Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem C: General Obligation Bonds for Street Maintenance ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: General Obligation Bonds for Street Preservation Projects Meeting Date: June 9, 2008 Agenda Item Number: C Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Sue Cutsogeorge www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5589 ISSUE STATEMENT This work session is a continuation of the discussion about funding for pavement capital preservation projects with a General Obligation (GO) bond measure. The council is asked to provide direction for development of a resolution to place a GO bond measure on the ballot in November of 2008. BACKGROUND Council Action History Over the past several years, the council has worked on ways to adequately fund a large and growing pavement preservation project backlog. Some highlights from the history of this effort are included in Attachment A. Most recently, on January 28, the council continued discussions of an approach to use General Obligation bonds for street preservation projects. The council directed the City Manager to “bring a resolution forward placing an $81 million General Obligation bond measure to be used for preservation only, no system capacity enhancements, on the November 2008 ballot.” A friendly amendment was added to provide a complete project list as part of the ballot measure. The $81 million bond measure will provide for $6.5 million of overlays and reconstruction activities each year, factoring in the cost of inflation over a 10-year period. There were two policy issues left to resolve after the January 28 meeting: a specific list of projects, and a method for ensuring that the projects to be funded could be adjusted, as required, in future years. Project List According to information published by the American Public Works Association, the cost of reconstruct- ing a road on which maintenance has been deferred is five to six times as much as the cost to perform a timely overlay. One of the most cost-effective uses of pavement preservation dollars is to perform time- ly overlays on streets which are identified as likely to fall into the much more expensive “reconstruct” category. The bond measure project list was developed in order to provide the most effective use of public dollars consistent with council direction by addressing overlay projects to the extent possible, as well as including some high traffic streets in need of reconstruction. For this bond measure, street preservation projects would include overlays or reconstruction of the driving surface of streets, as well as the preservation of existing integral elements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on-street bike lanes, traffic signals, street lights, medians, and traffic calming devices. In addition, $350,000 per year would be allocated to overlay or reconstruction of off-street bike and Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080609\S080609C.doc pedestrian paths. In all cases, bond funds would be used only to preserve existing elements, not to expand the capacity of the system, for instance, by installing new traffic lights or bike lanes. An initial list of street preservation projects to be funded from the bond proceeds has been developed based on data from the pavement management system. The pavement management system incorporates street data including surface descriptions and associated mileage, pavement condition and current treatment programs and costs. The system then uses that data to project future treatment needs. The 2008 Pavement Management Report generated from this system is included as Attachment B. Attachment C sets out the initial list of projects generated by the pavement management system. This list allocates all of the bond proceeds, except for the portion that would be used for the annual $350,000 allocation for preserving off-street bike and pedestrian paths. The next step in developing this list into a set of projects for the bond measure is to consolidate some of the street segments identified as needing overlay or reconstruction during the next 10 years into logical street preservation projects that would be done concurrently. For instance, the list contains several segments of a street, such as Willamette, with some gaps in-between. The actual project undertaken might include a contiguous length of Willamette, including those short portions not originally identified by the pavement management system, depending on the condition rating of those other portions. In that way, staff would ensure that a single street is not under construction each year to repair different small segments, but the street is repaired in a more comprehensive way. When staff brings back the bond resolution for council consideration in July, the project list will be refined to take this consolidation of street preservation projects into account. The council also expressed interest in ensuring that any list of street preservation projects to be associated with the bond measure be geographically distributed throughout the community to make certain that all areas of the City receive a benefit from the bond proceeds. In order to allow council and the public to more easily see the geographic distribution of streets on the project list, a map of the initial list of street preservation projects is included in Attachment D. Note that the map does not include the off-street bike and pedestrian paths that will be overlaid or reconstructed with the $350,000 annual allocation. Project Implementation Over the life of the bond measure, pavement conditions or circumstances could change, making it more fiscally prudent or a higher community priority to spend funds on street preservation projects which were not anticipated in 2008. For example, current street condition ratings, as determined by the City’s pavement management system and additional testing, may change due to unanticipated severe weather which might warrant priority overlays on streets not previously identified as “at risk” or not otherwise due for an overlay for several years. In addition, future street repair costs cannot be predicted with absolute accuracy, and adjustments to the project list might be needed to match the list of projects to the amount of available bond proceeds. To address the flexibility needed to conform the GO Bond project list to the amount of bond proceeds available over the 10-year period, the resolution would include a provision for a Department Advisory Committee named the Street Preservation Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee would advise the Public Works Department about the street preservation projects to be funded by each year’s capital budget. It would be comprised of a variety of stakeholders from various geographic areas of the City and would include members with expertise in street preservation activities. The Public Works Department would take the recommendation of the Committee into account when compiling the annual Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080609\S080609C.doc street preservation project list, and would note any differences between the Committee recommendations and previous proposed project lists. The Committee would also advise the City Manager about supplementing the project list if unanticipated pavement conditions or funding oppor- tunities arise. The City Manager would consult with the Committee prior to modifying the initial street preservation project list. There would also be a regular review by an outside auditor for the purpose of issuing a report on the use of the bond proceeds. The auditor procedures would ascertain that the bond proceeds were used for the purposes, and in compliance with the restrictions, set forth in the ballot language. The auditor would furnish a written report to the City Manager, who would provide the report to council as well as to the Committee. The report would also be made publicly available. Timing Council’s last opportunity to pass a resolution placing the measure on the ballot prior to going on break would be August 6. July 28 is the tentatively scheduled date for council consideration of this resolution, which would require that Council provide final direction for changes to the resolution no later than June 30 in order to allow for adequate bond counsel review and approval of those changes. A draft of the resolution is included as Attachment E. Once council passes a resolution placing the measure on the ballot, the City Attorney will create a ballot title (caption, question and summary), which will be published in the Register-Guard. Citizens will have an opportunity to challenge the ballot language by filing a petition with the Lane County Circuit Court within seven business days of the date that the City Attorney files the ballot title with the City Recorder. RELATED CITY POLICIES Council’s goals for 2007 include “Transportation Initiative: Develop mechanisms to adequately fund our transportation system for cars, trucks, bikes and pedestrians including maintenance and preservation and capital reconstruction.” COUNCIL OPTIONS The three policy issues before council at this work session are: ? Project List: An initial street preservation project list to be included in the measure is provided as Attachment C. This list will be refined to consolidate street segments needing repairs into logical engineering projects, as previously described. The council could modify the project list as deemed appropriate. ? Project Implementation: Staff recommends a Street Preservation Advisory Committee be formed to advise the Public Works Department on the GO Bond project list to be funded in the capital budget each year. The council could modify the method of building project flexibility into implementation of the bond measure. ? Measure Size: The council conceptually approved $6.5 million of annual spending, adjusted in subsequent years for inflation plus bond issuance costs, for a total measure of $81.1 million. The council could choose a different amount for the bond measure. Attachment F includes the effect on taxpayers for different bond amounts. