St.Commercial Ave.9,263 $463,150 58th St.Main St.Thurston Rd.12,687 $634,350 A St.5th St.10th St.9,010 $450,500 Daisy St.S.48th St.Bob Straub Parkway 20,405 $1,020,250 E St.Mill St.28th St.42,330 $2,116,500 G St.5th St.21st St.25,348 $1,267,400 S.Mill St.Main St.S.A St.583 $29,150 Q St.5th St.19th St.29,815 $1,490,750 14th St.Main St.G St.10,199 $509,950 52nd St I 105 High Banks Rd.1,554 $77,700 Centennial Blvd.5th St.Mohawk Blvd.19,249 $962,450 Marcola Rd.19th St.42nd St.36,850 $1,842,500 Thurston Rd.58th St.69th St.26,265 $1,313,250 $0 Total $21,314,695 Reasons for Priority The above street segments were identified has being the highest priority for overlay treatments to prevent them from slipping into a condition that would require full reconstruction,with the lower SCI street segments and greater public impact given higher priority.Segments are selected for overlay to match available funding. Attachment 2, Page 24 of 27 Local Streets Needing An Overlay Since 2008 Street From To Sq.yds. Lindale DR Laura Pheasant BLVD 2,810.00 2nd ST T ST U ST 1,749.11 N Cloverleaf 0952 N.Cloverleaf Oakdale Ave 2,788.00 Dornoch Dornoch ST Lochaven Ave 604.44 Shady Lane DR T ST U ST 1,780.00 Shady Lane DR U ST V ST 666.67 Postal Way Gateway ST Gateway LP 3,469.78 Gateway LP #Postal Way 2,764.44 Gateway LP Postal Way Gateway ST 5,444.44 Shelly Laura Don 11,877.00 Pheasant Lindale Harlow 2,312.00 F ST 01st ST PPK WY W 1,276.89 F ST PPK WY W PPK WY E 1,156.00 G ST Mill ST 01st ST 1,750.00 01st ST 01 ST F ST 571.67 01st ST F ST G ST 1,267.78 S 14th ST S A ST S B ST 554.67 23rd ST G ST Duben LN 1,430.00 A ST 21st ST 22nd ST 1,344.00 A ST 22nd ST 23rd ST 1,423.33 I ST Mohawk 16th ST 1,866.67 S 44th ST Main ST Aster 1,590.00 S 44th ST Aster S 43rd PL 896.67 S 44th ST S 43rd PL Camellia 1,066.67 S 47th ST Main Aster ST 1,155.00 S 49th PL 241 Aster 247 S 49th PL 627.11 S 49th PL 289 S 49th PL Bluebelle Way 899.11 62nd PL Main ST A ST 1,340.44 TotalSq.Yds.56,481.89 Overlay Costs $23.00 Total Cost $1,299,083 Reasons for Priority The above street segments were identified has being the highest priority for overlay to prevent them from slipping into full a condition that would require reconstruction,with the lower SCI street segments given higher priority.Segments are selected for overlay to match available funding. Attachment 2, Page 25 of 27 Local (Residential)Slurry Seal list of highest priority streets Would like to do first if we had the funding Street From TO Sq.yds. S 32ND PL DOUGLAS DR S REDWOOD DR 978.44 S 32ND PL OSAGE ST PINYON ST 899.11 S 57TH PL S 58TH ST FORSYTHIA ST 2,095.00 66TH PL AARON LN JACOB LN 588.89 S 68TH PL JESSICA DR S 68TH PL 500.00 74TH ST B ST 74TH ST 633.33 ASTER ST ASTER ST S 63RD ST 1,334.22 S B ST S 03RD ST S 05TH ST 1,852.89 DIAMOND ST RAINBOW DR DIAMOND ST 2,020.33 DIAMOND ST DIAMOND ST DIAMOND ST 268.89 D ST PIONEER PARKWAY WEST PIONEER PARKWAY EAST 1,221.00 D ST PIONEER PARKWAY EAST 04TH ST 1,184.33 S E ST S 41ST ST S 41ST PL 1,661.11 FAIRWAY PL FAIRWAY PL WINDSOR CT 1,588.89 FAIRHAVEN ST W FAIRVIEW DR FAIRHAVEN ST 1,175.56 FORSYTHIA ST S F ST S 41ST ST 2,350.33 FORSYTHIA ST FORSYTHIA ST S 57TH PL 312.89 W K ST WATER ST LAURA ST 900.00 LOMOND AVE LOMOND AVE LOCH DR 440.00 OLD ORCHARD LN MANSFIELD ST ROYALDEL LN 1,063.33 OLD ORCHARD LN MCKENZIE CREST DR OLD ORCHARD LN 556.11 OSAGE ST S 32ND PL OSAGE ST 1,000.00 S REDWOOD DR S 32ND PL S 34TH PL 2,673.00 SPORTS WAY INTERNATIONAL WAY SPORTS WAY 4,320.00 WATER ST W J ST W K ST 1,163.22 WATER MARK DR 33RD ST 34TH CT 500.00 WATER MARK DR WATER MARK CT 35TH ST 619.44 TotalSq.Yds.33,900.33 Slurry Costs $1.75 Total Cost $59,326 Reasons for Priority The above list of streets is presented in alphabetical order.These street segments were identified as being the highest priority for immediate slurry seal treatment to prevent them from slipping into a condition that would require the next preservation method (overlay). Attachment 2, Page 26 of 27 I-5I MAIN Q B J S 5THI-105 28THF M 42NDN L A U D V E T R CENTENNIAL CMILL21ST6TH2ND JASPER 58THWEYERHAEUSER4TH10THOLYMPICBIKEPATH