Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 3-14-18 Work Session EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AMENDED AGENDA March 14, 2018 12:00p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSIONAND MEETINGOFTHEURBANRENEWALAGENCY HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 MeetingofMarch14,2018; HerHonorMayorLucyVinisPresiding Councilors 12:00p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSIONAND MEETINGOFTHEURBANRENEWALAGENCY Avenue HarrisHall,125East8 th - ¸®±Ȁ IcalltheMarch14,2018,meetingoftheUrbanRenewalAgencytoorder ȁ A.EXECUTIVESESSION: PursuanttoORS192.660(2)(e) - ¸®±Ȁ TheEugeneCityCouncilwillnowmeetinExecutiveSessionheldpursuant toORS192.660(2)(e)todiscussthenegotiationofarealpropertytransaction. Representativesofthenewsmediaanddesignatedstaffshallbeallowedtoattend theexecutivesession.Allothermembersoftheaudienceareaskedtoleavethe room.Representativesofthenewsmediaarespecificallydirectednottoreporton anyofthedeliberationsduringtheexecutivesession,excepttostatethegeneral subjectofthesessionaspreviouslyannounced.Nodecisionmaybemadein executivesession.Attheendoftheexecutivesession,wemayreturntoopen sessionandwelcometheaudiencebackintotheroom. MayoradjournsthemeetingoftheEugeneUrbanRenewalAgencyandconvenesameetingofthe EugeneCityCouncil. B.WORKSESSION:Reviewof2017ImplementationofBondMeasuretoFix Streetsand2018PavementManagementReport #¨³¸#®´­¢¨«0±¤²¨£¤­³Ȁ Movetoauthorizetheadditionalstreetsshownon AttachmentCtothelistofstreetstoberepairedwithbondmeasureproceeds. # ««¥®±µ®³¤ȁ Adjourn. ¶¶¶ȁ¤´¦¤­¤®±ȁ¦®µȁ ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY 7®±ª 3¤²²¨®­Ȁ 2¤µ¨¤¶ ®¥ ΑΏΐΖ )¬¯«¤¬¤­³ ³¨®­ ®¥ "®­£ -¤ ²´±¤ ³® &¨· 3³±¤¤³²  ­£ ΑΏΐΗ 0 µ¤¬¤­³ - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ 2¤¯®±³ -¤¤³¨­¦ $ ³¤Ȁ - ±¢§ ΐΓǾ ΑΏΐΗ !¦¤­£  )³¤¬ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ B Department: 0´¡«¨¢ 7®±ªs 3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ *¤­¨¥¤± 7¨««¤± www.eugene-or.gov #®­³ ¢³ 4¤«¤¯§®­¤ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ 541-682-6036 )335% 34!4%-%.4 4§¨² ¶®±ª ²¤²²¨®­ ¨²  ­ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¸ ¥®± #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ³® ±¤µ¨¤¶ ³§¤ ¨¬¯«¤¬¤­³ ³¨®­ ®¥ -¤ ²´±¤ ΑΏ- ΐΘΖǾ ³§¤ ΑΏΐΑ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤ ³® ¥¨· ²³±¤¤³²ȁ 4® ¥ ¢¨«¨³ ³¤ ³§¨² ±¤µ¨¤¶Ǿ ³¶® £®¢´¬¤­³² ¶¤±¤ ¯±¤¯ ±¤£ ¨­ ¢®¬¯«¨ ­¢¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ±¤²®«´³¨®­ ¯« ¢¨­¦ ³§¤ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤ ®­ ³§¤ ¡ ««®³Ȁ ³§¤ #¨³¨¹¤­ 3³±¤¤³ 2¤¯ ¨± 2¤µ¨¤¶ 0 ­¤« ΑΏΐΖ 2¤¯®±³  ­£ ³§¤ ¨­£¤¯¤­£¤­³  ¢¢®´­³ ­³Ȍ² ±¤¯®±³ ¡¸ )²«¤± #0!ȁ 4§¨² ¶®±ª ²¤²²¨®­ ¶¨««  «²® ±¤µ¨¤¶ ³§¤ ΑΏΐΗ 0 µ¤¬¤­³ - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ 2¤¯®±³ȁ 4§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ¨²  «²® ±¤°´¤²³¤£ ³®  ´³§®±¨¹¤ ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³² ²§®¶­ ®­ !³³ ¢§¬¤­³ # ³® ³§¤ «¨²³ ®¥ ²³±¤¤³² ³® ¡¤ ±¤¯ ¨±¤£ ¶¨³§ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤ ¯±®¢¤¤£².4§¤ ¤²³¨¬ ³¤£ ¢®²³ ®¥ ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ « ²³±¤¤³² ¨² ͡ΒǾΒΕΏǾΏΏΏȁ 4§¤ «¨²³ ®¥  ££¨³¨®­ « ²³±¤¤³² ¶ ² ¤­£®±²¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ 3³±¤¤³ 2¤¯ ¨± 2¤µ¨¤¶ 0 ­¤«  ³ ¨³² * ­´ ±¸ ΒΐǾ ΑΏΐΗ, meeting. BACKGROUND #®´­¢¨« !¢³¨®­ (¨²³®±¸ &®««®¶¨­¦ ¢®­²¨£¤± ¡«¤ ²³´£¸  ­£ £¨²¢´²²¨®­Ǿ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ¥®±¬¨­¦   #®´­¢¨« #®¬¬¨³³¤¤ ®­ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ &´­£¨­¦  ­£ ¢®­µ¤­¨­¦  ­  £ §®¢ ¢¨³¨¹¤­ 3³±¤¤³ - ¨­³¤­ ­¢¤ 4 ²ª &®±¢¤Ǿ c®´­¢¨«  ¯¯±®µ¤£ 2¤²®«´³¨®­ ΓΘΔΒ ®­ *´«¸ ΑΗǾ ΑΏΏΗǾ ¢ ««¨­¦   ¢¨³¸ ¤«¤¢³¨®­ ®­   ¬¤ ²´±¤  ´³§®±¨¹¨­¦ ³§¤ ¨²²´ ­¢¤ ®¥ ͡ΒΔȁΘ ¬¨««¨®­ ®¥ ¦¤­¤± « ®¡«¨¦ ³¨®­ ¡®­£² ³® ¥´­£ ²³±¤¤³ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ ¯±®©¤¢³²ȁ O­ .®µ¤¬¡¤± ΓǾ ΑΏΏΗǾ %´¦¤­¤ µ®³¤±²  ¯¯±®µ¤£ -¤ ²´±¤ ΑΏ-ΐΓΔǾ ³§¤ ΑΏΏΗ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤ ³® ¥¨· streets. "¤¦¨­­¨­¦ ¨­ !¯±¨« ΑΏΐΏ  ­£ ¢®­³¨­´¨­¦ ³§±®´¦§ &¤¡±´ ±¸ ΑΏΐΓǾ ¢®´­¢¨« ±¤¢¤¨µ¤£  ­­´ « report² ¥±®¬ ³§¤ 3³±¤¤³ 2¤¯ ¨± 2¤µ¨¤¶ 0 ­¤«  ­£ ³§¤ ¨­£¤¯¤­£¤­³  ¢¢®´­³ ­³ ±¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ¨¬¯«¤¬¤­³ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ΑΏΏΗ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤. /­ *´«¸ ΘǾ ΑΏΐΑǾ ¢®´­¢¨«  ¯¯±®µ¤£ 2¤²®«´³¨®­ ΔΏΕΒǾ ¢ ««¨­¦   ¢¨³¸ ¤«¤¢³¨®­ ®­   ¬¤ ²´±¤  ´³§®±¨¹¨­¦ ³§¤ ¨²²´ ­¢¤ ®¥ ͡ΓΒ ¬¨««¨®­ ®¥ ¦¤­¤± « ®¡«¨¦ ³¨®­ ¡®­£² ³® ¥´­£ ²³±¤¤³ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ ¯±®©¤¢³²  ² ¶¤«« as¡¨¢¸¢«¤  ­£ ¯¤£¤²³±¨ ­ ¯±®©¤¢³²ȁ )­ .®µ¤¬¡¤± ΑΏΐΑǾ %´¦¤­¤ µ®³¤±² ®µ¤±¶§¤«¬¨­¦«¸  ¯¯±®µ¤£ Measure20-197³§ ³ ¢®­³¨­´¤s³§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ² ±® £ ±¤¯ ¨± ¯±®¦± ¬ ¥®±  ­®³§¤±¥¨µ¤ ¸¤ ±²ȁ The­¤¶ bond ¬¤ ²´±¤ ¯±®¬¨²¤² ³® ¥¨· ΖΕ more ²³±¤¤³²  ­£ ¯±®µ¨£¤  ­  µ¤± ¦¤ ®¥ ͡ΔΐΕǾΏΏΏ ¯¤± ¸¤ ± ¥®± ¡¨¢¸¢«¤  ­£¯¤£¤²³±¨ ­ ¯±®©¤¢³²ȁ4§¤ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤ tookef¥¤¢³ ¨­ ΑΏΐΓ  ­£ ¢®­³¨­´¤² ³§¤bond- funded ¯ µ¤¬¤­³ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ ¯±®¦± ¬ ³§ ³ ¶ ² ¥¨±²³  ¯¯±®µ¤£ ¡¸ «®¢ « µ®³¤±² ¨­ ΑΏΏΗȁ March14, 2018, Work Session –Item B 4§¤ ΑΏΐΑ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤ ³® ¥¨· ²³±¤¤³² ¢®­³¨­´¤£ ³§¤ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ±¤« ³¤£ ³®  ¢¢®´­³ ¡¨«¨³¸ȁ 4§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ±¤²®«´³¨®­  ­£ ³§¤ ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨®­ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ³® µ®³¤±² ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¤£: )­ ®±£¤± ³® ¯±®¬®³¤  ¢¢®´­³ ¡¨«¨³¸ ¨­ ³§¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ¡®­£ ¯±®¢¤¤£²Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ - ­ ¦¤± ¶¨«« ¢®­³± ¢³ ¶¨³§  ­ ®´³²¨£¤  ´£¨³®± ³® ¯±¤¯ ±¤  ­  ­­´ « ¶±¨³³¤­ ±¤¯®±³ ®­ ³§¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¡®­£ ¯±®¢¤¤£²ȁ 4§¤  ´£¨³®± ¶¨««  ²¢¤±³ ¨­  ­£ ±¤¯®±³ ®­ ¶§¤³§¤± ³§¤ ¡®­£ ¯±®¢¤¤£² ¶¤±¤ ´²¤£ ¥®± ³§¤  ´³§®±¨¹¤£ ¯´±¯®²¤²  ­£ ¨­ ¢®¬¯«¨ ­¢¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ±¤²³±¨¢³¨®­² ²¤³ ¥®±³§  ¡®µ¤ȁ 4§¤ #¨³¸ - ­ ¦¤± ¶¨«« ¯±®µ¨£¤ ³§¤ ±¤¯®±³ ³® ³§¤ #®´­¢¨«  ­£ ¬ ª¤ ³§¤ ±¤¯®±³ ¯´¡«¨¢«¸  µ ¨« ¡«¤ȁ Ȩ2¤²®«´³¨®­ ΔΏΕΒǾ 3¤¢³¨®­ (ȩ 4® ¥´±³§¤± ¯±®¬®³¤  ¢¢®´­³ ¡¨«¨³¸  ­£ ¢¨³¨¹¤­ ¨­µ®«µ¤¬¤­³ ¨­ ²³±¤¤³ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ ¯±®©¤¢³²Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ - ­ ¦¤± ¶¨«« ¢®­µ¤­¤ ³§¤ ¢¨³¨¹¤­ ²³±¤¤³ ±¤¯ ¨± ±¤µ¨¤¶ ¯ ­¤«ȁ 4§¤ ¢¨³¨¹¤­ ²³±¤¤³ ±¤¯ ¨± ±¤µ¨¤¶ ¯ ­¤« ¶¨«« ¯±¤¯ ±¤  ­  ­­´ « ±¤¯®±³Ǿ ²¤¯ ± ³¤  ­£ £¨²³¨­¢³ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ±¤¯®±³ ¯±¤¯ ±¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ®´³²¨£¤  ´£¨³®±Ǿ £®¢´¬¤­³¨­¦ ³§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ² ´²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¡®­£ ¯±®¢¤¤£²  ­£ ­®³¨­¦ ¶§¤³§¤± ³§¤ ¡®­£ ¯±®¢¤¤£² ¶¤±¤ ´²¤£ ¨­ ¢®¬¯«¨ ­¢¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ³¤±¬² ®¥ ³§¨² 2¤²®«´³¨®­ȁ 4§¤ #¨³¸ - ­ ¦¤± ¶¨«« ¯±®µ¨£¤ ³§¤ SRRP’s Ȭ3³±¤¤³ 2¤¯ ¨± 2¤µ¨¤¶ 0 ­¤«ȭ ±¤¯®±³ ³® ³§¤ #®´­¢¨«  ­£ ¬ ª¤ ³§¤ ±¤¯®±³ ¯´¡«¨¢«¸  µ ¨« ¡«¤ȁ Ȩ2¤²®«´³¨®­ ΔΏΕΒǾ 3¤¢³¨®­ )ȩ 3³±¤¤³ 2¤¯ ¨± 2¤µ¨¤¶ 0 ­¤« )­ /¢³®¡¤± ΑΏΏΘǾ   ¢¨³¨¹¤­ ¦±®´¯ ¶ ² ¨­¨³¨ ««¸ ¥®±¬¤£ ³® ±¤µ¨¤¶ ³§¤ ¨¬¯«¤¬¤­³ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ΑΏΏΗ ±® £ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤  ­£ ±¤¯®±³ ¶§¤³§¤± ³§¤ ¡®­£ ¥´­£² ¶¤±¤ ´²¤£ ¨­ ¢®¬¯«¨ ­¢¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¢®´­¢¨« ±¤²®«´³¨®­ȁ 4§¤ ¢¨³¨¹¤­ ¬¤¬¡¤± 3³±¤¤³ 2¤¯ ¨± 2¤µ¨¤¶ 0 ­¤«Ǿ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ³§±¤¤ ¥®´­£¨­¦ ¬¤¬¡¤±²Ǿ ±¤¢®­µ¤­¤£ ¨­ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΑΏΐΖ ³® ±¤µ¨¤¶ ³§¤ ®­¦®¨­¦ ¨¬¯«¤¬¤­³ ³¨®­ ®¥ -¤ ²´±¤ ΑΏ-ΐΘΖȁ 4§¤ ΐΐ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¬¤¬¡¤±² ²¤±µ¨­¦ ®­ ³§¤ ΑΏΐ7 3220 ¶¤±¤Ȁ *®§­ " ±®¥²ª¸ Ȩ¢§ ¨±ȩǾ * ­¤³ # «µ¤±³Ǿ -¤« $ ¬¤¶®®£Ǿ !««¤­ ( ­¢®¢ªǾ *¨¬ -¤­£¤±Ǿ *®§­ 1´¨«³¤±Ǿ - ³³ 2®¡¤±³²Ǿ $ ­ 2®£±¨¦´¤¹Ǿ /««¨¤ 3­®¶£¤­Ǿ ' ±¸ 7¨«£¨²§  ­£ 3´¤ 7®««¨­¦ȁ $´±¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯ ²³ ¸¤ ±Ǿ ³§¤ committee ¬¤³ ³§±¤¤ ³¨¬¤² ®µ¤±   ³§±¤¤- ¬®­³§ ¯¤±¨®£ ¨­ ¯±¤¯ ± ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤¯®±³Ǿ ¶§¨¢§ ¨­¢«´£¤£   ¯§¸²¨¢ « ¨­²¯¤¢³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³² c®¬¯«¤³¤£ ¨­ ΑΏΐ7. Th¤ 3³±¤¤³ 2¤¯ ¨± 2¤µ¨¤¶ 0 ­¤« ¨­ &¤¡±´ ±¸ ´­ ­¨¬®´²«¸  ¯¯±®µ¤£ ¨³²  ­­´ « ±¤¯®±³ Ȩ!³³ ¢§¬¤­³ !