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that a November 2008 GO Bond measure to fund $81.1 million of street and off-street bike and pedestrian path preservation projects over 10 years should be prepared for con- sideration at the July 28 council meeting. The projects included in the measure should be consistent with the initial project list included in Attachment C, as refined to consolidate street segments into logical engineering projects, and a Department Advisory Committee should be formed to oversee future project implementation. SUGGESTED MOTION Direct the City Manager to bring council a resolution placing an $81.1 million GO bond measure on the November 2008 ballot, consistent with the initial project list in Attachment C and the draft resolution in Attachment E. ATTACHMENTS A.Pavement Preservation Funding Action History B.2008 Pavement Management Report; An Update on Asphalt Pavement Conditions and Programs C.Initial List of Projects D.Map of Initial Projects E.Draft Resolution Placing the Measure on the Ballot F.Impact on Taxpayer from Different Bond Amounts FOR MORE INFORMATION Contact: Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial Analysis Manager Telephone: 682-5589 Staff E-Mail: Sue.L.Cutsogeorge@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080609\S080609C.doc ATTACHMENT A Pavement Preservation Funding Action History The City’s current 5-cent local gas tax, together with other dedicated pavement preservation funding, has allowed the City to complete nearly $16.5 million in street preservation project work since 2003, with additional contracts in progress. During 2007, more than 17.4 lane miles of slurry seal projects and 20.5 lane miles of rehabilitation projects were completed, including the overlay of portions of 18th th Avenue, Chambers Street and Bailey Hill Road. Projects planned for 2008 include portions of East 13 Avenue, Barger Drive, Chambers Street and Roosevelt Boulevard. In spite of these accomplishments, the backlog of needed repair work continues to grow in the face of rapidly rising construction costs and insufficient revenues. In late 2001, the City was facing an estimated $67 million backlog in pavement preservation work. By spring of 2008, the estimated cost of that backlog had grown to $173 million and, with no new funding, was projected to grow to over $280 million within the next 10 years. In January 2007, the council formed a Council Subcommittee on Transportation Funding Solutions (subcommittee) to study transportation funding options and bring back creative solutions for adequately funding Eugene’s transportation system for cars, trucks, bicycles and pedestrians in ways that collect funds proportionately (or equally) from residents and non-residents who use the roads, are more consistent with sustainability goals, have direct connection to use of the roads, and give incentives to those who do not have a car or use one very little. This proposal for a bond measure for street repairs is an integral component in a package strategy recommended by the subcommittee, and approved by the council, to adequately and equitably fund Eugene’s transportation system for a variety of users. The package of proposed solutions included a street user fee based on parking spaces, and a street and bike/pedestrian path lighting fee, and an increase in the local motor vehicle fuel tax. The council also took action to extend the local fuel tax sunset provision by three additional years, leaving the fuel tax at five cents per gallon until February 28, 2011. In the course of its work, the subcommittee learned that, in order to completely eliminate the pavement reconstruction backlog within the next 10 years, an estimated $27 million in pavement preservation funding would be needed per year. The subcommittee deemed this revenue target to be too aggressive and, instead, recommended additional annual funding of $13 million to $14 million, bringing total pavement preservation funding up to $18 million per year. While this additional funding would not eliminate the backlog within 10 years, it was projected that it would stabilize the cost-effective annual overlay program and begin to reduce the reconstruction backlog. The subcommittee recommended that the transportation funding package include a capital local option levy generating approximately $6 million net revenues annually to fund pavement capital preservation projects. The council subsequently decided to allocate another $0.5 million to the capital local option levy instead of allocating this amount to a solid waste collection surcharge. In addition, the subcommittee recommended and the council agreed that $350,000 of that amount should be allocated each year for bike and pedestrian path capital preservation. On December 10, 2007, the council discussed a property tax approach to funding pavement capital preservation. Staff presented an approach using a short-term GO bond. Council directed the City Manager to “bring a proposal to a future council work session for a GO Bond measure to fund $81 million of pavement capital preservation projects over 10 years within an appropriate timeframe to place the question on the May 2008 ballot. The proposal should include ballot measure language that provides for both a list of high priority pavement capital preservation projects and appropriate flexibility for planning activities and changing pavement capital preservation project priorities.” Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080609\S080609C.doc ATTACHMENT A Pavement Preservation Funding Action History The City’s current 5-cent local gas tax, together with other dedicated pavement preservation funding, has allowed the City to complete nearly $16.5 million in street preservation project work since 2003, with additional contracts in progress. During 2007, more than 17.4 lane miles of slurry seal projects and 20.5 lane miles of rehabilitation projects were completed, including the overlay of portions of 18th Avenue, Chambers th Street and Bailey Hill Road. Projects planned for 2008 include portions of East 13 Avenue, Barger Drive, Chambers Street and Roosevelt Boulevard. In spite of these accomplishments, the backlog of needed repair work continues to grow in the face of rapidly rising construction costs and insufficient revenues. In late 2001, the City was facing an estimated $67 million backlog in pavement preservation work. By spring of 2008, the estimated cost of that backlog had grown to $173 million and, with no new funding, was projected to grow to over $280 million within the next 10 years. In January 2007, council formed a Council Subcommittee on Transportation Funding Solutions (the “subcommittee”) to study transportation funding options and bring back creative solutions for adequately funding Eugene’s transportation system for cars, trucks, bicycles and pedestrians in ways that collect funds proportionately (or equally) from residents and non-residents who use the roads, are more consistent with sustainability goals, have direct connection to use of the roads, and give incentives to those who do not have a car or use one very little. This proposal for a bond measure for street repairs is an integral component in a package strategy recommended by the subcommittee, and approved by council, to adequately and equitably fund Eugene’s transportation system for a variety of users. The package of proposed solutions included a street user fee based on parking spaces, and a street and bike/pedestrian path lighting fee, and an increase in the local motor vehicle fuel tax. The council also took action to extend the local fuel tax sunset provision by three