MARCOLA 66TH70THG FRANKLIN69TH9TH71STKELLYYOLANDA K 14TH19TH DAISY30THWATER 67TH12TH54THASPEN56THBRAND S FAIRVIEW BIKE PA T H 20TH36THIVY H THURSTON15THGA T E W A Y DEBRA79 T H33RD41STPH E A S A N T PRI V A T E 32ND39THBELTLINE HARBOR22ND HIGH BANKS HARLOW DORRIS 48TH47TH72NDRAINBOW55TH37TH40THLAURA18THPRESCOTTMAIA7TH HAYDEN BRIDGE QUINALT OREGON MCKENZIE8TH38TH1ST CHEROKEE35THSHELLEY3RD34THINTERNATIONAL31ST 44TH52ND53RDHENDERSONGLENWOOD11THCO M M E R C I A L JU D K I N S LINDADOUGLASNUGGETMARKET16TH17TH 49TH23RDSUMMITMO U N T A I N G A T EANDERSONMANOR 68THREDWOODVILLA ASH 43RD57THMARTIN LUTHER K ING J LOCHAVENDON PARKER 25TH24TH26THVERABEVERLYJANUSORIOLE NORTH GAME FARM MT VERNONBOB STRAUB JESSICA RICHLAND 61ST46THMENLO LAWNRIDGE 45THPLEASANT LINDALE BO O T H K E L L Y KATHRYN 51STCARDIN A L W INLANDPOLTAVA59THFORSYTHIA RAMBLING BROOKLYN65THISLAND ASTER DEADMOND FERRY SCOTT ETHAN OAKDALE SEWARD LAURELCOLE OTTO FIRTHCASTLE SIMEONDORNOCH 75THKRUSE KINTZLEYSHADYLANEOLD ORCHAR D LOMOND RAYNERFLAMINGO CARUTHERSSPORTSNOVAFOREST RIDGEC E N T R A L VIRGINIAHARVESTPARK MCKEN Z I E C R E S T JACOB AMBLESIDE POSTAL HOLLY UNION PINYON COLONIAL CAMELLIA OSAGENE W M A NLEVEL LOCH64THVITUSGLACIERINDUSTRIAL MCVAY60TH62NDSEQUOIA RANCH LONG RIDGE 63RDPIERCE RIVER KN O L L JADE CHEEK AARON SHADY EDGEMONT MICAGRAND VISTALILAC OSPREY LEOTA SENECA73RDUNKNOWN ALCONA COLLIERQUARTZ GEMLOCUST SMITH PUMICE DUBENS BROADWAY DOGWO O D HOSANNA ROCKY ROAD PERIDOTLEXINGTONPRIVATE C C T 43RDPRIVATEA70THASTER BIK E P A T H B35THA PARK 43RDB HAYDEN BRIDGE 35THPRIVATE ASTER PRIVATE B9TH 48THDAISY53RD52ND19THPRIVATEI-105 JASPER B D ASTER A71STV11THI35TH 41STLAURAI C C 32NDF EPRIVATE E 32NDPRIVATED B 44TH16THD 31STH 69THC F17THE J 72NDPRIVATE10TH E PRIVATEBIKE PATH 23RDJ PRIVATE 38TH49TH57THFRANKLIN PRIVATE B OLYMPIC 38THA PRIVATE C DORRIS G9TH 63RD42NDPRIVATEA S 55TH69TH64TH19TH6TH8TH34TH34TH51STE F 52NDPRIVATE1STC A E M J E V 52ND8THL 38TH38TH53RD37TH8THIVY16THOLYMPIC PRIVATEB DA DD 65TH7TH 39THB E G N D F 40THPRIVATE17TH A20TH34THL 47THR F 72NDM 26TH53RD22ND67THPRIVATE 41STF 40THE B D17TH B 44THPRIVATE A U E PRIVATE MAIN F2ND 51ST18TH5 8 T H L 56TH57THR E 44TH28THAA6THBIKE PATH37THA F E16TH F 65TH69THPRIVATEG S 34THOTTO HIGH BANKS 37TH20TH ASPORTSE ASTER HDON 52NDQUINALT 1ST21STA PRIVATE I 30THE A DBIKE PATH B54TH 46THC 12TH70THG QUINALT 10TH19TH68THPRIVATE 18TH D GLACIER I PRIVATE46THB C V D18TH F34TH B36THJ F CPRIVATE17THT22ND A11THSpringfield Street Surface Type 2010 µ1,900 0 1,900950 Feet These maps are intended to be used for engineering and citywide planning. There are no warranties that accompany this product. The City recommends that users of this product confirm the data provided by visual inspection of the geographic area. In no event shall the City of Springfield be liable to the customer or any third party for errors, omissions or positional accuracy of this product, regardless of the form of claim or action, whether in contract or tort, including negligence, in the amount that exceeds the sum paid by the customer for the product. The information contained herein was mapped by the City of Springfield for local and regional planning purposes. Base layers are updated periodically, however, since the last update considerable changes may have occurred. Please notify the City of Springfield, Engineering Division, GIS and Mapping Division of any errors found. 2008/art Boundaries Total Unimproved Surface -Asphalt - 31.57 Lane MilesConcrete - 0.18 Lane MilesGravel - 14.77 Lane Miles Total Improved Surface -Local - 228.04 Lane MilesCollector - 50.23 Lane MilesArterial - 58.07 Lane Miles Springfield City Limits UGB Springfield Streets Ownership* Springfield Improved - Classification Other Ownership Springfield Unimproved - Surface Type ArterialCollector Asphalt Concrete Gravel ODOT, Lane County, etc Local *Based on Trans Plan 2001 Attachment 2, Page 27 of 27 Street System Communication Plan January 31,2012 I.Introduction This Communication Plan is being creating under the direction of the Springfield City Council.The