ȩǾ ¥®¢´²¨­¦ ®­ ³§¤ ¥®´±³§ ¸¤ ± ®¥ ¨¬¯«¤¬¤­³¨­¦ ³§¤ ΑΏΐΑ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤ ³® ¥¨· ²³±¤¤³²Ǿ ¶§¨¢§ ¨­¢«´£¤£ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ¢®­¢«´²¨®­Ȁ " ²¤£ ®­ ³§¨² «¨¬¨³¤£ ±¤µ¨¤¶  ­£  «« ¬ ³¤±¨ «² ¯±¤²¤­³¤£ ³® ´²Ǿ ¶¤ ´­ ­¨¬®´²«¸ ¢®­¢«´£¤ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¡®­£ ¯±®¢¤¤£² ¶¤±¤ ´²¤£ ¥®± ³§¤  ´³§®±¨¹¤£ ¯´±¯®²¤²  ­£ ¨­ ¢®¬¯«¨ ­¢¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ «¨¬¨³ ³¨®­²  ­£ ±¤²³±¨¢³¨®­² ®´³«¨­¤£ ¨­ #®´­¢¨« 2¤²®«´³¨®­ ΘΓΙΖ. 4§¤ ΑΏΐ7 3³±¤¤³ 2¤¯ ¨± 2¤µ¨¤¶ 0 ­¤« ±¤¯®±³ ±¤¢®¦­¨¹¤£ ³§¤ ¯±®¦±¤²² ¬ £¤ ®­ ¥¨·¨­¦ %´¦¤­¤Ȍ² ²³±¤¤³²ȁ 4§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³² ¥´­£¤£ ¨­ ΑΏΐ7 ±¤²´«³¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ±¤¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ ®± ±¤²´±¥ ¢¨­¦ ®¥ ΐΓ ²³±¤¤³² ³®³ «¨­¦ ¬®±¤ ³§ ­ ΐ4.5 « ­¤ ¬¨«¤²ȁ 4§¤ ΑΏΐΑ ¡®­£  «²®  ««®¢ ³¤£ ¥´­£¨­¦ ¥®± ¡¨¢¸¢«¤  ­£ pedestr¨ ­ ¯±®©¤¢³² ¦´¨£¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ 0¤£¤²³±¨ ­  ­£ "¨¢¸¢«¤ - ²³¤± 0« ­Ǿ #¨³¸ ²³ ¥¥  ­£ ³§¤ !¢³¨µ¤ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ #®¬¬¨³³¤¤ Ȩ¥®±¬ ««¸ ª­®¶­  ² ³§¤ "¨¢¸¢«¤  ­£ 0¤£¤²³±¨ ­ !£µ¨²®±¸ #®¬¬¨³³¤¤)ȁ )­ ΑΏΐ7Ǿ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ² ¥¤³¸ ¨¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³² ¥®± ¯¤®¯«¤ ¶§® ¶ «ª  ­£ ¡¨ª¤ ¨­¢«´de£ ³§¤ instal« ³¨®­ ®¥ ²¨£¤¶ «ª ± ¬¯²Ǿ additional ¯¤£¤²³±¨ ­ ¢±®²²¨­¦ ¡¤ ¢®­²Ǿ ¨¬¯±®µ¤£ ¡¨¢¸¢«¤ « ­¤²,  ­£ new ²¢§®®« ¹®­¤ ²¨¦­ ¦¤. March14, 2018, Work Session –Item B 4§¤ ±¤¯®±³ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ 3220 §¨¦§«¨¦§³¤£ ³§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ² ²´²³ ¨­ ¡¨«¨³¸  ¢§¨¤µ¤¬¤­³²ȁ %´¦¤­¤ ¶ ² ±¤¢®¦­¨¹¤£ ¥®± ¨³² ´²¤ ®¥ ±¤¢¸¢«¤£  ²¯§ «³ ¯ µ¤¬¤­³Ǿ ±¤£´¢¨­¦ ³§¤ ¬¨­¨­¦  ­£ ¯±®£´¢³¨®­ ®¥ µ¨±¦¨­ ±®¢ª  ­£  ²¯§ «³ ¬ ³¤±¨ «²ȁ 4§¤ ¢®­³¨­´¤£ ´²¤ ®¥ ¶ ±¬ ¬¨·  ²¯§ «³  «²® ² µ¤² ®­ ¤­¤±¦¸  ­£ ¤¬¨²²¨®­² Ȩ ² £¤³ ¨«¤£ ¨­ ³§¤  ³³ ¢§¤£ ±¤¯®±³ȩǾ  ­£ ®¥¥¤±²  ­ ¤·¢¤««¤­³ ¤· ¬¯«¤ ®¥ ³§¤ £¤¯ ±³¬¤­³Ȍ² ¢®¬¬¨³¬¤­³ ³® ²´²³ ¨­ ¡¨«¨³¸ ¤¥¥®±³²Ǿ ¤²¯¤¢¨ ««¸ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ³§¤  ¯¯±®µ « ®¥ ³§¤ #«¨¬ ³¤ 2¤¢®µ¤±¸ /±£¨­ ­¢¤ȁ )­  ££¨³¨®­ ³® §¤«¯¨­¦  ¢§¨¤µ¤ ²´²³ ¨­ ¡¨«¨³¸ ¦® «²Ǿ ³§¤ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤ ¯±®©¤¢³²  ±¤ £¤²¨¦­¤£ ³® ¨¬¯±®µ¤ ² ¥¤³¸  ­£ ±¤²´«³ ¨­ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤ ²³±¤¤³² ³§ ³  ±¤ ² ¥¤ ¥®± ¯¤®¯«¤ ®¥  ««  ¦¤²  ­£  ¡¨«¨³¨¤²Ǿ ¡ « ­¢¤ ³§¤ ­¤¤£² ®¥ £¨¥¥¤±¤­³ ¬®£¤²Ǿ  ­£ ²´¯¯®±³ «®¢ « « ­£ ´²¤²Ǿ ¤¢®­®¬¨¤²Ǿ ¢´«³´±¤²Ǿ  ­£ ­ ³´± l ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³²ȁ 4§¨² ³¨¤² ¨­³® ³§¤ ¢®´­¢¨«Ȍ² ȏ6¨²¨®­ :¤±®Ȑ ²³± ³¤¦¸Ǿ   ±¤²®«´³¨®­ ¶§¨¢§ ¢ ««² ¥®± ¤«¨¬¨­ ³¨­¦ ³±affic-±¤« ³¤£ £¤ ³§² ®± ²¤±¨®´² ¨­©´±¨¤² ®­ ¢¨³¸ ²³±¤¤³²ȁ 4§¤ ¨¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³² ¥´­£¤£ ³§±®´¦§ ³§¤ ¡®­£ ¤­§ ­¢¤ ² ¥¤³¸ ¥®±  «« ±® £ ´²¤±²Ǿ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ³§®²¤ ¶§® £±¨µ¤Ǿ ¶ «ª ®± ¡¨ª¤ȁ ! ¶¤¡²¨³¤ ³± ¢ª¨­¦ ³§¤ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤ ¨¬¯«¤¬¤­³ ³¨®­ § ² ¡¤¤­ ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£  ³ www.eugene- or.gov/gobondsȁ 4§¤ ¯ ­¤«Ȍ² ΑΏΐΖ ±¤¯®±³ § ² ¡¤¤­ ¯« ¢¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ¨­³¤±­¤³  ­£ «¨­ª² ³® ³§¤ ±¤¯®±³ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¨­¢«´£¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ¶¤¤ª«¸ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¡´««¤³¨­  ­£ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ³® ®³§¤± ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸  ­£ ¡´²¨­¤²² organizat¨®­²ȁ )­£¤¯¤­£¤­³ !¢¢®´­³ ­³Ȍ² 2¤¯®±³ 4§¤  ¢¢®´­³¨­¦ ¥¨±¬ ®¥ )²«¤± #0!Ǿ ¶§®  «²® ¯¤±¥®±¬¤£ ³§¤  ­­´ «  ´£¨³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢¨³¸Ȍ² &¨²¢ « 9¤ ± 20ΐΖ ¥¨­ ­¢¨ « ²³ ³¤¬¤­³²Ǿ ¶ ² ¢®­³± ¢³¤£ ³® ¯¤±¥®±¬ ²´¥¥¨¢¨¤­³  ¦±¤¤£-´¯®­ ¯±®¢¤£´±¤² ¨­ ®±£¤± ³® £¤³¤±¬¨­¤ ¶§¤³§¤± ³§¤ ¤·¯¤­£¨³´±¤ ®¥ ¦¤­¤± « ®¡«¨¦ ³¨®­ ¡®­£² ¶¤±¤ ¬ £¤ ¨­  ¢¢®±£ ­¢¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¯´±¯®²¤²  ­£ «¨¬¨³ ³¨®­² ®´³«¨­¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³ ±¤¯ ¨± ¡®­£ ±¤²®«´³¨®­—­ ¬¤«¸Ǿ ³§ ³ ¤·¯¤­£¨³´±¤² ¶¤±¤Ȁ 1. ´²¤£ ®­«¸ ¥®± ¢®²³² ±¤« ³¤£ ³® ²³±¤¤³ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ ¯±®©¤¢³²Ǿ ¡¨¢¸¢«¤  ­£ ¯¤£¤²³±¨ ­ ¯±®©¤¢³²,  ­£ ¯ ¸¬¤­³ ®¥ ¡®­£ ¨²²´ ­¢¤ ¢®²³²Ǿ  ­£ ­®³ ³® ¤·¯ ­£ ³§¤ ¬®³®± ¢ ¯ ¢¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³ ²¸²³¤¬ǿ  ­£  «²®Ǿ 2.«¨¬¨³¤£ ³® ¯±®©¤¢³² ¨­¢«´£¤£ ¨­ %·§¨¡¨³ ! ³® ³§¤ ±¤²®«´³¨®­Ǿ ´­«¤²² ´¯®­ ¢®¬¯«¤³¨®­ ®¥  «« ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³² «¨²³¤£ ¨­ %·§¨¡¨³ !Ǿ ³§¤ #®´­¢¨«  ££² ®³§¤± ²³±¤¤³ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ ¯±®©¤¢³² ³® ³§¤ «¨²³ ¨­ ®±£¤± ³® ´³¨«¨¹¤ ´­²¯¤­³ ¡®­£ ¯±®¢¤¤£²ȁ 4§¤  ¢¢®´­³ ­³Ȍ² ¯±®¢¤£´±¤² ¶¤±¤ ¯¤±¥®±¬¤£ ¥®± ¤·¯¤­£¨³´±¤² ¨­¢´±±¤£ ¥±®¬ * ­´ ±¸ ΐǾ ΑΏΐΖǾ ³§±®´¦§ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΒΐǾ ΑΏΐΖǾ  ­£ ¶¤±¤ ¢®­£´¢³¤£ ¨­  ¢¢®±£ ­¢¤ ¶¨³§  ³³¤²³ ³¨®­ ²³ ­£ ±£² ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ !¬¤±¨¢ ­ )­²³¨³´³¤ ®¥ #¤±³¨¥¨¤£ 0´¡«¨¢ !¢¢®´­³ ­³²ȁ 4§¤ ¨­£¤¯¤­£¤­³  ¢¢®´­³ ­³ ¤·¯¤­£¨³´±¤ ³¤²³¨­¦ ¢®­¢«´£¤£Ȁ !«« ³¤²³¤£ ¤·¯¤­£¨³´±¤² ¶¤±¤ ±¤¢®±£¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±  ¢¢®´­³Ǿ ¥´­£  ­£ ¯¤±¨®£  ­£ ¶¤±¤ ²¯¤­³ ®­ ²³±¤¤³ ¯±®©¤¢³² ¨­¢«´£¤£ ¨­ %·§¨¡¨³ ! ®¥ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« 2¤²®«´³¨®­ .®ȁ 5063 ®± ®³§¤± ²³±¤¤³ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ ¯±®©¤¢³²  ¯¯±®µ¤£ ¡¸ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨«Ǿ  ² ¯¤±¬¨³³¤£ ´­£¤± 2¤²®«´³¨®­ 5063. .® ¤·¢¤¯³¨®­² ¶¤±¤ ­®³¤£ȁ &´±³§¤±Ǿ ¨³ ¶ ² ³§¤ ²´¬¬ ±¸ ¢®­¢«´²¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¨­£¤¯¤­£¤­³  ¢¢®´­³ ­³ ³§ ³Ǿ ȏ" ²¤£ ®­ ®´± «¨¬¨³¤£ ³¤²³¨­¦Ǿ ¶¤ ­®³¤£ ³§ ³ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ¥®««®¶¤£ ³§¤ ¯´±¯®²¤  ­£ «¨¬¨³ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« 2¤²®«´³¨®­ 5063.”4§¤ )²«¤± #0! ±¤¯®±³ ¨² ¨­¢«´£¤£  ² !¯¯¤­£¨· D³® ³§¤ 3220 ΑΏΐΖ 2¤¯®±³Ȩ!³³ ¢§¬¤­³ !ȩȁ March14, 2018, Work Session –Item B 0 µ¤¬¤­³ - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ 2eport 4§¤  ­­´ « 0 µ¤¬¤­³ - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ 2¤¯®±³ ¨² ¯±®£´¢¤£ ³® ´¯£ ³¤ ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨®­  ­£ £ ³  ±¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ®¥ %´¦¤­¤Ȍ² ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ²¸²³¤¬ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ¨¬¯±®µ¤£ ²³±¤¤³²Ǿ ´­¨¬¯±®µ¤£ ²³±¤¤³²  ­£ off-street, shared-´²¤ ¯ ³§²ȁ #´±±¤­³«¸Ǿ 0´¡«¨¢ 7®±ª² ¬ ­ ¦¤² ΐǾΒ56 lane ¬¨«¤² ȨΔΓΒ ¢¤­³¤±«¨­¤ ¬¨«¤²ȩ ®¥ ²³±¤¤³²Ǿ  ­£  ¯¯±®·¨¬ ³¤«¸ Γ5 ¬¨«¤² ®¥ ®¥¥-²³±¤¤³ ²§ ±¤£-´²¤ ¯ ³§² ¶¨³§¨­ ³§¤ ¢¨³¸ «¨¬¨³²ȁ The ±¤¯®±³ ¨­¢«´£¤²   ¡±¤ ª£®¶­ ®¥ ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³ ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ²¸²³¤¬ ¨­ ³¤±¬² ®¥ ¯ µ¤¬¤­³ ³¸¯¤Ǿ «¤µ¤« ®¥ ¨¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³Ǿ  ­£ ¥´­¢³¨®­ « ¢« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­ȁ 4§¤ ΑΏΐΗ 0 µ¤¬¤­³ - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ 2¤¯®±³ Ȩ!³³ ¢§¬¤­³ "ȩ ±¤µ¨¤¶² ¢´±±¤­³ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¯±®¦± ¬²  ­£ ¢®²³²  ­£ ¯±®©¤¢³² ¥´³´±¤ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ­¤¤£² ´²¨­¦ ΑΏΐ7 rati­¦  ­£ ¨­µ¤­³®±¸ £ ³ ȁ 4§¤ ΑΏΐΗ 0 µ¤¬¤­³ - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ 2¤¯®±³ ²§®¶² ¯±®¦±¤²² § ² ¡¤¤­ ¬ £¤ ®­ ³§¤ ¢®­£¨³¨®­ ®¥ %´¦¤­¤Ȍ² !±³¤±¨ «  ­£ #®««¤¢³®± ²³±¤¤³²Ǿ ¡´³ ¬®±¤ ¶®±ª ¨² ­¤¤£¤£ ³® ±¤£´¢¤ ³§¤ ¡ ¢ª«®¦ ®¥ ­¤¤£¤£ ±¤¯ ¨±² ®¥ ³§¤ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤ ²³±¤¤³ ²¸²³¤¬. B ²¤£ ®­ ³§¤ 2017 ratings, ³§¤ ¢ «¢´« ³¤£ ¡ ¢ª«®¦ ®¥ ±¤¯ ¨±² ®­ ¨¬¯±®µ¤£  ²¯§ «³ ²³±¤¤³² ¶ ² ͡79.8 millionȁ !² ®¥ ³§¤ ¤­£ ®¥ ΑΏΐ6, ³§¤ ¢´±±¤­³ ¡ ¢ª«®¦ § ² ¡¤¤­ ¢ «¢´« ³¤£ ³® ¡¤ ͡ΘΑ ¬¨««¨®­ȁ ! ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ¢®¬¯®­¤­³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¡ ¢ª«®¦ ¨² ³§¤ £¤¢«¨­¨­¦ ¢®­£¨³¨®­ ®¥ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « ²³±¤¤³²ȁ !­­´ ««¸Ǿ   ­´¬¡¤± ®¥ ±¤²¨£¤­³¨ « ²³±¤¤³²  ±¤ ¥ ««¨­¦ ¨­³®   ¬®±¤ ¢®²³«¸ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¢ ³¤¦®±¸ £´¤ ³® « ¢ª ®¥ ¥´­£¨­¦ ³® ±¤¯ ¨± ³§¤¬ȁ "®³§ ³§¤ ΑΏΏΗ  ­£ ³§¤ ΑΏΐΑ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤² ¯±¨¬ ±¨«¸ ¥®¢´²¤£ ®­ ³§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ²  ±³¤±¨ «  ­£ ¢®««¤¢³®± ²³±¤¤³ ²¸²³¤¬ȁ 4§¤ ±¤¯®±³  «²® £¤³ ¨«² §®¶ the ¯ µ¤¬¤­³ ¬ ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ ²¸²³¤¬ ¨² ´²¤£ ³® ¨­²¯¤¢³  ­£ ± ³¤ ¯ µ¤¬¤­³ ²´±¥ ¢¤²Ǿ ¤·¯« ¨­² %´¦¤­¤Ȍ² ¯ µ¤¬¤­³ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ ¯±®¦± ¬Ǿ  ­£ ¨­¢«´£¤² ´¯£ ³¤£ ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨®­  ¡®´³ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ³¸¯¤²  ­£ ¢®²³²ȁ The 2018 0 µ¤¬¤­³ - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ 2¤¯®±³ is viewable at www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/31068. Remaining Funds from the 2012 Bond Measure 2¤²®«´³¨®­ ΔΏΕΒ ¥®± ³§¤ "®­£ -¤ ²´±¤ ³® &¨· 3³±¤¤³² ²³ ³¤£Ȁ 4§¤ ´²¤ ®¥ ¡®­£ ¯±®¢¤¤£² ¥®± ²³±¤¤³ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ ¯±®©¤¢³² ¶¨«« ®­«¸ ¡¤ ´²¤£ ¥®± ²³±¤¤³ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ projec³² ¨­¢«´£¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ «¨²³ ®¥ ¯±®©¤¢³²  ³³ ¢§¤£  ² %·§¨¡¨³ ! ³® ³§¨² 2¤²®«´³¨®­ȁ )¥  «« ®¥ ¯±®©¤¢³² «¨²³¤£ ¨­ %·§¨¡¨³ !  ±¤ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤£  ­£ ³§¤±¤  ±¤ ¡®­£ ¯±®¢¤¤£² ±¤¬ ¨­¨­¦Ǿ ³§¤ ¢®´­¢¨« ¬ ¸  ££ ®³§¤± ²³±¤¤³ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­ ¯±®©¤¢³² ³® ³§¤ «¨²³. $´¤ ³® ¯±®©¤¢³ ² µ¨­¦²  ­£   ¥ µ®± ¡«¤ ¡¨££¨­¦ ¢«¨¬ ³¤Ǿ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¢®²³² ¥®± ³§¤ ¥¨±²³ ¥®´± ¸¤ ±² ®¥ ³§¤ ΑΏΐΑ ¶¤±¤ ͡ΒȁΖ ¬¨««¨®­ «®¶¤± ³§ ­ ®±¨¦¨­ ««¸  ­³¨¢¨¯ ³¤£ȁ" ²¤£ ®­ ¯±¤«¨¬¨­ ±¸ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¤²³¨¬ ³¤² ¥®± ΑΏΐΗconstructionǾ   ±¤¬ ¨­¨­¦ ¡ « ­¢¤ ®¥ ͡ΑȁΔ -͡Β ¬¨««¨®­ ¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ed. 4§¤ Resolution¥®± ³§¤ "®­£ -¤ ²´±¤ ³® &¨· 3³±¤¤³²  «²® ¨­¢«´£¤£ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ « ­¦´ ¦¤ ±¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ³§¤ ¨£¤­³¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ΖΕ ²³±¤¤³² ¨­¢«´£¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤Ȁ 4§¤ ¢±¨³¤±¨  ¥®± ¢§®®²¨­¦ ¡®­£ ¯±®©¤¢³² ¨­¢«´£¤£Ȁ  ȩ ´²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¬®²³ ¢´±±¤­³ ¤­¦¨­¤¤±¨­¦  ­£ ¢®²³-¡¤­¤¥¨³ ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨®­  ¡®´³ ­¤¤£¤£ ²³±¤¤³ ±¤§ ¡¨«¨³ ³¨®­  ­£ ±¤¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­²ǿ ¡ȩ ¢¨³¨¹¤­ ¨­¯´³ ¶¨³§ ±¤²¯¤¢³ ³® ¯±¨®±¨³¨¹¨­¦ ¬ ©®± ²³±¤¤³² ¨­ ­¤¤£ ®¥ ±¤¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ǿ ¢ȩ ¦¤®¦± ¯§¨¢ £¨²³±¨¡´³¨®­ ³§±®´¦§®´³ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ³® ¤­²´±¤  ««  ±¤ ² ®¥ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ¡¤­¤¥¨³ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ¡®­£ ¯±®¢¤¤£²ȁ March14, 2018, Work Session –Item B #¨³¸ ²³ ¥¥ ´²¤£ ³§¤  ¡®µ¤ ¢±¨³¤±¨  ¨­ ¨£¤­³¨¥¸¨­¦  ££¨³¨®­ « ¯±®©¤¢³² ³® ¡¤ ¢®­²³±´¢³¤£ ¶¨³§ ±¤¬ ¨­¨­¦ ¡®­£ ¯±®¢¤¤£²ȁ 4§¤ ¥¨±²³ ¢±¨³¤±¨®­  ¯¯«¨¤£ ¶ ² ³® ¨­¢«´£¤   ¬ ©®± ²³±¤¤³ ³§ ³ ³§±®´¦§ ®¯¯®±³´­¤ ³¨¬¨­¦ ¢ ­ ¡¤ ¯±¤µ¤­³¤£ ¥±®¬ £¤³¤±¨®± ³¨­¦ ¨­³® ­¤¤£¨­¦   ±¤¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ȁ 4§¤ ²¤¢®­£ ¢±¨³¤±¨®­ ¶ ² ³® ±¤µ¨¤¶ ³§¤ «¨²³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ Ǿ ­®³¨­¦ ³§ ³ ²¤µ¤± « Street Repair Review Panel ²³±¤¤³² § £ ¡¤¤­ ¯±¤µ¨®´²«¸ ¨£¤­³¨¥¨¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ 3220 ¥®± ±¤¯ ¨±²ȁ 4§¤ ³§¨±£ ¢±¨³¤±¨®­ ¶ ² ³® £¨²³±¨¡´³¤ ³§¤ ¥´­£¨­¦ geographically ³®  ²²´±¤ ³§ ³  ££¨³¨®­ « projec³² ¶¤±¤ ¨£¤­³¨¥¨¤£ ¨­ ¬´«³¨¯«¤ c®´­¢¨« ¶ ±£²ȁ 4§¤ ´­ ­¨¬®´²«¸ ²´¯¯®±³¤£ ³§¤ ²³±¤¤³² ²§®¶­ ¨­ !³³ ¢§¬¤­³ C. Street Repair Review Panel 2%,!4%$ #)49 0/,)#)%3 4§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ¢®­³¨­´¤² ³® ²´¯¯®±³ ¨­¨³¨ ³¨µ¤² ³®  £¤°´ ³¤«¸ ¥´­£ ³§¤ ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ²¸²³¤¬ ¥®± ¯¤®¯«¤ ¶§® £±¨µ¤Ǿ ¶ «ªǾ  ­£ ±¨£¤ ¡¨¢¸¢«¤²Ǿ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ¬ ¨­³¤­ ­¢¤  ­£ ¯±¤²¤±µ ³¨®­  ­£ ¢ ¯¨³ « reconstruction. #/5.#), OPTIONS 4§¨² ¶®±ª ²¤²²¨®­ ¨² ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨®­ « ±¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ³§¤  ­£ 0 µ¤¬¤­³ Street Repair Review Panel - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ Reportsǿ ­®  ¢³¨®­ ¨² ±¤°´¤²³¤£ȁ 2¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ³§¤ 2¤°´¤²³ ¥®± !££¨³¨®­ « 3³±¤¤³²Ǿ ³§¤ ¢®´­¢¨« ¬ ¸Ȁ 1.!´³§®±¨¹¤ ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ « ²³±¤¤³² ²§®¶­ ®­ !³³ ¢§¬¤­³ # ³® ³§¤ «¨²³ ®¥ ²³±¤¤³² ³® ¡¤ ±¤¯ ¨±¤£ ¶¨³§ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤ proceeds. 2.!££ ®± £¤«¤³¤ ¥±®¬ ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ « ²³±¤¤³² ²§®¶­ ®­ !³³ ¢§¬¤­³ #  ­£  ´³§®±¨¹¤ ³§¤  ¬¤­£¤£ «¨²³ȁ 3.4 ª¤ ­®  ¢³¨®­ȁ #)49 -!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION 4§¤ #¨³¸ - ­ ¦¤± ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£² ³§ ³ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨«  ´³§®±¨¹¤ ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ « ²³±¤¤³² ²§®¶­ ®­ Attachmen³ # ³® ³§¤ «¨²³ ®¥ ²³±¤¤³² ³® ¡¤ ±¤¯ ¨±¤£ ¶¨³§ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤ ¯±®¢¤¤£²ȁ 35''%34%$ -/4)/. -®µ¤ ³®  ´³§®±¨¹¤ ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ « ²³±¤¤³² ²§®¶­ ®­ !³³ ¢§¬¤­³ C³® ³§¤ «¨²³ ®¥ ²³±¤¤³² ³® ¡¤ ±¤¯ ¨±¤£ ¶¨³§ ¡®­£ ¬¤ ²´±¤ ¯±®¢¤¤£²ȁ ATTACHMENTS A. Citizen 3³±¤¤³ 2¤¯ ¨± 2¤µ¨¤¶ 0 ­¤« ΑΏΐΖ ReportǾ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ !´£¨³®±Ȍ² 2¤¯®±³ B. 2018 0 µ¤¬¤­³ - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ 2¤¯®±³ C. -¤¬®± ­£´¬ 0±®¯®² « ¥®± 5²¤ ®¥ 2¤¬ ¨­¨­¦ &´­£² ¥±®¬ ΑΏΐΑ "®­£ -¤ ²´±¤ ³® &¨· 3³±¤¤³² March14, 2018, Work Session –Item B &/2 -/2% ).&/2-!4)/. 3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ *¤­¨¥¤± 7¨««¤±Ǿ 0±¨­¢¨¯ « #¨µ¨« %­¦¨­¤er 4¤«¤¯§®­¤Ȁ 541-682-6036 3³ ¥¥ %-Mail: Jenifer.M.Willer@ci.eugene.or.us March14, 2018, Work Session –Item B Memorandum Basedonthislimitedreviewandallmaterialspresentedtous,weunanimouslyconcludethatthe bondproceedswereusedfortheauthorizedpurposesandincompliancewiththelimitationsand restrictionsoutlinedinCouncilResolution5063. Progress CurrentConditions VisionZeroȟ ActiveTransportation CostSavingsȟ CollaboratingwithPartnersandLeveragingBondFundsȟ CommunicatingwithCitizensandBusinesses AchievingSustainabilityGoals UnderstandingtheProcessforSelectingProjects RecognizingtheContinuedEconomicValueofStreetBondProjects BottomLine SRRPMembersCityofEugeneStaff Citizen Street Repair Review Panel 2017 Report Implementation Update for Measure 20-197 Bonds to Fix Streets 2017 Report to the Citizen Street Repair Review Panel TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 CRITERIA FOR PROJECT SELECTION AND SCHEDULING ...................................... 3 FUNDING STATUS AND FORECAST ........................................................................... 7 STND 1 AVENUE AND 2 AVENUE PAVING ................................................................... 10 TH 30 AVENUE PAVING ................................................................................................ 11 BEST LANE AND IONE AVENUE................................................................................ 12 CALVIN STREET, LEIGH STREET, LYDICK WAY, PIONEER COURT, SATRE STREET, TOMAHAWK LANE, AND WESTERN DRIVE ............................................. 13 EAST AMAZON DRIVE PAVING ................................................................................. 15 JEFFERSON STREET PAVING ................................................................................... 16 2017 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ............................. 17 APPENDIX B (MAP OF BOND PROJECTS, BY NUMBER) ........................................ 20 APPENDIX C (PROJECTS FOR PEOPLE WHO WALK AND BIKE) .......................... 23 APPENDIX D (REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR) .................................... 28 th Cover photos from 2017 projects: Completed 30 Ave paving at night (left); Completed Paving on E. Amazon (upper th right); Striping changes on 24 Ave (lower right) 2016 Report to the SRRP Page i INTRODUCTION B ACKGROUND This report has been compiled for use by the Street Repair Review Panel (SRRP). It is intended to provide background on projects included in the 2012 voter-approved Bond Measure 20-197, the schedule for construction of these projects, and the details of bond projects constructed in 2017. The street repair measure approved $43 million in bonding authority over a five-year period, with construction of bond-funded projects starting in 2014 and completing in 2018. KT EY ERMS Bond - Bond Measure 20-197, Bonds to Fix Streets, approved by Eugene voters in November 2012. Inlay – An inlay treatment consisting of removing a specified depth of the existing pavement surface and repaving that same depth with a new pavement surface. This treatment works well where the pavement distress is isolated to the removed portion of the pavement. At times, the inlay treatment needs to be supplemented with an “overlay,” which is when an additional thickness of pavement is placed over the inlaid pavement. An overlay is used when engineering analysis shows that the existing structure does not have sufficient strength to accommodate the projected traffic Paving on Best Ln volume. The term “overlay” is commonly used to describe both the inlay and overlay practices. One of the benefits of performing an inlay treatment is that the new pavement surface will match existing adjacent structures and not increase the street cross grade. Another benefit of an inlay is that in the removal of the existing pavement, contractors grind up the old pavement and stockpile the material to be recycled into new pavement. In-Place Cement Treated Base (ICTB) – A reconstruction treatment that utilizes and reuses existing road base materials. The existing surfacing is removed and cement slurry is added to strengthen the existing base. The base is pulverized to a specified depth and allowed to cure for 18-48 hours. Once cured, the roadway is repaved. This treatment works well on roadways where the existing base is primarily aggregate. Two of the benefits of performing an ICTB treatment are the savings in resources from reusing existing materials and the reduction in the duration of impact for the surrounding neighborhood. 