additional years, leaving the fuel tax at five cents per gallon until February 28, 2011. In the course of its work, the subcommittee learned that, in order to completely eliminate the pavement reconstruction backlog within the next 10 years, an estimated $27 million in pavement preservation funding would be needed per year. The subcommittee deemed this revenue target to be too aggressive and, instead, recommended additional annual funding of $13 million to $14 million, bringing total pavement preservation funding up to $18 million per year. While this additional funding would not eliminate the backlog within 10 years, it was projected that it would stabilize the cost-effective annual overlay program and begin to reduce the reconstruction backlog. The subcommittee recommended that the transportation funding package include a capital local option levy generating approximately $6 million net revenues annually to fund pavement capital preservation projects. Council subsequently decided to allocate another $0.5 million to the capital local option levy instead of allocating this amount to a solid waste collection surcharge. In addition, the subcommittee recommended and the council agreed that $350,000 of that amount should be allocated each year for bike and pedestrian path capital preservation. On December 10, 2007, council discussed a property tax approach to funding pavement capital preservation. Staff presented an approach using a short-term General Obligation (“GO”) bond. Council directed the City Manager to “bring a proposal to a future council work session for a GO Bond measure to fund $81 million of pavement capital preservation projects over 10 years within an appropriate timeframe to place the question on the May 2008 ballot. The proposal should include ballot measure language that provides for both a list of high priority pavement capital preservation projects and appropriate flexibility for planning activities and changing pavement capital preservation project priorities.” 2008 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT An Update on Asphalt Pavement Conditions and Programs (2007 Rating & Inventory Data) Prepared by: Public Works Department Maintenance Division Surface Technical Team 1820 Roosevelt Blvd. Eugene, OR 97402 March 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The annual Pavement Management Report is produced to provide updated information and data regarding the City of Eugene’s street transportation system. This report provides surface descriptions and associated mileage, current treatment programs and costs, and projects future treatment needs based on several funding scenarios. The street transportation system is conservatively estimated to represent a $500 million public asset. This asset is typically described in both lane miles and centerline miles. Currently, Public Works manages Eugene’s 1,343 lane miles, representing 538 centerline miles, within the city limits. A breakdown of the street transportation system is provided in terms of pavement type, level of improvement, and functional classification. Comparative statistical data includes both lane and centerline miles. Street data is collected manually by trained staff involving detailed inspections. Condition inspections are performed annually on arterials and collectors, and on a three-year rotating schedule for residential streets. An Overall Condition Index (OCI) score generated through the inspections provides the data utilized in analysis. CenterLine, a computerized pavement management system (PMS) is the analysis tool utilized by the Public Works Department. Analysis helps in establishing efficient treatment needs and identifies financial implication of various response strategies. Additional benefits of the PMS include a street inventory and condition trends, which are possible due to the compilation of 20 years of street condition information. For some time, funding levels have not kept pace with rehabilitation needs, as evidenced by a growing backlog. To help address this trend, the City established a local gas tax in 2003, dedicated for a Pavement Preservation Program (PPP). This program has supported the rehabilitation of approximately 107 lane miles of streets. For this report, an assumption has been made that the 2 cent gas tax initially scheduled to sunset February 2008, will continue to provide a funding stream. Even with this assumption, the funding for preservation dips to $4.2 million annually. At the current level, preservation funding is not addressing a growing backlog. A $173 million backlog existed at the end of 2007, and by 2017, a backlog of $339 million is anticipated. A portion of the backlog increase is due to unprecedented rising costs in the petroleum industry. Current analysis in the Pavement Management Report includes updated costs prepared by Engineering in 2006 utilizing cost data from prior PPP projects and the Oregon Department of Transportation. A 2% inflation factor is added to the modified 2006 costs. The local gas tax has supported implementation of the preservation program, but as supported by analysis, is insufficient for stabilizing or reducing the growing backlog. Optimizing funding options over a 10-year cycle for stabilizing or reducing the current backlog will require financial investments of $18 million annually. With this investment, projections show that by 2025, the reconstruct backlog will be eliminated. Addressing the rehabilitation needs and reconstruction backlog within the same 10-year period requires an annual funding commitment of approximately $27 million. 1 SCOPE Eugene’s street system is an extensive network of various types of traveling surfaces under the City’s jurisdiction. In the following report, definitions of pavement types, improvement status, and functional classifications are provided and categorized in terms of both centerline mileage and 12’ wide lane miles. A brief history and description of the Pavement Management System (PMS) used by the City will be discussed. Components of PMS, such as pavement inspection frequency, pavement conditions which are described by the Overall Condition Index (OCI), and reports produced by PMS are addressed. Highlighted in the report is the Pavement Preservation Program (PPP) which began in 2003. Outlined are the typical types of preservation treatments, the current lane mile unit cost for each treatment, what condition or OCI a project is recommended for preservation, and a current treatment needs cost analysis is given. A table is provided detailing the current funding sources for PPP. For an effective preservation program, a coordinated effort is required by the Maintenance and Engineering Divisions, therefore both roles are discussed later in the report. Preservation project selection, interim maintenance prioritization, and ultimately project construction or deferral for future reconstruction is discussed in additional detail. This report lists and maps a one year proposed project list in addition to projects completed to date. Three funding scenarios are explored through the analysis program in PMS. We look at the current funding, an $18 million funding, and a scenario where all reconstruct projects are rehabilitated. It is important to note the analysis routines are set up for a 10-year projection, and at this time they are formatted for improved asphalt streets only. These analyses provide necessary information regarding condition trends and rehabilitation needs. Utilizing current funding the analysis gives an idea if our street system remains in the present level of serviceability or is declining. Also, what funding level will create an improvement in our street system and reduce the $173 million backlog. 