Communication Plan defines the City’s preliminary strategy to effectively communicate with stakeholders the value of the City’s transportation system,the current funding needs to maintain the system,and the implementation of a Council selected funding option. This plan is intended to be a “living document”and should be updated as audiences,communication needs and funding options are further identified. This document: Provides background information regarding the City’s transportation system including a description of the system,maintenance needs,funding needs,and a brief history of funding mechanisms Presents goals and objectives Lists key messages Identifies stakeholders Identifies communication tools and tactics to reach stakeholders Provides an implementation timeline Estimates a budget for the outreach efforts II.Background The City of Springfield is responsible for operating,maintaining,preserving,and repairing the City’s transportation infrastructure which includes nearly 382.86 lane miles of streets valued at $400 million (2008).The transportation system consists of more than just the streets themselves;it also includes bike lanes,traffic signals and signs,street lights,and landscaping (street trees). The City has historically maintained the streets in a manner that has served as a source of community pride.As of 2008,85%of the City’s streets were rated in fair or better condition.This was due to an active maintenance and preservation program of crack and slurry sealing and overlays.All three efforts extend the life of paved streets and cost significantly less than a full reconstruction,which is required if a street hasn’t been adequately maintained. The City has relied on payments from Lane County,a State gas tax,a 3 cent Local gas tax,and Right of Way fees for funding the street maintenance and preservation program.Property taxes do not pay for the street system,either to build it or maintain it.Over the past three years the City’s transportation system has grown by 2.6%or 10.87 lane miles.The cost of materials and labor has increased normal CPI and the funding has decreased by 9%or $478k.This has created a funding gap resulting in a 146 lane miles backlog of street maintenance.In 2009 and 2010 the City received some federal funding for street Attachment 3, Page 1 of 4 Street System Communication Plan January 31,2012 projects,but that funding is not consistently available.In order to return to preserving and maintaining the transportation system at historic levels a new revenue source must be established. III.Goals &Objectives Goal 1:Community values street system Develop an outreach program that increases the Springfield community’s awareness of the importance of and value in maintaining and preserving the street system. Objective A:Create tools &tactics that promote greater awareness amongst stakeholders about the importance of street system and how the street system is funded. Objective B:Communicate to stakeholders the need for long term stable funding for the street system. Objective C:Increase stakeholders understanding of the connection between a well maintained street system and property values/business growth/commerce. Objective D:Emphasize the importance of a well maintained street system for safety reasons. Goal 2:Community supports the Council selected funding option(s) Develop an outreach program that garners community support of the Council selected funding option(s) by engaging in an open dialogue and responding to stakeholder’s questions and concerns. Objective A:Engage in twoway communication with stakeholders that provides accurate, concise,and timely information and proactively addresses community concerns about the Council selected funding option(s). Objective B:Provide an accurate picture of the street system funding needs and how the Council selected funding option(s)will help meet those needs. Objective C:Provide citizens with information on how the Council selected funding option(s)will be calculated including an accurateestimate of how much it will cost citizens and business