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 1 Pavement Preservation Program (PPP) - This is the current capital project program to preserve Eugene’s improved street system. A priority for this program is to preserve streets that have not yet degraded to a point where reconstruction is required. Preserving a street through overlay or similar treatment is four to five times more cost effective than waiting to repair a street until after it requires reconstruction. This program was initiated in 2003 and, until passage of the 2008 and 2012 street repair bonds, was predominately Pavement Life Cycle – City of Eugene funded with local fuel tax revenue and the Transportation Service Profile Presentation reimbursement fee component of transportation system development charges. Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) - Reclaimed asphalt pavement is the grindings from the existing pavement during the inlay process described above. The most common and effective use of this material is to supplement virgin materials used to make new asphalt pavement and reduce the use of costly asphalt binder. In Oregon, it is common to specify up to 30 percent of asphalt pavement can be made up of reclaimed asphalt pavement. Other reclaimed asphalt materials, such as shingles, can also be used to replace virgin asphalt binder in pavements. Reclaimed asphalt materials can be used as base rock. In 2017 the method of reusing RAP on- site as road base was used on several low volume residential streets. See below for more details. Reconstruction – Once the street has deteriorated to the point that it can no longer be repaired with an inlay or overlay, it is repaired by reconstructing the pavement and underlying base. Traditional reconstruction involves digging up the existing pavement, any existing base rock, and subsurface soils to the depth that will accommodate a new pavement structure. As discussed above, in-place recycling may Placing Concrete Pavement – Jefferson St sometimes be used as an alternative to traditional reconstruction. Reconstruction is the most expensive of the repair options, which is why the City prioritizes preserving streets before they reach the point of needing reconstruction. Reconstruction may be four to five times more expensive than an inlay treatment. Warm Mix Asphalt - Warm mix asphalt pavement is identical to conventional hot mix asphalt pavement, except that through a special mixing process it is produced at a temperature approximately 50 to 100 degrees cooler than conventional hot mix asphalt. In Eugene, all asphalt concrete producers have retrofitted their plants to produce warm mix asphalt using a water- foaming process. The foaming process allows temperature reductions of approximately 50 degrees. This reduction in temperature has several advantages: 1.It reduces energy consumption to produce asphalt concrete, lowering costs and greenhouse gas emissions. 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 2 2.It reduces off-gassing (smoke) of asphalt concrete by keeping the temperature under the boiling point of “light oils” in the liquid asphalt, benefiting construction workers and the public. 3.Because the light oils are not boiled off, the liquid asphalt coating the rock particles is slightly thicker, which slows the aging process of the asphalt. 4.It reduces the oxidation caused during high temperature production that causes premature aging of the asphalt, which should provide a longer life product. The use of warm mix asphalt pavement is specified for all City of Eugene paving projects. SRRPM ISSION Per Resolution No. 5063 the SRRP “will prepare an annual report, separate and distinct from the report prepared by the outside auditor, documenting the City’s use of the bond proceeds and noting whether the bond proceeds were used in compliance with the terms of this Resolution.” CRITERIA FOR PROJECT SELECTION AND SCHEDULING SP TREET ROJECTS Street projects to be financed by the bond were specifically listed in the Bond (see Appendix A). All street projects were identified by the Public Works Maintenance Pavement Management System as priorities for repair. In addition, the following criteria were used to select streets for the bond measure: 1.Citizen input with respect to prioritizing major streets in need of reconstruction. 2.Scientific information about needed street rehabilitation and reconstruction from the pavement management system. 3.Geographic distribution throughout the community to ensure all areas of the City receive a benefit from the bond proceeds. The City has a longstanding policy to use capital preservation funds on the improved street system. An improved street has been designed for the type of soils and traffic use of the street and includes a storm drainage system. Curb and gutter is the traditional mark of a storm drainage system, but can include roadside swales and planters. The bond measure street list consisted of improved streets in need of preservation as identified in the pavement management system. The list of the street bond projects, with their estimated repair cost from the Pavement Management System and the year constructed or planned year of construction, is included in Appendix A of this report. In scheduling the street repair projects, the priorities were preserving streets prior to their needing reconstruction, grouping projects by location for cost savings, and coordinating with utility work. The list includes a comparison of programmed costs to actual costs with any difference noted. Differences in total project costs on individual projects may affect the funding available for future projects. 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 3 BPIP ICYCLE AND EDESTRIAN MPROVEMENT ROJECTS The 2012 bond measure stated that the City will allocate an annual average of $516,000 to support bicycle and pedestrian projects, also known as active transportation projects. These projects were not named in the bond measure; rather, the selection of the projects would be guided by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, City staff and the Active Transportation Committee. In 2017, the practice continued to add pedestrian and bicycle improvements to several paving projects and to complete a stand-alone project. These improvements are further described in the project details, below, and included in Appendix C of this report. CSUOFCS OMPLETE TREETS AND SE OF THER UNDS IN ONJUNCTION WITH TREET BF OND UNDS The use of street-repair bond funds is limited to the overlay or reconstruction of the driving surface of streets as well as to preserve existing integral elements of the street such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on-street bike lanes, traffic signals, street lights, medians, traffic calming devices, and other integral parts of a street preservation project. In addition, the City will allocate an annual average of $516,000 of the bond proceeds over a period of five years to fund bicycle and pedestrian projects. (Resolution 5063, Section D). However, there is often a need or an opportunity to complete additional work as part of the construction contracts for street preservation. The additional work may be funded by wastewater and stormwater utility funds, local gas taxes, transportation system development charges, or state and federal grants. Wastewater and stormwater utility funds are typically used to repair and rehabilitate the existing wastewater and stormwater systems, respectively, that underlie much of the city’s street system. Stormwater Planter on Jefferson St. Making these repairs in coordination with the street bond projects is a cost-effective way to accomplish the work and precludes emergency repairs in the future that would require cutting new pavement. Local gas taxes have been used to include adjacent streets in the street bond project contracts. In 2017 the City added Public Works Maintenance (PWM) to the list of collaborative funding sources. During the rehabilitation of a cluster of small neighborhood streets, engineering staff coordinated with PWM to include a maintenance overlay of an unimproved section of roadway adjacent to the project area. The inclusion of the work as part of an existing contract enabled the work to be completed in a timely and cost effective manner. Transportation system development charges (SDCs) are often used to upgrade existing signal systems during pavement preservation projects. The work typically includes installing new conduit under the pavement to connect the traffic detection loops to the signal controllers and installing audible pedestrian devices for pedestrian crossing signals. 