2 EUGENE’S STREET INVENTORY The City of Eugene has jurisdictional responsibility for many different types and classifications of roads within the transportation system. Many factors such as age, development type, traffic loads, use, and future transportation needs affect the maintenance and rehabilitation planning for the system. The segment inventory component of the PMS system allows a reporting of both centerline miles (intersection to intersection) and lane miles of each segment of the system. While commonly used in reporting distance, centerline miles do not relate equally across streets of different widths or different number of lanes. For this report, comparisons typically are shown both in centerline and 12 foot wide lane miles unless otherwise noted. Improvement Status For purposes of establishing budget allocations and rehabilitation priorities, and performing maintenance activities based on established maintenance policies, Eugene divides the street inventory into two distinct categories: Improved streets are those which have been fully designed for structural adequacy, have storm drainage facilities provided which include curbs and gutters, and have either an asphalt concrete (AC) or a portland cement concrete (PCC) surface. Typically, these streets were either fully improved when the area was developed and paid for by the developer, or were improved through a local improvement district (LID) and paid for in part by the abutting property owners. In some cases a street may have been fully improved while under State or County jurisdiction and then surrendered to the City. Improved streets receive the highest level of ongoing maintenance and are eligible for rehabilitation funding through Eugene's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Pavement Preservation Program (PPP). Unimproved streets are those with soil, gravel, or asphalt mat surfaces which have typically evolved to their existing state, have not been structurally designed, have few drainage facilities, and no curbs and gutters. Unimproved streets receive a low level of ongoing maintenance limited primarily to emergency pothole patching and minimal roadside ditch maintenance. Unimproved Streets are not considered eligible for funding in Eugene's Capital Improvement Program or the Pavement Preservation Program. Typically, an unimproved street must be fully improved through a local improvement district, funded in part by the abutting property owners before a higher level of service will be provided (see “City of Eugene Street Maintenance Policy and Procedure Manual” for levels of maintenance service). 3 The following tables categorize Eugene’s Improved and Unimproved Street System in Centerline Miles and 12’ Lane Miles by Pavement Type and by Functional Class. IMPROVED SYSTEM Collector Major Arterial Minor Arterial Neigh.LocalTotal Collector Miles12’Miles12’Miles12’Miles12’Miles12’Miles12’ LanesLanesLanesLanesLanesLanes 1113. Asphalt ()13.560.660.0201.129.189.322.760.0301.1702.1426.4 ACP 1 Asphalt over 00.22.48.00.92.40.41.12.25.86.017.6 Concrete) (APC Concrete ()1.42.83.711.42.67.125.321.654.831.281.5 PCC Total1212. 14.963.666.1220.532.598.225.166.4324.9762.7463.6 1 UNIMPROVED SYSTEM Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Neigh.LocalTotal Collector Mile Miles12’Miles12’s12’Miles12’Miles12’Miles12’ LanesLaneLanesLanesLanesLanes Asphalt (ACP) 003.15.93.57.75.510.439.473.551.297.3 Bituminous Surface (BST) 0000000.20.49.814.89.815.1 Gravel000000009.714.39.714.3 Concrete (PCC) 000000000000 Undeveloped000000004.24.24.24.2 Total003.15.93.57.75.710.863.1106.874.9130.9 Functional Classifications The quantity and associated vehicle weight of traffic using streets is a critical factor affecting the rate at which pavement and roadbeds deteriorate. Eugene divides streets into five categories called functional classifications (FC), each representing a different volume and type of vehicular usage. MAJOR ARTERIAL (FC-1) -Major Arterials are usually four or more lanes and generally connect various parts of the region with one another within the city and with the "outside world." They serve as major access routes to regional destinations such as downtowns, universities, airports, and similar major focal points within the urban area. Major Arterials typically carry an average of more than 20,000 vehicles per day. Major Arterials receive high priority maintenance. MINOR ARTERIAL (FC 2) -Minor Arterials are typically two or three lanes. These streets provide the next level of urban connectivity below major arterials. In most cases their main 4 role tends to be serving intra-city mobility. Minor Arterials carry between 7,500 and 20,000 vehicles per day. Minor Arterials receive priority maintenance. MAJOR COLLECTOR (FC-3) -Major Collectors can be found in residential, commercial, and industrial areas. They typically carry between 2,500 and 7,500 vehicles per day. Major Collectors have a higher priority for maintenance than local streets. NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR (FC-4) -Neighborhood Collectors are found only in residential neighborhoods and provide a high degree of access to individual properties in a neighborhood. They typically carry between 1,500 and 2,500 vehicles per day. Prior to the adoption of the Eugene Arterial & Collector Street Plan in November 1999, this functional classification designation did not exist; therefore, these streets were generally designated as collectors. LOCAL (FC-5) -Local streets provide access to individual properties along the roadway. They are narrow, slow-speed, and low-volume service facilities. They typically carry fewer than 1,500 vehicles per day, and receive low priority maintenance. The following graph illustrates both centerline and lane miles by improvement type and functional classes. Mileage by Functional Class - Improved and Unimproved 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Neigh. Major ArterialMinor ArterialCollectorLocalTotal Collector 6422198657631212 Improved 12' lane miles 06811107131 Unimproved 12'lane miles 15663325325464 Improved centerline miles 03466375 Unimproved centerline miles 5 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Effective evaluation of planning and funding priorities necessitate that local jurisdictions manage their transportation infrastructure with some form of pavement management system. Generally, the PMS provides guidance in the decision making process and is designed to prevent pavement failures through judicious maintenance. The Pavement Management System performs analysis and reports on the current and projected condition of the pavement surface. The system is dependent on the annual condition inspections/surveys that are conducted. The PMS used by the City of Eugene since 1987 was developed by Washington's League of Cities and Washington County Roads Administration Board (CRAB) in conjunction with the Washington Department of Transportation (WDOT). The PMS combines visual field inspection ratings, compiled under strict criteria, with an automated computer tracking and condition analysis program, called CenterLine. Together these components of PMS document current pavement condition and serviceability, and provide a basis for modeling project financial/condition trends. Eugene's PMS contains 20 years of historical data and has the ability to estimate financial needs and road conditions twenty years into the future. Pavement Inspection Frequency Two predominant work efforts required to maintain the PMS are updating the street inventory and performing the annual inspection of surface conditions. City streets are divided into segments based on their Functional Classification (FC), pavement type, and geometric design. Segments are the basic unit for evaluating streets and surface conditions. A segment is defined as a portion of a street with a beginning and ending description. Changes in geometric features are used as a guide for determining segments. Examples of geometric differences are surface type, segment widths, surface age, and extent of past rehabilitations. Annual field inspections are performed on all the City's arterials and collector streets. Since the rate of deterioration of a local street is typically less than that seen on higher classification streets, field inspections are performed on one-third of the local streets each year which places all local streets on a three-year inspection cycle. Field inspection is conducted by pairs of pavement raters who walk each individual street segment evaluating the pavement for signs of distress. Discrepancies between the ratings of the two pavement raters, or from the previous years’ ratings are reason for the segment to be rated a second time to ensure a correct evaluation. Overall Condition Index (OCI), Deduct Values, and Distresses Pavement raters walk streets evaluating the pavements for signs of distress. Distresses occurring in streets are dependent on pavement type and are rated by extent and severity. These values are logged on standard forms designed for the field surveys. Distresses occur in many phases of deterioration; therefore, the predominant extent and severity is rated. The data is then entered into CenterLine. Numerical values (deduct values) are assigned to each distress’ extent and severity, all deduct values are summed and then subtracted from the base value of 100 internally. The final value, designated as the overall condition index (OCI), 6 indicates the surface condition of a street segment. A street with an OCI of 100 represents a new or recently rehabilitated street. As the condition of a street surface begins to deteriorate the OCI decrease reflects surface deterioration. This OCI value is the basis used to analyze the surface treatment needs of the individual segments. Asphalt distresses typically observed are alligatoring, longitudinal and transverse cracks, rutting, raveling, and some maintenance procedures such as crack sealing and patching. Concrete distresses observed are cracks per panel, raveling, joint spalling, faulting, and crack sealing. How PMS Information is Used The