owners. IV.Key Messages Message 1:We all need the streets.At $400 million (2008),Springfield’s street system is one of the City’s most valuable asset. Message 2:Good streets bring businesses &jobs.The streets are wearing out faster than they can be fixed. Message 3:Due to funding changes,and a growing transportation system the City is no longer able to fund an active maintenance and preservation program. Message 4:In order to keep up with maintenance and preservation activities the City has to look at new revenue options.The City Council thinks that (insert Council selected funding option(s))is/are the best funding options for our community.In order to catch up with preserving the streets the City Attachment 3, Page 2 of 4 Street System Communication Plan January 31,2012 Council thinks that a (insert Council selected funding option(s))is the best funding option for our community. V.Stakeholders City Council Springfield staff Springfield citizens Springfield business community Community groups (e.g.civic clubs) Media VI.Communication Tools &Tactics Briefing Guide:An informational guide will be developed that provides an overview of the entire transportation system,the funding needs and the proposed funding options.The guide will be distributed to City Councilors,“borrowed executives”and key staff members in order to provide accurate,consistent information to stakeholders. Fact Sheets/Brochures:A series of basic fact sheets will be developed that explain the various aspects of the transportation system.The fact sheets will provide easyto understand information and use descriptive photos. Website:The City’s website will be used to provide upto date information on the transportation system and the proposed funding options. Social Media:Using the City’s existing social media outlets,information,photos and answers to questions will be provided to the community and media on a regular basis.Videos are also a possible platform for message dissemination. Speaker’s Bureau:City staff and borrowed executives will deliver presentations to various audiences including neighborhood groups,civic groups such as Rotary and Kiwanis,and business and trade organizations.A standard powerpoint presentation will be developed for all presenters to use. “Borrowed Executives”:The Borrowed Executive model will be used to help deliver key messages in person as well as in printed/online materials.Potential candidates would be citizens who are active in their community and willing to spend their time presenting to community groups the Street System and how it functions.The followup conversation would include the need for additional funding sources. Attachment 3, Page 3 of 4 Street System Communication Plan January 31,2012 Implementation Schedule Task Completion Date Responsible Staff Comment Team Springfield Article October Rachael Chilton/Rhonda Rice Fall Issue RG Extra Article November 24 Niel Laudati Survey Results January 30 Niel Laudati/Rachael Chilton Rachael to compile results Briefing Guide January 30 Rachael Chilton/Rhonda Rice Speaker’s Bureau Presentation March 2012 Rachael Chilton/Rhonda Rice Recruit Borrowed Executives February 2012 Brian Conlon Train Borrowed Executives February 2012 Len Goodwin/Brian Conlon/Rhonda Rice Rachael to assist if needed Speaker’s Bureau Schedule TBA Jodi Peterson Web&Social Media Updates Ongoing Niel Laudati/Rachael Chilton Niel to update social media,Rachael to update web Media Advisories Ongoing Niel Laudati Attachment 3, Page 4 of 4 Street Fund Survey Snapshot of results The following survey questions were included in an online survey that area residents were encouraged to partici- pate in. The survey was available from the City’s website and received 177 responses. Poor 6.2% Good 43.5% Excellent 3.4% Poor 10.2% Fair 36.2% Excellent 3.4% Reduce services 27.7% 6% 47% 44% 3% Poor Fair Good Excellent 10% 36%50% 4% Poor Fair Good Excellent Increase revenue 72% Reduce services 28% No 31.1% Yes 69% No 31% $5.00 20.9% $3.25 19.2% $0.00 23.7% 21% 19% 36% 24% $5.00 $3.25 $1.75 $0.00 Yes 43.5% No 57% Yes 43% *19 respondents wrote a comment associated with following page. 59 respondents wrote a comment associated with this Attachment 4, Page 1 of 6 Street Fund Survey Comments 1. Why so many unpaved streets?? 