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 4 MVLSP AXIMIZING ALUE IN OCAL TREET ROJECTS One of the 2017 PPP contracts included work on seven low volume residential streets in the Harlow area neighborhood. This contract was a great example of the work engineering staff does to deliver projects to the public that are appropriate in scope and fiscally responsible by utilizing a variety of treatment and rehabilitation techniques. The initial project scoping called for the costly reconstruction of four of the seven project streets and an overlay of the remaining three. The final project design included four different treatment techniques and no traditional reconstruction. The rehabilitation techniques included traditional inlay and overlay as well as RAP base and ICTB on the busiest street segment. RAP Base is a process Eugene is using and refining for low volume residential streets. Instead of removing and hauling away the existing asphalt surfacing during the milling process, Compacted RAP Base on Pioneer Ct. the recycled material is left on site and reused as a base material that is reshaped, compacted, and paved over. The process adds strength to the existing roadway structure and helps provide a new roadway surface that is cost effective and appropriate for the low volume use of local neighborhood streets. Eugene first used this RAP Base technique in 2016 for a pair of local fuel-tax funded streets. The process was refined for use in 2017 and we anticipate its continued use in 2018 and beyond. Another positive aspect of this contract was the extensive coordination and collaboration of funds used to deliver the project. The project was primarily Bond funded but it also included funds from the stormwater and wastewater utilities, gas-tax for an improved street segment adjacent to the project, and funds from Public Works Maintenance for the overlay of an adjacent unimproved street. VZ ISION ERO In November of 2015, the Eugene City Council joined a growing number of cities around the country in adopting a Vision Zero Resolution that states “no loss of life or serious injury on our transportation system is acceptable.” Vision Zero is a data-driven approach to educate the community and enable the City to prioritize resources based on evidence of the greatest need and impact. The City regularly combines Vision Zero principles with ongoing pavement preservation projects. Cost effective intersection enhancements such as countdown pedestrian signals and audible pedestrian signals will continue to be a priority and standard practice on future projects. Enhanced pedestrian crossings have been implemented on a number of recent projects. Currently the City is undertaking large-scale corridor wide improvements on the Amazon corridor. The City is partnering the Bond funds used to pave East and West Amazon Drive, with Federal funds to improve the corridor by adding a cycle track, Amazon Creek crossings and 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 5 enhanced pedestrian street crossings. ODOT has shown that the inclusion of these types of enhancements can significantly reduce fatal and life-changing injury crashes. ADATP RANSITION LAN As part of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the City of Eugene conducted an evaluation of its public rights-of-way, and developed a transition plan that outlines in detail how the organization will ensure safe access to all of its facilities for all individuals. Public Works collected detailed data on over 15,000 ramps and 250 pedestrian signals to develop transition schedules specific to these facilities. The Public Works Director approved the ADA Transition Plan for the Public Rights-of-Way by Administrative Order in July 2015. All capital rehabilitation projects are evaluated for access compliance and potential improvements during scoping and preliminary design. As part of the 2017 capital paving projects, the City upgraded 235 sidewalk ramps and three pedestrian islands. Sustainability and Gains through Technical Developments In 2010, Eugene created the Community Climate and Energy Action Plan (CEAP), joining a growing list of forward-thinking cities around the world that are addressing climate change and energy challenges by planning with vision and creativity. The Climate Recovery Ordinance (CRO), adopted in 2014 and updated in 2016, is our community’s next step toward fulfilling these efforts. The 2016 update established the goal of reducing the 2010 levels of community fossil fuel use by 50 percent by the year 2030. Eugene is on a path to reach this goal. The City of Eugene continually strives to improve the quality, environmental footprint, and cost efficiency of its projects. In 2017, Eugene continued to use warm mix asphalt pavement and increased use of reclaimed binder to meet these sustainability criteria. Warm mix asphalt continued to be specified for all the paving projects in 2017 in place of conventional hot mix asphalt; approximately 29,000 tons of warm mix asphalt pavement was placed on capital paving projects in 2017. As explained in the Key Terms section of this report, warm mix asphalt provides environmental and human health benefits as well as a potentially longer lasting product. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) estimates that there is a CO savings of 12 pounds per ton of pavement when using warm mix as 2 compared to traditional hot mix asphalt. The NCHRP also estimates that the use of warm mix asphalt reduces the energy used in the asphalt batch plant by about 30 percent compared to hot mix asphalt. Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) has been used in Eugene for more than 20 years. Like the State of Oregon, Eugene’s current standard specification allows up to 30 percent RAP, by weight, to be used in new asphalt pavement mixes. For several years, local asphalt producers have supplied mixes that maximize the allowed RAP content. 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 6 Increasing the amount of reclaimed asphalt binder in pavement mixes potentially impacts the quality and longevity of the asphalt pavement, so increasing the allowed reclaimed asphalt binder in mixes needs to be done with consideration as RAP contents greater than 20 to 30 percent is an emerging technology without much research conducted on long-term impacts to the pavement quality. Nationally, multiple organizations are experimenting with increasing the reclaimed asphalt binder content, and Eugene provided pavement samples for research to the Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon in 2013. In Eugene, typical RAP materials result in a one-to-one replacement of the virgin asphalt cement needed for a typical dense graded asphalt pavement used on residential and collector streets in Eugene. Since the asphalt cement generally makes up about a quarter of the cost of asphalt pavement, reducing the amount of virgin asphalt cement used has the potential to decrease materials costs as well as conserving virgin resources. Based on positive test results on pilot projects constructed in 2013 to increase RAP usage, Eugene will continue to select projects to increase the reclaimed binder in asphalt pavements. The Eugene specifications allows flexibility for the contractors to