primary purpose of maintaining a PMS is to collect and analyze information relating to street system condition and trends providing Public Works Managers with vital information which helps to ensure that the most cost effective maintenance or rehabilitation strategies are identified and performed at the optimum time. Each year the PMS is used to generate several reports requested by other agencies as well as statistical data requested within our own agency. The following is a sample of reports produced with PMS data: Three Year Pavement Preservation Project List Crack Seal Program Five-Year Surface List – 5-year moratorium for street cutting ODOT Oregon Mileage Report City of Eugene Public Infrastructure Table Annual Insurance Marketing Report Transportation Service Profile ICMA Survey 7 PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PROGRAM Street preservation, capital improvements, and maintenance efforts make up the complete Pavement Preservation Program (PPP). In this section, current cost analyses are shown and the roles of Public Works Engineering and Maintenance Divisions are discussed. Proposed projects for PPP are shown for 2008. Treatment Types and Costs Unit Costs were reviewed and updated in 2000 by Pavement Services, INC. In 2006, the Engineering Division updated unit costs as a result of various industry sources reporting substantial increases in construction costs. One reason for the increase was the cost of oil- based products. Staff reviewed cost trends provided by ODOT and noted that costs for liquid asphalt has risen over 77%, from $207/ton to $368/ton, in a nine month period. Public Works Engineering Division compared cost trend data with the current projects completed under the PPP program and recalculated unit costs to reflect recent price increases. After discussion with Pavement Services, INC., the 2% inflation factor appeared to be appropriate to continue to use once the unit costs were updated. 2007 unit costs used in the analysis are the updated costs with the 2% inflation factor. As of the date of this report, the costs for petroleum based products continue to climb steadily. Based on historic and current construction costs as tracked by the Engineering Division, each functional class has an estimated unit cost for overlay and reconstruction treatments. For Local streets (FC-5) an additional treatment option was considered: slurry seals. The slurry seal option allows for a cost-effective treatment for local street segments, which do not carry high traffic loads. Unit costs for overlay treatments are derived using historic weighted average project costs and projected costs for rehabilitation of streets in each specific functional classification. Typical overlay rehabilitation includes milling of existing pavement to a moderate depth to remove existing cracking and increase strength of the structural section. Isolated areas of severely distressed pavement is removed and replaced including a new aggregate base. Associated costs include replacement of striping and pavement markings, adjustment of manholes, and other work needed to return the street to normal operation. Unit costs for reconstruction treatments are derived using historic weighted average project costs and projected costs for reconstruction of streets in each specific functional classification. Typical street reconstruction includes removal of the existing pavement and base structural section and replacement with a new structural section which will meet a 20- year design life. Isolated areas of curb and gutter are replaced where they would not be suitable to contain new paving and/or have severe drainage problems. Associated costs include replacement of striping and pavement markings, adjustment of manholes, and other work needed to return the street to normal operation. Unit costs for slurry seal treatments are derived using historic weighted average project costs and projected costs for slurry seal of local streets. Typical slurry seal treatment includes street cleaning, removal of vegetation, sealing of cracks, and application of an emulsified asphalt 8 aggregate mixture to the entire paved surface. Associated costs include replacement of striping and pavement markings, and other work needed to return the street to normal operation. Treatment – Functional Class 12’ Lane Mile Cost 2005 cost 2006 cost 2007 cost Overlay - FC 1 & 2 $122,000$215,000$220,000 Overlay - FC 3 & 4 $156,000$184,000$189,000 Overlay - FC 5 $73,000$169,000$173,000 Re-Const - FC 1 & 2 $545,000$765,000$781,000 Re-Const - FC 3 & 4 $365,000$677,000$691,000 Re-Const - FC 5 $230,000$505,000$516,000 Slurry Seal - FC 5 $11,000$19,000$20,000 The following graph identifies the trigger points for each treatment based on Functional Class. 9 This chart provides detail of the Current Cost for Treatment of the entire improved system excluding concrete streets at the end of the 2007 rating season. Treatment Costs 2007 Year End $180,000,000 $160,000,000 $140,000,000 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 Major ArtMinor ArtCollNeigh. CollLocalTotal $10,387,700$54,907,200$25,564,200$10,851,700$16,901,800$118,612,600 Recons $3,041,400$6,830,200$4,625,500$2,962,700$31,779,600$49,239,400 Overlay $0$0$0$0$5,382,300$5,382,300 Slurry $13,429,100$61,737,400$30,189,700$13,814,400$54,063,700$173,234,300 Total The following Graph provides detail of the Treatment needs for the Improved System by percentage excluding concrete streets. 10 Projected Pavement Preservation Estimated Funds (FY06-FY11) From the beginning of the Pavement Preservation Program (PPP) an adequate funding source has not been achieved. Currently there are several funding sources contributing to rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. The main source is our local gas tax (5 cents per gallon). A portion of Eugene’s gas tax initially scheduled to sunset in February 29, 2008, did not receive support as a ballot measure. At this time the two cent additional gas tax is considered part of the PPP funding stream. Transportation System Development Charges (SDC) generate an average of $840,000; this funding source is expected to decrease based on permit activity. As stated previously, funds that Lane County committed from its share of state transportation funds ended in 2006. If these assumptions hold true, funds for PPP projects will remain around $4.2 million per year after 2008, which is an improvement over the $2.8 million reported last year. The following table describes the different funding sources for our PPP program for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2013. Const. SeasonLocal Gas Tax OTIA III SDCOtherTotal $188,96 2006$3,533,0007$570,000$531,523$4,823,490 $252,98 2007$3,419,0006$580,000$2,384,008$6,635,994 $1,341,00 2008$2,900,000$00$2,086,000$6,327,000 2009$3,300,000$0$824,000$163,800$4,287,800 2010$3,300,000$0$872,000$171,990$4,343,990 2011$3,300,000$0$783,000$180,590$4,263,590 2012$3,300,000$0$767,000$189,619$4,256,619 2013$3,300,000$0$759,000$0$4,059,000 Assumptions: 1) Local Vehicle Fuel Tax revenues reflect five cents per gallon, assuming repeal of sunset scheduled for February 29, 2008 2) Other includes interest, transfers from general fund, and funds from other agencies. 3) OTIA III funds ended in FY06, but final payment was received in FY07. 4) SDC revenue is predicted to decline in FY09-12 years based upon permit activity. 5) Used same assumption as in the FY08 budget document. 6) 2008 - Other includes balance of state transfer for Franklin Blvd and 6th/7th plus STP-U for Roosevelt Blvd. 7) 2007 - Includes $100k of STP-U for Roosevelt Blvd. 11 Project Prioritization Selecting streets or street segments is done through a process involving analysis, tests, and staff experience. Eugene has a street inventory of approximately 1,343 lane miles. Using information collected by pavement raters, a computer model forecasts pavement life and trends. Combining this information with estimated revenues allows staff to estimate backlogs and group potential street segments for Pavement Preservation Program (PPP) projects. To verify street segment ratings, the Maintenance Division forwards potential project segments to the Engineering Division who coordinates field testing. Streets are not prioritized on a "worst first" basis. One of the main reasons for this is the limited funds available to address Eugene’s street repair backlog. Public Works’ main objective is to keep street segments from slipping into the reconstruction category, which typically costs four to five times more per lane mile than rehabilitation. By rehabilitating (overlaying) a street before it significantly deteriorates, 15 to 20 years of useful life can be added to a street at a substantial cost savings over reconstruction. By the same token, once a street has deteriorated to the point that it must be reconstructed, the opportunity for preventive street maintenance (overlay) is lost. For these reasons, streets that are categorized as overlay projects receive the highest priority for corrective treatment. If at some point in the future there are additional funds available, or if the majority of overlay projects have been addressed, reconstruction projects will be scheduled . The following is a list of scheduled projects for 2008. Overlays Lane NameFrom Limit To Limit MilesMiles 1.544.41 BROADWAY/MILL/HWY99ES 11TH AVE ES HIGH 0.160.58 13TH AVE SS FRANKLIN BLVD ES AGATE 0.671.81 27TH AVE WS AMAZON PARKWAY ES JEFFERSON 1.053.49 BARGER DR WS HWY 99 ES TERRY 2.789.74 ROOSEVELT BLVD 106' W CHAMBERS ES BELTLINE 0.883.01 CHAD DR EAST END ES COBURG RD 0.804.46 CHAMBERSSS RAILROAD BLVD NS 8TH AVE Total7.8827.50 12 Slurry Seals Lane NameFrom Limit To Limit MilesMiles 0.040.08 08TH PL SS DRWY 1640 ES CHAMBERS 0.230.62 09TH PL WS CHAMBERS ES GARFIELD 0.220.61 10TH AVE WS CHAMBERS ES GARFIELD 151' WEST OF 0.330.90 12TH AVE WS CHAMBERS ARTHUR 0.070.19 13TH AVE WS GARFIELD ES ARTHUR 0.070.19 14TH AVE WS GRANT ES HAYES 0.180.48 15TH AVE WS CHAMBERS WS HAYES 0.170.35 ALDABRA ST WS AMIRANTE NS BARGER 0.200.47 ALMADEN ST SS W 7TH NS W BROADWAY 0.050.10 ALPHONSE AVE WS LEMURIA ES AMIRANTE 0.420.87 AMIRANTE ST N END CDS NS BARGER 0.150.41 ARTHUR ST SS 11TH AVE NS W 13TH AV 0.070.15 ASTOVE AVE E 384 TERRY ES TERRY 0.050.10 ASTOVE AVE WS LEMURIA ES AMIRANTE 0.360.99 BROADWAY W WS CHAMBERS ES GARFIELD 443 FT EAST OF 174 FT WEST OF 0.330.69 BURNETT AVE MINNESOTA OHIO 443 FT EAST OF 174 FT WEST OF 0.320.66 CODY AVE MINNESOTA OHIO 0.050.10 COETIVY AVE WS TERRY ES AMIRANTE 0.491.02 DAKOTA ST NS 2299 NS BARGER 0.571.57 ELIZABETH ST W(END) HSE 1197 NS HILTON DR S 0.180.38 ELIZABETH ST NS FERGUS N END 0.140.29 FERGUS AVE ES ELIZABETH ES HSW 4202 0.080.27 FILLMORE ST SS W 7TH NS W 8TH 0.581.69 GRANT ST SS W 7TH NS 15TH 0.290.80 HAYES ST SS W 11TH NS W 15TH 0.430.89 HILTON DR (END) DRWY 4561 WS NEBRASKA 0.130.27 KNOOP AVE WS ELIZABETH ES BETHESDA 0.381.05 MARCUM LN WS RUTLEDGE (END) DRWY 499 0.491.35 MINNESOTA ST NS 2298 NS BARGER 0.210.57 NEBRASKA ST NS DRWY 725 NS MARCUM LN 0.491.35 OHIO ST NS 2295 NS BARGER 0.220.47 PRASLIN ST WS AMIRANTE NS BARGER 0.711.81 TAYLOR ST SS W 7TH NS W 10TH 0.491.02 WISCONSIN ST NS 2289 NS BARGER 0.060.09 WOOD AVE WS 4098 ES NEBRASKA Total9.2522.85 13 The following map illustrates the Pavement Preservation Projects scheduled for 2008. 14 The following map illustrates Pavement Preservation Projects since inception of the program. 15 O & M – Overview of Maintenance Roles Maintenance Division staff from both the surface technical and operations teams are involved in a variety of roles associated with the Pavement Preservation Program (PPP). Pavement rating, budget and street life analysis, grouping projects, and preventative maintenance are all components of a pavement management system that take place in the Maintenance Division. Surface technical staff performs annual pavement rating of the City’s transportation system in order to track current pavement conditions. Streets are placed on the PPP list when the Overall Condition Index (OCI) indicates an overlay treatment is needed. With this information, detailed analysis is performed to help identify current treatment needs and forecast anticipated needs. Based on available funding, projects from the PPP list are grouped for efficiency. Once approved by the Maintenance Director, this list is sent to the Engineering Division for field testing to verify condition findings. Surface operations staff maintain more than 1,343 lane miles of city streets this includes concrete streets which are not included in the Pavement Preservation Program. Fully improved asphalt streets receive the highest level of maintenance. Preventative maintenance designed to extend the life of the transportation asset is of highest priority. Street maintenance for streets identified on the PPP list will be similar to those streets with higher OCI ratings. These streets will be swept on a regular schedule, receive skin patching when necessary, have alligatored areas dug out and replaced, receive scheduled crack sealing, and have base failures repaired. These maintenance activities are performed to mitigate hazardous conditions and to extend the useful life of the street. The goal of preventative maintenance is to prevent a street’s OCI from slipping into a reconstruction category in which corrective treatments can run 4 to 5 times the cost of overlay projects. PPP – Overview of Engineering’s Role Engineering Division receives the grouped projects for preservation three years out. Construction design and historical data are collected and reviewed, and field inspections are performed. Final determination of needed treatment results from core tests and recommendations by pavement consultants. Once a street is determined to be a true reconstruct it is deferred until funding is identified and available. Reasons for reconstruct treatment include base failure, design standards which did not anticipate current capacity, and poor initial design standards. 16 FUNDING COMPARISON WITH CURRENT GAS TAX Utilizing the PMS software, an analysis for a 10 year period beginning at the end of 2007 has been completed based on the current funding. The PMS software evaluates the deterioration of each segment based on the historic individual OCI ratings. The software then projects when to apply the necessary treatment at the proper time. When possible, the system applies a less expensive treatment earlier in the degradation curve. The established annual funding level is applied to the treatment needs, and then the annual distribution of treatment types is developed. If the established budget does not allow for all of the treatment needs to be met, a remainder value (in dollars) is reported. This value is commonly called the “additional needs” budget. A graph of the “additional needs” for the current funding level has been provided as well as an optimum funding scenario at $18 million. Additionally, a graph identifying a funding level necessary to prevent projects falling into reconstruct and rehabilitating all projects currently in a reconstruct condition is included. This scenario requires approximately $27 million. An inflation factor of 2% annually has been applied to these forecasts. The 2% value is based on historic cost values as tracked by a published market study (ENR). Current Funding $400,000,000 $350,000,000 $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 $50,000,000 $0 17 Current analysis utilizing updated unit costs identifies that $18 million annually in road rehabilitation is needed. This funding level preserves all streets in the low end range of the overlay condition and prevents them falling into a reconstruct condition. With this funding we are also able to address approximately $73 million of arterials and $5 million of collectors already in a reconstruct condition over a 10 year period. Additional Needs At 18 Million Dollars $200,000,000 $180,000,000 $160,000,000 $140,000,000 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 18 To fully address all streets needing reconstruction and preventing streets falling into a reconstruct condition an average of $27 million annually in rehabilitation funding would be needed over a ten year period. Additional Needs at 27 Million Dollars $200,000,000 $180,000,000 $160,000,000 $140,000,000 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 19 SUMMARY In the last five years the Pavement Management System program has met goals and objectives which have increased the City’s ability to maintain and improve the pavement condition of our public road infrastructure system. Implementation and collection of a five cent local gas tax was approved as a source for revenue for the Pavement Preservation Program (PPP). This additional funding source allowed for approximately 107 lane miles of streets to be rehabilitated through the Pavement Preservation Program (PPP) administered by Public Works Engineering Division. The current cost estimates for treatment of the improved system based on 2007 inspection ratings and the local gas tax revenue indicate approximately a $173 million backlog at the end of 2007. Ten years later in 2017, our backlog is $339 million. Our current revenue for preservation is not adequate to reduce the backlog. A funding level of $18 million will begin to reduce the backlog. With this funding level, streets that need reconstruction will begin to be targeted and residential streets (the largest portion of Eugene’s street network) will receive treatment. A funding level of $27 million is needed to eliminate the backlog of reconstruction needs over a ten year period. 