2. U get the right amount spend what u have better 3. 0.75 4. 1 5. 0.5 6. It is time to do less....prioritize, and make tough choices 7. i would remove street taxes from gas prices except for I-5 area 8. What would it take if all tax payers agreed? 9. I'm exible. needs to be set where others will vote for it 10. $50.00 annual fee/resident household 11. 50 cents is all i would support 12. nothing* 13. Was not given "Other" as a choice, so...enough to cover current services, but not in excess of current spending.* 14. None* 15. ? not sure...would have to look at the gures and how many people would be contributing 16. none right now* 17. Not one red cent* 18. 0* 19. 2 *The option of $0.00 was added after the rst few days the survey was available. 1. any additional fees or taxes should be connected to the use of those services, but should never be connected to needs that are already dicult for people to pay such as their utility bill. I realize thats a fast and ecient way, bit out makes out even more dicult for projet to heart their homes which is much more important than whether a street is gravel, asphalt our cement. 2. This survey presents the typical bias in favor of increasing fees. Instead other non-esstential discretionary spending should be redirected to core services. 3. Why dont change timers on lights,so the turning lanes turn at the same time.a better ow would save ware and tare on the streets. Thank you. 4. I love Springeld, let's keep it in good condition, unlike Eugene........ 5. Gravel streets no curbs or sidewalks, owners on this streets should be asset.. 6. Street lighting is very poor and inadequate in some areas. Combined with poor condition of sidewalks can make for very unsafe conditions walking after dark. Street sweepers do really great job. 7. U have to spend what u have better 8. I Think the streets of Sprigneld are pretty good just every now and then there are low spots in the glenwood area . They could also keep this area a little more cleanded up aka alot of trash around. Thank you. 9. If you could reduce property taxes and not make property owners responsibe for "City Service improvements" then I would suggest a 3% sales tax, except on food and utilities that could never go up. But, once you do that government always seens to increase the fee anyway. Attachment 4, Page 2 of 6 Street Fund Survey 10. My street in front of my house doesn't even have sidewalks on either side of the road. Why should I pay more when I have a pothole street with no sidewalks? 11. I don't live in Springeld -- why are you letting me ll out this survey? 12. Really want to complain about the blowing of the horns/railroad - what we need is a Train Quiet Zone for the residents who live near the tracks - with the bars coming down at the intersections/blinking lights - why the blowing of horns necessary? Is it just a case of "that's the way it's always been done" - YES. These are residences where people live/sleep! 13. Please Fix South 3rd between South C St. and South D St. 14. Look at the sucess the City of Euegne has had with their bonding program. Falling behind in is a reall bad choice! 15. need more info on the bond question #6 16. Yes if the money from the Bond goes for street repair and nothing else.And not in someone pocket 17. It was almost 3 years to get trees cut back. ??????? I could go own and own. 18. Too much $$$ is spent here already. 19. The city is overstaed in the city hall oces, engineering,etc. Make some meaningful cuts to address this and I might be more willing to listen to your plea for more money for streets. By the way, why did the city accept the design and buildout for all the landscaping on MLK. I notice city crews out there almost daily tending to the thousands of plants. Seems that time and energy could be put to better use maintaining the rest of the citys streets and roads. 