meet the increased binder replacement value using RAP or a combination of RAP and reclaimed asphalt shingles (RAS) depending on the availability of materials and capabilities of the plant. By its nature, reclaimed asphalt binders are stiffer and pavements that contain higher contents of reclaimed asphalt binders are more susceptible to cracking. To compensate for this potential, the grade of virgin asphalt binder typically used for Eugene paving with higher than 30 percent binder replacement was replaced with a “softer” binder that should better resist cracking. Eugene Public Works continues to test the limits and increase the percentage of reclaimed binder content in city streets. While staff are on the forefront of this technology, they’re proceeding with caution and choosing projects on a case-by-case basis. Typically they choose streets with lower traffic volumes in order to minimize the chances of unintended consequences. Nearly 8,200 tons of RAP was used on 2017 capital paving projects, reducing the need for nearly 490 tons of asphalt cement and 7,800 tons of aggregate to be mined, refined, processed and subsequently shipped to the pavement producers. Using warm mix asphalt with typical reclaimed asphalt pavement content resulted in an estimated reduction of 675 MT COe compared to using 2 hot-mix asphalt pavement with no reclaimed pavement on 2017 capital paving projects. Funding Status and Forecast In 2012, project costs were estimated for each street for the purpose of selecting streets to be included in the bond measure. These cost estimates were based on the overall surface condition of each street as described in the City’s Pavement Management System. A unit cost was assigned to each street based on whether the street rehabilitation treatment was assumed to be a reconstruct or an overlay. Approximately 18 months prior to construction, more detailed pavement testing is conducted to determine specific treatments to each street based on the existing pavement structure, subgrade soil conditions and traffic loading. Actual rehabilitation treatments may be different than the original assumptions, requiring more, less or a combination of rehabilitation techniques. 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 7 For the streets scheduled for 2017 construction, the 2012 estimated cost with inflation was $9,383,000. As of January 3, 2018, although not all project contracts have been closed out, the projected actual cost for the 2017 bond projects is $7,656,000; a net difference of $2,088,000 below the costs projected in 2012. We have continued to see a steady increase in construction costs but not to the degree that we originally projected resulting in a large remaining balance. We expect this trend to continue through the last year of this Bond. Details on an annual project-by- project basis are provided in the following pages and summarized in Appendix A. As construction is completed each year, Appendix A will be updated and included in future reports to track the funding status of the overall bond funds. The 2012 bond measure also allocated an average of $516,000 for pedestrian and bicycle improvements each year. In 2017, the project expenditures on all pedestrian and bicycle improvements funded by the bond are estimated at $297,000. Due to expenditures to date, approximately $200,000 is available for the final year of the Bond. 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 8 2017 Bond Construction Projects The following pages are reports on individual projects. The total costs for each project listed are estimated as not all of the 2017 construction-related costs have been finalized as of January 1, 2018. Completed Paving on Jefferson Street 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 9 stnd 1 Avenue and 2 Avenue Paving Project Description: This project consisted of rehabilitation of two streets in the Whitaker Community Council neighborhood in Council Ward 7: st 1 Avenue from Blair Boulevard to the west end · nd 2 Avenue from Blair Boulevard to Garfield Street · Treatment Methodology: st 1 Avenue was reconstructed by removing the existing asphalt and concrete pavement, · reconditioning the existing aggregate base, and placing 9 inches of concrete surfacing. nd 2 Avenue was reconstructed by removing the existing asphalt pavement, reconditioning · the existing aggregate base, and repaving with 8 inches of asphalt. Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $1,423,664. Preliminary Estimate based on Pavement Management System (PMS) Surface Evaluation = $1,803,000 $1,347,670 Total Projected/Actual Paving Bond Funds Used = $455,330 Difference = Additional Sources of Funding: Stormwater utility funds, wastewater utility funds, EWEB funds, Signal Improvement funds, and Bike/Ped Bond Funds. nd Bicycling and Pedestrian Improvement funds were used for the addition of bike legends on 2 Avenue. Project Photos Completed Paving on 1st Avenue Completed Paving on 2nd Avenue 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 10 th 30 Avenue Paving Project Description: This project consisted of rehabilitation of one street in the Southeast Neighbors neighborhood in Council Ward 2: th 30 Avenue from the Spring Blvd Overpass to Agate Street · Treatment Methodology: th 30 Avenue was rehabilitated by removing and replacing the worn layers of existing · pavement. The pavement rehabilitation depth varied between 2 inches and 7 inches. The entire road width also received a 2 inch pavement overlay. Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $525,887. Preliminary Estimate based on Pavement Management System (PMS) Surface Evaluation = $2,871,000 $525,887 Total Projected/Actual Paving Bond Funds Used = $2,345,113 Difference = During design, it was found that the existing roadway could be rehabilitated and meet City design standards for significantly less cost than the originally anticipated reconstruction treatment. Additional Sources of Funding: None Project Photos Completed 30th Ave Paving Aerial view of completed paving on 30th Ave 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 11 Best Lane and Ione Avenue Project Description: This project consisted of rehabilitation of two streets in the Harlow Neighborhood in Council Ward 4: Best Lane from Willakenzie Road to Kentwood Drive · Ione Avenue from Best Lane to Adkins Street · Treatment Methodology: Best Lane was rehabilitated by removing and replacing the existing 6” asphalt surfacing. · Ione Street was rehabilitated by removing and replacing the top layer of worn asphalt · surfacing. The roadway also received a 2” pavement overlay. Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $375,058. Preliminary Estimate based on Pavement Management System (PMS) Surface Evaluation = $234,000 $351,303 Total Projected/Actual Paving Bond Funds Used = $(117,303) Difference = Additional Sources of Funding: Stormwater and wastewater utility funds and EWEB funds. Project Photos: Completed Paving on Best Lane Completed Paving on Ione Avenue 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 12 Calvin Street, Leigh Street, Lydick Way, Pioneer Court, Satre Street, Tomahawk Lane, and Western Drive Project Description: This project consisted of rehabilitation of seven streets in the Harlow Neighbors neighborhood in Council Ward 4. Calvin Street from Western Drive to Harlow Road · Leigh Street from North End to Western Drive · Lydick Way from Tomahawk Lane to Harlow Road · Pioneer Court from Pioneer Pike to North End · Satre Street from Bailey Lane to Western Drive · Tomahawk Lane from Harlow Road to 580’ North of Harlow Road · Western Drive from Calvin Street to West End/Monroe Middle School · Treatment Methodology: Calvin Street was rehabilitated by milling and repaving the top 2 inches of asphalt · surfacing. Leigh Street, Lydick Way, and Tomahawk Ln were reconstructed by milling the existing · asphalt and using the milled material as a base that was then overlaid with new pavement. Pioneer Court was rehabilitated by milling and repaving the top 3 inches of asphalt · surfacing. Satre Street was reconstructed utilizing the ICTB process and was re-paved with a 4 inch · asphalt pavement surface. Western Drive was rehabilitated utilizing a combination of methods including milling and · repaving, and reconstruction using in place recycled millings as a base course and overlaying with a new pavement surface. These streets are popular for walking to school. The intersection at Western and President · was reconfigured to create a safer, more visible crossing by reconstructing the sidewalk ramps to comply with accessibility requirements, shortening the crossing distance, and reducing the corner radius to slow traffic. Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $1,146,274. Preliminary Estimate based on Pavement Management System (PMS) Surface Evaluation = $1,906,000 $1,056,754 Total Projected/Actual Bond Funds Used = $859,246 Difference = The original budget anticipated traditional reconstruction of several of these streets. Due to the existing materials, they were able to be rehabilitated rather than reconstructed, significantly reducing the cost of the project. Additional Sources of Funding: Local gas-tax for non-bond street paving, stormwater utility funds, wastewater utility funds, and Public Works Maintenance operations funds. Project Photos: 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 13 Completed Paving on Tomahawk Ln Completed Paving on Calvin St 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 14 East Amazon Drive Paving Project Description: This project consisted of rehabilitation of one street in the Southeast Neighbors neighborhood in Council Ward 2: East Amazon Drive from Hilyard Street to Dillard Road · Treatment Methodology: East Amazon Drive was reconstructed using the ICTB process and repaving with 8 inches · of asphalt pavement surface. Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $1,765,177. Preliminary Estimate based on Pavement Management System (PMS) Surface Evaluation = $1,322,000 $1,545,042 Total Projected/Actual Paving Bond Funds Used = $(223,042) Difference = Additional Sources of Funding: Stormwater and Wastewater utility funds, Stormwater and Transportation system development charges funds, and EWEB funds. Project Photos: Completed Paving on E. Amazon Drive 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 15 Jefferson Street Paving Project Description: This project reconstructed one street in the Jefferson Westside Neighbors neighborhood in Council Ward 1: thth Jefferson Street from 8 Avenue to 18 Avenue · Treatment Methodology: Jefferson Street was reconstructed using 9” and 10” thick reinforced Portland cement concrete. Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $3,022,425. Preliminary Estimate based on Pavement Management System (PMS) Surface Evaluation = $1,237,000 $2,586,800 Total Projected/Actual Paving Bond Funds Used = $(1,349,800) Difference = The programmed budget for the project was not sufficient to cover the scope and scale of the full reconstruction of the concrete street, causing a large budget overrun. Additional Sources of Funding: Stormwater and Wastewater utility funds, Stormwater SDC funds, and EWEB funds. Bicycling and Pedestrian Improvement funds were used for signage at three enhanced pedestrian crossings. Project Photos: Completed Paving on Jefferson St. Completed Paving on Jefferson St. 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 16 2017 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Projects Project Description: In addition to the pedestrian and bicycle improvements incorporated into paving projects, pedestrian and bicycle improvements were constructed at six locations in 2017: Installed sidewalk ramps and Pedestrian Island on Royal Ave at Throne Drive. · Installed sidewalk ramps, median and rectangular rapid flashing beacon on Irvington Dr. · Installed street signs on the West Bank Path. · Installed sidewalk ramps and Pedestrian Island on Country Club Road. · th Installed new ramps and buffered bike lane striping on 24 Ave. · th Installed school zone signage and hardware on Willamette Street north of 35 Avenue. · The project also included constructing traffic calming in three locations. · Costs: Total Project Cost, from all funding sources = $664,900 Bond Funds Used = $294,500 Additional Sources of Funding: Traffic Operations Improvement Funds, Traffic Calming Funds, Parks SDC, and 4J Funds. See the Memo in Appendix C for additional projects that included bond funds for pedestrian and bicycling improvements. Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Fund Forecast: The 2012 bond measure allocated a total of $2,580,000 for pedestrian and bicycle improvements. The average total amount per year is $516,000 over the five year bond. Over the first four years expenditures on all pedestrian and bicycle improvements funded by the bond have totaled approximately $2,371,500. The remaining available funds for pedestrian and bicycle improvements in 2018 are $208,000. Project Photos: Country Club Crossing Buffered Bike Lane on 24th Ave 2017 Report to the SRRP Page 17 APPENDIX A 2017 Report from Engineering to the Citizens Street Repair Review Panel 5-Year Street Bond Project List - Costs and Forecast Programmed Projected Project/ Street nameFromToWard(s)Proposed TreatmentCost (2012) Difference Map #Actual Cost plus inflation Construction Year 2014 $ 544,000 11st Avenue (C)Washington StVan Buren St7Overlay $ 2,154,000$ (95,000) 55Madison Street (L)1st Ave8th Ave1, 7Reconstruction$ 969,000 58Monroe Street (L)1st AveBlair Blvd1, 7PCC panel replacement$ 546,000 813th Avenue (C/A)Washington StGarfield St1$ 2,109,0002,392,000$ 283,000$ Reconstruction/Overlay 913th Avenue (C)Bertelsen RdCommerce St8Reconstruction/Overlay$ 169,000 $ 410,000$ 78,000 44Interior Street (L)north endsouth end8Reconstruction/Overlay$ 319,000 2143rd Avenue (C)North Shasta LpDillard Rd2Pavement Removal and $ 165,000 Replacement $ 1,319,000$ (618,000) $ 97,000 40Firland Blvd (C)Spring BlvdAgate St2Reconstruction $ 439,000 59North Shasta Loop (C)Firland BlvdNorth Shasta Lp2Reconstruction/Overlay $ 184,000 25Broadway (C)Mill StPearl St1, 3Overlay $ 854,000$ (482,000) $ 188,000 33Coburg Road (A)south end of Ferry Street north end of viaduct3, 7Pavement Removal and Replacement Bridge 43Goodpasture Loop (C)5Goodpasture Island Road$ 1,103,000 Overlay$ 178,000925,000$ Construction Year 2014 Totals =$ 7,771,0007,115,000$ (656,000)$ Construction Year 2015 1015th Avenue (L)Fairmount BlvdAgate St3$ 1,020,000 Reconstruct $ 1,908,000$ (235,000) 1117th Avenue (L)Fairmount BlvdAgate St3Reconstruct$ 653,000 1219th Avenue (L)Fillmore StChambers St1Pavement Rem/Overlay$ 85,000 $ 701,000$ 162,000 1322nd Avenue (L)Friendly StPolk St1Pavement Rem/Overlay$ 181,000 39Fillmore Street (L)19th Ave24th Ave1Pavement Rem/Overlay$ 597,000 1425th Avenue (C)Hawkins LnBrittany St8Overlay$ 231,000 32City View Street (L)28th Ave29th Ave8Reconstruct$ 278,000 $ 958,000$ (23,000) 67Timberline Drive (C)Warren StWintercreek Dr8Reconstruction/Overlay$ 426,000 1939th Avenue (C)Willamette St100' East of 2$ 215,000 Overlay Densmore $ 836,000$ 63,000 $ 169,000 2040th Avenue (C)Hilyard StDonald St2Overlay $ 515,000 24Brae Burn Drive (C)39th AveWillamette St2Overlay $ 298,000 22Avalon Street (L)Echo Hollow RdJuhl St6Reconstruct $ 170,000 30Cascade Drive (L)Avalon StJuhl St6Reconstruct $ 120,000 37Elizabeth Street (L)Knoop AveRoyal Ave6Overlay $ 627,000$ 199,000 $ 160,000 48Juhl Street (L)north side of address south end6Reconstruct 1424 49Knoop Avenue (L)Echo Hollow RdElizabeth St6$ 78,000 Overlay $ 75,000232,000$ 157,000$ 56Mahlon Avenue (L)Garden WayHoneysuckle Ln4Pavement Rem/Overlay Construction Year 2015 Totals =$ 5,428,000$ 5,105,000$ 323,000 Construction Year 2016 45th Avenue (L)Bertelsen Rdwest end8Reconstruct$ 664,000 56th Avenue (L)Bertelsen RdCommercial St8$ 166,000 Overlay $ 992,000$ 931,000 $ 863,000 67th Avenue (L)Bertelsen RdOscar St8Reconstruct $ 230,000 34Commercial Street (L)5th Avesouth end8Overlay $ 117,000 1527th Avenue (L)Columbia Stsouth end3Overlay $ 418,000 28Capital Drive (L)Spring Blvd50' north of Crest De 3Reconstruct Ruta $ 1,068,000$ 598,000 $ 847,000 62Potter Street (L)24th Ave29th Ave3Reconstruct $ 150,000 66Spring Boulevard (L)Fairmount BlvdCapital Dr3Overlay $ 134,000 70Van Ness Street (L)23rd Ave27th Ave3Overlay $ 347,000678,000$ 331,000$ 31Centennial Loop (L)MLK Jr Blvd4Reconstruct $ 701,000 38Fairfield Avenue (C)Hwy 99Royal Ave7Reconstruct $ 1,430,000$ 111,000 $ 840,000 46Jacobs Drive (L)Hwy 99Fairfield Ave6, 7Reconstruct $ 392,000 53Lincoln Street (L)5th Ave13th Ave7Overlay $ 1,210,000$ (67,000) $ 751,000 71Washington Street (A)8th Ave13th Ave1Reconstruct $ 434,000613,000$ 179,000$ 75Willamette Street (L)10th Ave13th Ave1Reconstruct $ 5,481,000$ 2,083,000 Construction Year 2016 Totals =$ 7,564,000 Construction Year 2017 21st Avenue (L)west endBlair Blvd7Reconstruct$ 548,000$ 1,347,670$ 455,330 32nd Avenue (C)Garfield StBlair Blvd7$ 1,255,000 Reconstruct $ 2,871,000$ 2,345,113 1630th Avenue (A)Spring Blvd overpassAgate St2, 