20 Attachment C 2008 General Obligation Bonds for Street Maintenance Projects - Project List Street NameFromTo 01ST AVEES DRWY 360WS WASHINGTON 02ND AVEWS MONROEWS ADAMS 04TH AVEES COBURGES PEARL 05TH AVEWS HIGHWS WILLAMETTE 05TH AVEWS BLAIRWS TAYLOR 05TH AVEWS BERTELSENWS 4277 05TH AVEWS ALMADENWS CHAMBERS 06TH AVEWS LAWRENCEWS WASHINGTON 07TH AVEWS BERTLESENWS OSCAR 07TH PLWS SENECAES BAILEY HILL 08TH AVEWS PEARLES OAK 08TH AVEWS CHARNELTONWS LINCOLN 08TH AVEWS CHAMBERSES GARFIELD 08TH AVENS HILYARDES MILL 10TH AVEWS CHARNELTONES LINCOLN 12TH AVEWS TAYLORES CHAMBERS 13TH AVEWS HILYARDWS MONROE 13TH AVEES ARTHURW 146' ARTHUR 13TH AVEWS BUCKES QUAKER 13TH AVEWS CHAMBERSWS GARFIELD 14TH AVEWS CITY VIEWWS WILSON CT 14TH AVE(END)NS 14TH 14TH AVEWS WILSON CT(END) 14TH AVEWS BUCKES QUAKER 14TH AVEWS CHAMBERSES GRANT 15TH AVEWS OAKES OLIVE 15TH AVE175' E OF ACORN PARKES ACORN PARK 15TH AVEES DRWY 1175 FAIRGROUNDSES POLK 15TH AVEWS JEFFERSONES MADISON 15TH AVEE 374 ES AGATEES AGATE 16TH AVEE 180 RIVERVIEWES RIVERVIEW 17TH AVEWS FAIRMOUNTES WALNUT 17TH AVEWS ORCHARDES COLUMBIA 17TH AVEWS WILLAMETTEES CHARNELTON 17TH AVEES GRANTES HAYES 17TH AVEWS ALDERES HILYARD 18TH AVEWS HILYARDES AMAZON BRIDGE 18TH AVEWS WILLAMETTEWS OLIVE 18TH AVEES JEFFERSONWS JEFFERSON 18TH AVE1785WS CITY VIEW 18TH AVE102' E JOSH STES BERTELSEN 19TH AVEWS JACKSONWS VAN BUREN 19TH AVEWS HIGHES AMAZON BRIDGE 19TH AVEWS OAKES WILLAMETTE 19TH AVEWS 3019ES GRIENER 20TH AVEWS JACKSONES VAN BUREN 20TH AVEWS VAN BURENES TYLER 20TH AVEWS ARTHURES CLEVELAND 20TH AVEDRWY 740ES MONROE 21ST AVEWS FAIRMOUNTES EMERALD 21ST AVEWS ALDERES HILYARD 21ST AVEWS JEFFERSONES MADISON 21ST AVEWS MONROEES FRIENDLY 22ND AVEWS UNIVERSITYES ALDER 22ND AVEWS CHAMBERSES GRANT 22ND AVEWS ORRES CITY VIEW Attachment C Street NameFromTo 22ND AVEWS VAN BURENES TYLER 22ND AVEWS HILYARDES PATTERSON 23RD AVEWS LINCOLNES MONROE 23RD AVEES ONYXWS ONYX 23RD AVEWS CHAMBERSES GRANT 24TH AVEES DRWY 1825WS GARFIELD 24TH PLWS JEFFERSONES MADISON 25TH AVEWS HIGH STES OAK ST 25TH AVEWS HAWKINS LNES BRITTANY 25TH AVEWS JEFFERSONES MONROE 25TH PLWS WASHINGTONES JEFFERSON 26TH AVEWS LAWRENCEES JEFFERSON 26TH AVEWS MADISONES ADAMS 26TH AVEWS CHARNELTONES LINCOLN 27TH AVEES DRWY 2310W 242 CITY VIEW 27TH AVEWS FRIENDLYES JACKSON 27TH PL1142ES TYLER 28TH AVEWS WASHINGTONWS FRIENDLY 29TH AVEES OAKWS WILLAMETTE 29TH PLES PEARLWS DRWY 90 29TH PLWS PORTLANDWS 70 (END) 30TH AVEES MILLES WILLAMETTE 31ST AVEES DRWY 1598WS ONYX 34TH AVEES MCMILLANES OLIVE 34TH AVEWS CHAMBERSES GRANT 34TH PLWS 380WS HIGH 35TH AVEWS WILLAMETTEWS 80 36TH AVEWS POTTERES E AMAZON 36TH AVE175ES KNOB HILL 38TH AVENS 1447 DRWYES POTTER 38TH AVE772820 39TH AVEWS WILLAMETTEWS 365 39TH PLES ONYXES POTTER 40TH AVEES BRAE BURNELECTRIC POST 580 40TH AVEWS HILYARDES DONALD 41ST AVEES DRWY 1180ES E AMAZON 43RD AVEWS DONALDES MILL ST 43RD AVEWS W AMAZONES 945 44TH AVEWS W AMAZONES FOX HOLLOW 47TH AVEWS DONALDES WILLAMETTE ACORN PARK ST12601340 ADAMS STNS CLARKSS CLARK ADAMS STSS 24THNS 26TH ADAMS STNS 27THSS 27TH AGATE STSS FRANKLIN28'S 13TH CURB RETURN ALDER ST191' SOUTH OF BROADWAYNS BRIDGE ALDER STSS E 30THNS E 32ND ALMADEN STSS W 6THNS W 7TH ALVA PARK DRSS BELLNS WOOD ALVA PARK DRSS ELMIRASS DRWY 153 AMAZON PKWYSS E 19THNS 2693 S OF E 24TH ARONDO CTWS GILHAM1460 ASH STNS CHESHIRENS CLARK AUGUSTA STSS 26TH2720 & CDS AVALON STWS CASCADEES JUHL AVALON STWS HAVENW 111 DOLA BAILEY HILL RDNS 7TH AVENS 11TH AVE Attachment C Street NameFromTo BAILEY HILL RDSS 18THES BERTELSEN BAILEY LNWS BOGART LNES COBURG RD BARGER DRES ALTAMONTES PRIMROSE BAR-M DRSS WILLAKENZIE RDSS DRWY 1483 BENSON LN25962574 BIRCHWOOD AVEWS 2176ES GILHAM BLACKBURN STSS KEVINGTONES WARREN BRAE BURN STWS 39THNS 391 BRITTANY ST21402184 BRITTANY ST22452261 BRITTANY STSS W 18THSS W 25TH AVE BROOKSIDE DRWS BRAE BURNSS 999 BROOKSIDE DRNS MONTARA WYNS 415 BUCK STNS 1295NS 14TH & CDS BUFF WAYSS SHARONNS FORRESTER WY BUSINESS STSS COMMERCENS 11TH AVE CALGARY STSS HOLLYNS ELANCO CALVIN STSS ELWINGNS 1257 CANDLELIGHT DRNS AVALONNS ROYAL CAPITAL DRES SPRINGNS DRWY 2843 CARLTON STSS CARMELNS MONTEREY LN CATALINA ST43704390 CENTER WAYNS MARTIN215 S OF DRWY 5259 CHAD DRWS COBURGES ERIN WY & CDS's CHAMBERS STSS 11TH AVENS 13TH AVE CHARNELTON STSS W 6THNS W 7TH CHARNELTON STSS W 10THNS W 11TH CHARNELTON STNS 15THSS 17TH CHARNELTON STSS W 30TH3050 (END) CITY VIEW STSS W 21STNS TERRACE VIEW CITY VIEW STNS TERRACE VIEWNS PANORAMA CLARK STWS N LINCOLNWS WASHINGTON COBURG RDNS CRESCENTNS S ONRAMP BELTLINE COBURG RDN 823' CALYOUNGNS HARLOW COBURG RDMIDDLE OF 470 COBURG RDNS DRWY 205 CODY AVEWS GOLDEN GARDENWS BLUE HERON COMMERCE STWS BUSINESSNS 11TH AVE CONGER STSS 7THNS 11TH CORUM AVESS FLINTRIDGEWS TABOR COUNTRY CLUB RDWS CC/WILLAGILLESPIEWS COBURG RD COUNTRY CLUB RDES ELWOODNS COUNTRY CLUB/WILLAGILLESPIE CRESCENT AVEWS GAME FARM RD50' E OF SHADOW VIEW CREST DRWS WILLAMETTEES LINCOLN CROSS STWS N POLKES RAILROAD BLVD CURTIS AVE1786ES NORKENZIE DALTON DRSS STERLINGNS SILVER LN DANEBO AVESS CODYNS BURNETT DANEBO AVESS ROYAL AVESS PACIFIC DANEBO AVENS ISABELLENS AMAZON BRIDGE DAVIS STSS BELLNS WOOD DIVISION AVEWS DIVISION PL375' W OF DIVISON PL DOLA ST15211539 DONALD STSS E 46THNS FOX HOLLOW EAST AMAZON DRSS DILLARDNS CENTER WAY EAST AMAZON DR36353645 EAST AMAZON DR42694283 EAST AMAZON DRES HILYARDSS DILLARD Attachment C Street NameFromTo ECHO HOLLOW RD880960 EDISON STWS DRWY 2705WS OF PARK ELLEN AVEES DRWY 1995ES GRIENER ELLSWORTH ST1330 CDS1335 ELWING AVEES ARCADIAWS PRESIDENT ST ELYSIUM AVEWS BEST LNNS ROCKY LN (E) & CDS's EXMOOR PLE 152 ROAN DRES ROAN DR FAIRMOUNT BLVD20' N OF NS SUNSETNS DRWY 1799 FILLMORE STSS W 5THNS W 6TH FIRCREST DRES BIRCHNS SYLVAN FLINTRIDGE AVEWS CORUMES TABOR FOX HOLLOW RDSS E 43RD AVENS DRWY 5060 FOX HOLLOW RD46234661 FRIENDLY STNS W 17THNS W 18TH FRIENDLY STNS 18THSS 18TH GARFIELD STSS W 18THNS W 24TH AVE GILHAM RDNS HONEYWOOD STNS CRESCENT GLEN OAKS DRSS KNOB HILLNS 37TH AVE GOODPASTURE IS RDWS RIDGEWAY DR (W)ES DELTA HWY BRIDGE GOODPASTURE IS RD385 S OF GDPASTURE LKNS 380 GOODPASTURE IS GOODPASTURE IS RDES BRIDGE OVER SLOUGH385 S OF GDPASTURE LK LP GOODPASTURE LPNS GOODPASTURE IS RD1090' N OF GP IS RD GRAHAM DRES DRWY 19902029 GRAND STNS 72NS RAILROAD BLVD GRANT ST76' S OF 22NDNS 24TH GRANT STSS W 17THNS W 18TH GREEN ACRES RDES APPLEWOODES DELTA HWY GREENVIEW ST(END) 2115NS FAIROAKS DR HAPPY LNSS GOODPASTURE IS RDNS 1824 HARLOW RD27102760 HARLOW RDI-5 WS OF TOPES GARDEN WAY HARRIS STNS DRWY 3479NS E 35TH HAWTHORNE AVEWS FAIRFIELDDRWY 3402 HAYES STSS W BROADWAYNS 11TH HAZEL CTE 172 ROAN DRES ROAN DR HEATHER WAYNS 3320NS FILLMORE HIGH STNS 2NDNS 3RD HIGH STSS 6THNS 7TH HIGH STSS E 28THNS E 29TH HIGH STSS E 11THNS E 13TH HILYARD STSS 30THNS 33RD HILYARD STNS 33RD AVENS 34TH HILYARD STNS 39THSS 40TH HILYARD STNS 40TH AVE(END) NS DRWY 4110 HILYARD STSS E BROADWAYNS BRIDGE HILYARD STNS BRIDGESS BRIDGE HILYARD STSS E 24THNS DRWY 2855 HIWAN CT947969 INGALLS WAYES INGALLS WYES MCLEAN IRVING RDWS RIVER RDWS BELMONT JACKSON STSS W 12THNS W 13TH JEFFERSON STNS W 5THNS W 6TH JEFFERSON STNS W 8THSS W 8TH JEPPESEN ACRES RDWS TABOR1312 JEPPESEN KEELER AVEWS GARDEN WYES KEELER KENMORE STSS BELL(END) 611 LAWRENCE STNS DRWY 36SS CLARK Attachment C Street NameFromTo LAWRENCE STSS W 11THNS W 13TH LINCOLN STSS W 7THNS W 13TH LINCOLN STSS W 5THNS W 6TH LINDLEY LNSS ML KING JR BLVDNS BARDELL AVE LINNEA AVEWS TARPONES NORKENZIE LOMA LINDA LNWS LOMA LINDA DR (W)430 LYNNBROOK DRES 330ES LANCASTER MADISON STSS W 5THNS W 8TH MAPLE STSS ROOSEVELTSS CROSS MARLOW LNWS NORWOODES GILHAM MARTHA CTWS CALVIN ST156 WEST MAXWELL RDWS LABONAES BRIDGE MCKINLEY STSS W 7THNS W 11TH MCLEAN BLVDSS W 28TH AVEWS MCKENDRICK & CDS MILL STSS 30TH AVENS 390 DRWY MILL STWS DONALDSS 40TH ML KING JR BLVDWS BRIDGE OVER 1-5ES LINDLEY ML KING JR BLVDES DRWY CHASE VILLAGEES CENTENNIAL LOOP MONROE STNS CLARKNS W 1ST MONROE STSS W 18THNS W 19TH MONROE STSS W 38TH AVESS 3825 NORKENZIE RD2977NS GREEN ACRES NORTH SHASTA LPSS FIRLANDES E 43RD OAK STSS 29THSS 29TH PL OAK STWS PEARLES WILLAMETTE OAKMONT WAYWS COBURG RDES OAKWAY RD OAKMONT WAYWS OAKWAY RDES FAIROAKS DR OBIE ST999NS 11TH AVE OLIVE STNS W 10THNS W 11TH ONYX STES UNIVERSITYES ONYX ONYX ST39TH3987 DRWY PALMER AVEES DRWY 2395WS DRWY 2241 PANORAMA DRW CITY VIEW115' W OF CITY VIEW PATTERSON STNS E 15THSS E 16TH PATTERSON STSS 18THNS 23RD PEARL STSS 28THNS 29TH PEARL STSS 34TH PLNS DONALD PEARL STSS E 8TH858 PEARL PEARL STSS E 7THNS E 8TH PEARL ST171' N OF 19THNS 19TH POLK STSS CROSS STNS RAILROAD BLVD POLK STSS W 6THNS W 7TH POLK STSS W 18THSS W 24TH PORTLAND STSS W 23RDSS 789 POTTER PLNS 4088NS E41ST PRAIRIE RDNS MAXWELLES 99 N PRESTWICH PLWS ST ANDREWS(END) 2101 RAILROAD BLVDWS CROSSES CHAMBERS RANDALL ST(END) 1099NS WESTERN DR REGENT AVE35203526 RIDGEWAY DR20352055 RIVERVIEW STWS SYLVANSS 16TH RIVERVIEW STFRANKLIN OFF RAMP247' S OF FRANKLIN OFF RAMP ROUNDUP DRES MARTINGATE ST96' N OF HACKAMORE ROYAL AVE47164789 ROYAL AVEWS HWY 99WS DRWY 4900 RUTLEDGE STSS BELLDRWY 545 Attachment C Street NameFromTo SAINT STWS WAVERLYES SATRE SARAH LNNS 2931SS BONNIEVIEW SILVER LEA CTDRWY 2150NS SILVER LN SILVER LNWS RIVER RDWS GROVE SNELL STWS DILLARDWS 1020-1080 CDS