20. All maintenence work should be put out competitive bid. The cost for the City, with their crews and wages is far too high. 21. Qualication. I am in favor of paying more taxes for any ligitimate function of local government. However, if the need for additional funds is the direct result of monies being diverted to "smart-growth" transportation plan- ning needs, I would not be in support of raising taxes. 22. Every resident in Springeld uses the streets and should pay, not just homeowners. 23. I realize that historically, we have been able to build more infrastructure and maintain the existing.... And, while those days will return at some point, now is not the time to be looking for new ways to continue to support the status quo. I continue to be surprised at how dicult this is for government to act on. Your citizenry can not monitor every decision, therefore it is imperative that the keepers of government nd new ways to do less with less.Attachment 4, Page 3 of 6 Street Fund Survey 24. To spread the cost to all users, the most logical way to do this seems to have a gas tax for it. Could you add this to the survey? 25. Springeld streets are better than Eugene! I think it must be because of the funding, the strong committment and ease of development. Here is your next campaign slogan "No pot holes here!" 26. the city wasted a tremendous amount of money on 42nd street from main street to mt. vernon. At the time, it was known there would no longer be truck trac on that street due to the construction of bob straub parkway. So. 42nd should have been engineered and constructed with this in mind. as it is, it was built with 24" of base structure and 12" of concrete. Totally overbuilt. Costs did not go into the community for this, for a minimal of city sta was used on this project. Those monies saved evidently went into upper-management expenses. the extra costs incurred for construction could have been used to improve other streets. 27. Needs should be prioritized so the most crucial areas are done rst. Street preservation should be nanced through a combination of reduced services and increased revenues rather than only one or the other. 28. I am more concerned about the condition of the sidewalks in the River Glen subdivision, in N. Springeld. Why would the city allow trees so close to the sidewalks? It is natural nature to have to roots raise up and therefore so do the sidewalks making for extremely unsafe walking conditions. (I fell a couple of years ago and thankfully only broke my nose and cut up my face.) We have been informed, it is the property owners responsibility to maintain the sidewalk in front of their home. We had no choice...the city required the trees. 29. Greeting's Never believe the Money $ is not There what is needed here for action to happen and to take care of the small things like a temporary lighting Program for Maine St I'm sure there a Program out there for such a thing thru Springeld Electric Board and other simple thing like leaf pick up on Maine Street and cleaning at one time in the City of Woodbridge N.J the Town Council and the Mayor a long with the Town Manager they did the work them selves out on the Streets when time and cash ran out but after a week of doing the hard work a Funny thing happen the Cash showed up and they put the City workers back to work and from that day on Woodbridge has grown ever since 1971 - well till later no Probono or Tax Hikes 30. the street fund should have a permanent source of revenue. A bond is only a temporary x, not a solution. 31. where does the gas tax maintenance money go? is it funding the downtown plan, the glenwood plan, and the urban renewal district? you've planned enough. time to start building something with the money. 32. Like many I drive a lot on the major roads, which are in pretty good shape. There may be many smaller Spring- eld roads in bad shape that I have never driven on. 33. I don't live here (just work), so even though I think a property tax is sensible, my feelings might not count for much. 34. I appreciate the eorts made to maximize the work done with available funds. Attachment 4, Page 4 of 6 Street Fund Survey 35. Widen west bound D Street and narrow south sidewalk from Mill street to the bike path (at about the 600 block). This will allow marked bicycle lines on the street from Mill to the bike path for safe travel. 36. Retired. Absolutely do not raise property taxes, as it is they go up every year!! 37. Gas tax. That way users would pay. 38. This should NOT be lumped into property taxes. There needs to be a seperate measure that protects our infrastucture and we as a whole should all help paying for it. Not just the homeowners, but the renters and every- one who uses the streets- think much broader... 39. We will support a bond if it does not cost us more than $40.00 per year on our property taxes - which is approximately $3.25 x 12 40. I don't think "increase revenue" or "reduce services" are the only two choices. How about "reduce costs"? I'm not convinced the City negotiates to get the best prices on materials or labor. 41. JOBS! That is the answer to most everything right now. There are not enough decently employed folks to bear the increasing burden. My business (real estate loan ocer) is in the tank. My home is being taxed at a value much higher than it's real value , but that's the way it is I guess. Can't do much more. Terry Johnson 42. Seek input from Eugene practices as there is word that they are using a method that is less expensive. The economy is bad and will likely get worse; now is not a good time to ask for bond measures and increased taxes. 43. I don't live in Springeld and only rarely drive on the streets there. 44. It would be nice if this fee were attached to the renewal/issuance of automobile title registrations. That way all who live within the area will be sharing the burden, not just the landowners. 45. Have criminals do the work! 46. For me it's more about street safety. Main Street is a nightmare for pedestrians, bikers and cars. Way too fast, not enough cross walks, it's especially bad now that it is dark on the AM and PM commute. People die on our streets every year, that should be a higher priority than xing pot holes. 47. no comments 48. Our streets are in excellent condition compared to Eugene. As long as large potholes are xed, we can get by with what we have untill this tough economic time passes. 49. I would be willing to pay more if new bicycle infrastructure was a primary focus. Attachment 4, Page 5 of 6 Street Fund Survey 50. Springeld is an awesome town that promotes business and with that in mind, we need to keep out streets accessible for those business' 51. The fuel tax hasn't been around forever where did the funds come from before? 52. Property owners already bear the brunt of too many services widely used by transient (non year-round residents such as students) populations. Tax where it's appropriate to tax: transportation licensing, fuel, ect. 53. I'd prefer increasing the gas tax. Get some money out of the many out of towners who pass through. 54. There is a street (F street between the Pioneers) that still bears the railroad crossing sign in the pavement from when there was a railroad going down Pioneer Parkway. The main streets are okay, but some of the side streets are atrocious. Some streets are completely unpaved for a only block. This dees explanation. If this tax were to actually x these problems, I would be for it. But there have been street taxes agreed to before that have done nothing to x these problems. 55. property tax increase...not in this economy.... and also on street repairs...depends on what part of Springeld you are in what condition the roads are in 56. I only answered $1.75 because it required an answer. The real answer is $0.00* 57. The streets are ne. Privatize all street repair. 