SNELLING DRWS CHUCKANUTWS DRWY 2460 SORREL WAYES RUSTICWS DRWY 2498 SOUTH RIDGE DR3944WEST END SPENCER CTNS E 39TH PL630 SPRING BLVDSS FAIRMOUNTSS DRWY 2570 SPRING BLVDES N SHASTAES DRWY 3962 STEPHENS DR70' N OF STULTS75' S OF STULTS SURREY LNNS STAGECOACHNS WELCOME WY & CDS TANDY TURNWS FIRWOOD WYES COBURG RD TAYLOR STNS DRWY 1690SS 1779 TERRACE VIEW DRNS CITY VIEWNS 2699 TERRY STSS DRWY 1699NS DRWY 1199 TERRY STNS DRWY 1199NS ROYAL TIGERTAIL RDSS W 34TH AVES END TIMBERLINE DRNS DRWY 2902SS WINTERCREEK UNIVERSITY STSS 25TH (N)SS 25TH (S) UNIVERSITY STSS 30THNS 32ND VALLEY RIVER DRWS WILLAGILLESPIEWS VALLEY RIVER WY VALLEY RIVER WAY500' S OF VALLEY RIVER DRSS CDS VAN BUREN STSS W 5THSS 540 VAN BUREN STNS W BROADWAYSS W BROADWAY VAN BUREN STSS W 16THNS W 17TH VAN BUREN STSS CLARKNS W 1ST VAN BUREN STSS W 19THNS W 21ST VAN DUYN CTWS VAN DUYN(END) VAN DUYN ST206' N OF BENDIXNS DRWY 357 VILLARD STSS GARDENNS FRANKLIN WAITE STSS BELLNS ELMIRA WALTON LN90' N OF MARCELLA100' S OF TORR WARREN STNS 2435SS WARREN WARREN ST153' S OF TIMBERLINENS SUMMIT TERRACE WASHINGTON STNS W 23RD AVESS W 27TH AVE WELCOME WAY72' W OF CANDLELIGHTNS ROYAL & CDS WEST AMAZON DRES HILYARDSS FOX HOLLOW WILLAMETTE STSS E 20THSS DRWY 2415 WILLAMETTE STNS MARLBORO180' S OF SPENCERS CREST WILLAMETTE STNS E 10THSS E 11TH WILLAMETTE STNS 13THSS 13TH WILLAMETTE ST306' N OF W 29THSS W 30TH AVE WILLAMETTE STNS E 32ND AVENS 40TH WILLAMETTE STSS S COACHMANNS STONEWOOD WILLHI ST44354465 WILSON STSS W 5THNS W 7TH Y WAYES 4445ES FOX HOLLOW Key: NS = North SideS = South SS = South SideE = East ES = East SideW = West WS = West SideCDS = Cul-de-Sac DRWY = Driveway N = North ATTACHMENT E DRAFT - RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION CALLING A CITY ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFERRING TO THE LEGAL ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF EUGENE A MEASURE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A MAXIMUM OF $81,100,000 OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO FUND STREET PRESERVATION PROJECTS. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. Using the City’s current 5-cent per gallon local gas tax and other dedicated pavement preservation funding, the City has completed nearly $16.5 million in street maintenance and preservation work since 2003, with additional contracts in progress. During 2007, more than 17.4 lane miles of slurry seal projects and 20.5 lane miles of rehabilitation th projects were completed, including the overlay of portions of 18 Avenue, Chambers Street and Bailey Hill Road. Projects in 2008 include portions of 27th Avenue, Barger Drive, Chambers Street and Roosevelt Boulevard. B. The amount of funding for street maintenance and reconstruction has been insufficient to keep up with deteriorating street conditions. The backlog of needed repair work continues to grow in the face of rapidly rising construction costs and is currently $173 million. Streets that have failed to the point of reconstruction create safety problems, cause vehicle repair problems, make walking, biking or driving on the streets uncomfortable, interfere with economic activity and diminish the quality of life. C. In order to address the funding shortfalls within the City’s street preservation program, the City Council determined that a General Obligation Bond measure generating approximately $6.5 million in net revenues annually should be referred to voters. Of that amount, the Council determined that $350,000 should be allocated each year for off-street bike and pedestrian path preservation. D. A general obligation bond measure of $81.1 million of would fund certain street preservation projects over a period of 10 years. The $81.1 million figure accounts for $6.5 million per year for ten years at an inflation factor of 4.8%. The measure would fix more than 180 lane miles of roads and more than 7 miles of off-street bike and pedestrian paths. E. The measure is expected to cost an average of $0.62 per $1000 of assessed value each year for ten years. For an average home value in Eugene, this would be about $109 per year. F. The bond proceeds will be used to overlay or reconstruct the driving surface of streets, as well as to preserve existing integral elements of the street such as curbs, gutters, Resolution - 1 sidewalks, on-street bike lanes, traffic signals, street lights, medians, traffic calming devices, and other integral parts of the street system. These efforts will be undertaken only to preserve existing elements, not to expand the capacity of the street system. In addition, the City will annually allocate not less than $350,000 of the bond proceeds to fund the overlay and reconstruction of existing off-street bicycle and pedestrian paths. G. A list of projects that the City expects to complete using the bond proceeds is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. The criteria for choosing these projects included: a) citizen input with respect to prioritizing major streets in need of reconstruction; b) scientific information about needed street preservation from the pavement management system; and c) geographic distribution of projects throughout the community to ensure all areas of the City receive a benefit from the bond proceeds. H. Over the life of the bond measure, pavement conditions or circumstances could change making it more prudent or cost-effective to spend funds on projects not anticipated at this time. In order to address changing circumstances, the City Manager will create a standing Street Preservation Advisory Committee to make recommendations to staff about the prioritization of projects to be undertaken with bond proceeds. The members of the Committee will be appointed by the City Manager and include a variety of stakeholders from various geographic areas of the City as well as members with expertise in road maintenance activities. City staff will take the recommendation of the Committee into account when preparing the annual street preservation project list. The City Manager will consult with the Committee before directing staff to undertake a pavement preservation project not included in the list attached as Exhibit A of this resolution. I. In order to promote accountability in the use of bond proceeds, the City Manager will contract with an outside auditor to prepare a written report on the use of the bond proceeds on a regular basis. The auditor will ascertain and report on whether the bond proceeds were used for the authorized purposes and in compliance with the restrictions set forth above. The City Manager will provide the report to the Council and the Street Preservation Advisory Committee and make the report publicly available. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the above findings, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1. A City election is called for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the City a measure authorizing the issuance of a maximum of $81,100,000 of General Obligation bonds to fund preservation of streets and off-street bike and pedestrian paths. Section 2. The City Council orders this City election to be held in the City of Eugene, th Oregon, concurrently with the general election on the 4 day of November, 2008, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 254 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, and the ballots shall be counted and tabulated and the results certified as provided by law. Resolution - 2 Section 3. The City Recorder is directed to give not less than ten days’ notice of the City election by publication of one notice in the Register Guard, a newspaper published in the City and of general circulation within the City. Section 4. If approved by the electors, the proceeds from the sale of the bonds will be used only for costs related to preservation of streets and off-street bike and pedestrian paths, and payment of bond issuance costs. Street preservation projects will be limited to projects included in Exhibit A to this resolution unless the City Manager directs otherwise. In addition, not less than $350,000 of the proceeds from the sale of the bonds will be allocated annually to fund preservation of existing off-street bicycle and pedestrian paths. Section 5. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. The foregoing Resolution adopted the ____ day of ______________, 2008. _____________________________________ City Recorder 00199104.DOC;1 Resolution - 3 ATTACHMENT F Impact on Taxpayer from Different Bond Amounts First Year Issuance Total Bond Average Cost to Average Project Spending Costs Amount Tax Rate Taxpayer $5,000,000 $100,000 $62,400,000 $0.48 $84 $6,000,000 $100,000 $74,900,000 $0.57 $100 $6,500,000 $100,000 $81,100,000 $0.62 $109 $7,000,000 $120,000 $87,450,000 $0.67 $117 $8,000,000 $120,000 $99,700,000 $0.76 $133 $9,000,000 $130,000 $112,250,000 $0.86 $151 $10,000,000 $130,000 $124,750,000 $0.95 $166