58. Even though the economy is bad, now is not the time. 59. Is this a silly survey? *The option of $0.00 was added after the rst few days the survey was available. Attachment 4, Page 6 of 6 All residents use the street system... Walking, driving, biking, carpooling, public transit To work, to school, to the grocery store, receiving deliveries, relying on emergency services...all needs a working street system “Keep the Good Streets Good” An active maintenance and preservation program stretches funds. Maintaining and preserving a street, over its useful life, is far more cost-eective than waiting for the condition to fall into poor repair and requiring a full reconstruction. Street maintenance and preservation is similar to that of a house. Maintaining the portions that keep out the elements (roof, siding, etc.) protects the rest of the structure. “Keep the Good Streets Good” Landscaping: 15 acres of ornamental planter beds, 15,000 street treesSidewalks: 260 miles of sidewalks Streets: 425 lane miles of streets Trac control: 66 trac signals Trac control: 9,000 signs Trac control: 115 linear miles of striping & 2,000 symbols Bicycle Facilities: nearly 24 miles of bike lanes The working parts of a street system The City of Springeld Development and Public Works Department 541.726.3753 www.springeld-or.gov Street lighting: 5000 street lights Attachment 5, Page 1 of 1 Questions from Street System Presenations When feasible, sta recorded questions that were asked after the presenting the street systems video. Springeld City Club- June 21, 2012, Brian Conlon presenting 1. How much damage (percentage wise) do studded tires do to street surfaces? 2. How many roundabouts are in town? How do you grade roundabouts? Do they make an impact on maintenance (cost/eort)? 3. How many miles of gravel streets in Springeld? Are they more expensive to maintain? 4. How is Eugene “getting more bang for their buck?” Individual said he thought Eugene was sending this message with their communication about current street projects. 5. How much work does the City do versus contracting jobs out? 6. What is the timeline for the streets system PR campaign? 7. Is Springeld going to put a streets levy on the November, 2012 ballot? 8. Could Springeld license bicycles and use the revenue to help maintain the bicycle facilities portion of the street system? 9. California uses resin to repair roads, does that method hold up? 10. Are there new eective technologies? What can we do with new technologies to increase eectiveness and/or decrease cost? 11. Are there studies that demonstrate the cost of maintaining personal vehicles that are routinely driven over streets in poor condition? 12. What is the current gas tax? How does that compare to Eugene’s gas tax? McKenzie Business Association- November 13, 2012 Brian Conlon and Rachael Chilton presenting 1. Who’s responsible for maintaining sidewalks? 2. If the City isn’t maintaining an active preservation program, what is the revenue from the gas tax being used for? 3. Has some sort of at fee been considered? Like other utility fees? 4. How do studded tires impact the wear and tear on roads? 5. How do electric vehicles t in? Twin Rivers Rotary- March 8, 2013, Brian Conlon presenting 1. How does Glenwood t into Springeld? Do those streets drain funds? 2. How much of the budget comes from gas tax? 3. What about an extra assessment for electric vehicles? 4. What about Mohawk starting to get in bad condition? Is that the City’s responsibility? Any plans? 5. How much impact do studded tires have? Is the fee for studded tire use proportional to the amount of damage they cause? 6. Is there any discussion about increasing vehicle registration fees? Springeld Rotary- April 3, 2013, Rachael Chilton presenting 1. What is the City’s current backlog in street repairs? 2. The City Council just approved the annexation of Glenwood into Springeld- how does that impact the current backlog? 3. How many miles of gravel streets does the City maintain? What is the cost to maintain them vs. an improved street? 4. What funding mechanisms do you think the City Council will consider? 5. Relying on a gas tax doesn’t really work anymore, right? Cars are becoming more ecient so it is a steady (maybe even declining) revenue source while cost of repairs goes up. Attachment 6, Page 1 of 1