3Reconstruct$ 525,887 $ 1,322,000$ (223,042) 36East Amazon Drive (A)Hilyard StDillard Rd2Reconstruct$ 1,545,042 $ 157,000$ (117,303) 23Best Lane (L)Willakenzie RdKentwood Dr4Overlay$ 351,303 $ 77,000 45Ione Avenue (L)Best LnAdkins St4Overlay $ 1,237,000$ (1,349,800) 47Jefferson Street (C)8th Ave18th Ave1Reconstruct$ 2,586,800 $ 273,000$ 859,246 27Calvin Street (L)Western DrHarlow Rd4Reconstruct$ 1,056,754 $ 184,000 52Leigh Street (L)Western Drnorth end4Reconstruct $ 87,000 54Lydick Way (L)Tomahawk LnHarlow Rd4Overlay $ 112,000 60Pioneer Court (L)Pioneer Pikenorth end4Reconstruct $ 714,000 64Satre Street (C)Bailey LnWestern Dr4Overlay $ 92,000 68Tomahawk Lane (L)Harlow Rd580' north of Harlow4Overlay $ 454,000 73Western Drive (L)Calvin Stwest end4Reconstruct $ 7,413,456$ 1,969,544 Construction Year 2017 Totals =$ 9,383,000 Construction Year 2018 77th Place (C)Hwy 99 (7th Ave)Bailey Hill Rd1, 7, 8Reconstruct$ -3,417,000$ 17/1830th Avenue (L)Willamette StreetFerry Street2$ -437,000$ Reconstruct $ -179,000$ 26Buff Way (L)Woodside DrForrester Wy4Reconstruct $ -132,000$ 29Carmel Avenue (L)Minda Dr400' south5Reconstruct $ -41,000$ 35Corydon Street (L)Forrester WyTandy Turn4Reconstruct APPENDIX A 2017 Report from Engineering to the Citizens Street Repair Review Panel 5-Year Street Bond Project List - Costs and Forecast Programmed Projected Project/ Street nameFromToWard(s)Proposed TreatmentCost (2012) Difference Map # Actual Cost plus inflation 41Forrester Way (L)Coburg Rdwest side of driveway 4Reconstruct$ -248,000$ 1033 42Garfield Street (C)Roosevelt Blvd6th Ave7Reconstruct$ -1,891,000$ 50Larkspur Avenue (L)Norkenzie Rd604' west5Reconstruct$ -211,000$ 51Larkspur Loop (L)Norkenzie Rd5Reconstruct$ -171,000$ 57Mill Street (L)30th Avenue2Reconstruct$ -49,000$ 61Piper Lane (L)Chasa StFir Acres Dr5Reconstruct$ -196,000$ 63Roland Way (L)Oakway RdCal Young Rd5Reconstruct$ -216,000$ 65Sharon Way (L)Coburg Rdeast side of driveway 4Reconstruct$ -376,000$ 1023 69Tulip Street (L)Crescent AveHolly Ave5Reconstruct$ -118,000$ 72West Amazon Drive (A)Hilyard StFox Hollow Rd2Reconstruct$ -1,463,000$ 74Willamette Street (A)24th Ave29th Ave1, 2$ -1,232,000$ Reconstruct $ 423,000$- 76Woodside Drive (L)Cal Young RdSharon Wy4Reconstruct$- (x) Street Classification Key: (L) = Local; (C) = Construction Year 2018 Totals = $ 10,800,000 $ - $- Collector; (A) = Arterial $ 40,290,000 $ 25,770,456 $ 14,519,544 Total Programmed Costs = Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Project List Average Projected Annual/ Projects Difference AllocationActual Cost $516,000 Construction Year 2014 2014 Pedestrian & Bicycle Repairs $ 410,000 Acorn Park Sidewalks $ 128,000 1st, Madison, Monroe $ 92,000 13th Avenue (Washington to Garfield) $ 25,000 Goodpasture Island Loop Pedestrian Signals $ 29,000 Roosevelt Blvd Pedestrian Signals and Sidewalk Infill $ 58,000 Construction Year 2014 Pedestrian & Bicycle Repairs Total = $ 742,000 $ (226,000) Construction Year 2015 2015 Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement Project $ 349,000 15th and 17th Avenues Markings $ 38,000 Fillmore and Friendly Streets Markings $ 10,000 Donald Street Crossing $ 19,000 Garden Way and Willakenzie Markings $ 20,000 Valley River Way Pedestrian Signal Upgrades $ 20,000 South Willamette Street Improvements $ 12,700 Tugman Bridge and Sidewalk Improvements $ 12,500 Construction Year 2015 Pedestrian & Bicycle Repairs Total = $ 481,200 $ 34,800 Construction Year 2016 2016 Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement Project $ 683,000 Fairfield Avenue Sidewalk Infill $ 44,000 Willamette Street Markings & Sidewalk Improvements $ 71,000 Lincoln Ave Bike Buffer $ 12,000 Construction Year 2016 Pedestrian & Bicycle Repairs Total = $ 810,000 $ (294,000) Construction Year 2017 2017 Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement Project $ 290,531 1st & 2nd Ave Paving Bike Legends $ 1,042 3rd Ave Paving Sharrow Markings $ 2,969 Jefferson St Paving Signage $ 3,364 Construction Year 2017 Pedestrian & Bicycle Repairs Total = $ 297,906 $ 218,094 Construction Year 2018$ 248,894 Total Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Project Costs =$ 2,580,000 $ 2,331,106 $ 248,894 Summary of Bond Costs Total Street Projects in 2012 Dollars with inflation = $ 40,290,000 yclist Improvements = Total Pedestrian & Bic$ 2,580,000 Bond Issuance Costs =$ 130,000 Total Bond Costs =$ 43,000,000 d P Appendix B a Attachment BAtthmnt B i ace i e u v R e rC o b R u r R dg R d g r b W o Eugene Street Preservation Projects C t N y a l a i r I - 5 s u d n I g r u b o C Wi Project Map for 2012 Bond Measure to Fix Streets Beac onDr Cobu rg Bo ttom L oop r r BD eac onD c i n A Ln e c S R i v e r R H Spring Cr eekDr w y 9 9 N n n y L b ro o k D r L ynnbroo kDr o L R iverLo aop 2 n 1 R o c Rp a iv erLo p2o Es Enid Rd t e L r r D e Irv ington Dr rv i Irving tonDr Wilk esD r Airpo rt Rd B lackfoo tAv e N Barsto wtAve S r H t h h w t w y n i e 9 c d 9 a R N y E r xH e p k Rive rLo rop1 c e o s r s wC a R y P i v r ae ir r d d Irvin R Cled ard LakeR dContyFm ur aRd Ir vingRd Hu nsaker Ln R g r u b o Ayre s Rd C y Bel ety pHw lie anl P yt di n a R wd R andyPHR apeBe ltlin eHwy e a t g Sa e S ilverLn D e m yr v rN A r o r e d T G R N e G d r eene A cv or p LeA R Ge rst Rd 69 dn t e se Cres pacenc tAved k s r R e oe M vaxw ellRCr d g N Ar 43 i Ru k a nz rb d y P ao a p r e PB C e l Dtl i n Hoe wa rdAve H N w e y k C a h L Go oD Badpa rges rDrta u rr d e R a sn B arge r Drl ad y n Sd P a R yp d re R r B e e Goodpl wastureI slant dRd l yi n o e l H wlwy d NJep pe 23 sen o A Hc Rres MRd inda Dr HeH n 50 y e e v y i 45 o w i Az am or Ln 29 h H t lna k W r eNParkaeh Av e l t i alk W ni Brl el P o 61 G da o t e lz AvaDieRd lon St 22 R RN pN o e an i d v C 51 Bogart Pn e 46 ra yl R 48 sC d d I nd e 76 Ca elY aval oung YoungRd R r e 30 RA u t d M arsh ald 65 lAves l R a d e i 64 p fe R i 63 r dB 26 ailey Ln p Hy oW 49 aPark Ave s a wo F 41 B l yw el G 52 i tk 9 g 9a 38 eea Nl 3773 lO 35 l i N I - 5 DV e o v ra r RoAValle yaly t rR h n r i w v e e e rD Dr Ts 6068 t u E 54 y N oy x w 27 n p la r Rd r eH S a s W st w n a e Elmira y Rd yd r d a OakR Rmon t Wa lt g G r o oseveu Blvd d 56 bN o R eC v C nR oo s e Adve t eltB n lv d t Nr ysy RS o l oC ul u bw e sb a ttR r e Hrcd e nI ee- 1 42 e0I- ab105 dn BH d n t Diey m 31 lw R e tS N a lSy g a h nda 9i c N r 2 B9Ce ve e Ar tW W1s 1 B N C n et S en eel p Bu v e dlvd WbherKingJrB aSl1stAvetinLut rMar ntd R e Rr P S ia S d f a ndAv e r ynVy r Sw asroG dernAv e W 2Ki 4 se n lG S F a WL eShelton M c tmE 3rdAvo e R 58 u r 3 r pH 55 h ea y r er Bi l v 1 ds W B5th Ave E 4thAv eP W 33 k tw W5t hAv 5 e 7 y tS n o et CW h 6 th BlvStAve d 7 n d A n r S to yW eBot eS d l thPlg l v W7th Av ne 6th dAve ee i et i Wf 6 7f fh KS r 53 os ce 34 a h Ja P M Gg W W E dd yt d 1R 1thS Ave d Bro aw Wa R11thA ve n td R li W 11 elthA ve S 25 i Wa k11thA ve 9 s lc e H w e 71 n F e r ti yeta r rW n i 8 11thAv ek W1 3thPl AveeKin S Cel VB il v d BW13th Ave ae y wa W t13thAv e 75 t v i Bi e oS l O l l C t i S Ot W 13thA v S a n WS d r 44 r ee 10 t P d l a tr g AF t SA a l t W 18th Ar veI - 5 S 47 a t e y S W18 nt Avt 12 t as WS 18thA ve rS t t n ieE18t nhAv Le ry l sb o Bn E i19th dsAv 11 ke m wr n a E 19th Ave ae Hi e f i f r t e F J S tt 13 d R l loSn i l H y eo- l i w5 aKev ingt n Avec B e n it t V L WS illow Cree k Rd y 1466 ie 39 t t t C S W24 th Ave eE 24thAv re eA e m d 70 W 25thAl v a RS A l z a oi H nb 62 y ePm l 28 u k l a w o B C T 67 15 W 27t h Ave i W 28t mhA Wve 28thA v e 3274 b e r W e A m 2 9th Av a 57 z o n P k w R y t e l E 30h A v 17 l pil imH G 18 16 d v l E 33 rdAve B t e v A S d r g 3 3 e E n i t r nHy aewp or Le S E t 72 t a l3 l SA iS 0 g t d ah d W l 40 t A e a ra DES yWe n l t ti s o r A A H D m p m 19 L a aa t z s a z o W3 9thAveh n o S nD nD N rr r u B e e a E 40thd Av r 59 y R B 20 w w H o 24 l l n E43 rd Ave a e r 36 v o Blanton Rd t x L o S A F 3rd d 4 l E a n d E o R4 D 6 l 21 l it h H A v Legend y e ed l i R a Bw D o t l l i l S l oa r e H d x t R Go Bond Projects o e lFd l a i m W City Streets h t e B c City Limits M F o x Lor aneH Hwy o Eugene UGB l l o w 000.25.51Miles l a r d R Produced by City of Eugene PW Eng Info Team, June 2012 (Ref# 1205-1676) d See accompanying index for specific project information tƩƚƆĻĭƷ\[źƭƷŅƚƩЋЉЊЋ.ƚƓķaĻğƭǒƩĻƷƚCźǣ{ƷƩĻĻƷƭ ağƦϔ{ƷƩĻĻƷbğƒĻ\[źƒźƷƭ WASHINGTONSTVANBURENST 101STAVE BLAIRBLVDWESTEND 201STAVE BLAIRBLVDGARFIELDST 302NDAVE BERTELSENRDWESTEND 405THAVE BERTELSENRDCOMMERCIALST 506THAVE BERTELSENRDOSCARST 607THAVE 7THAVE/HWY99BAILEYHILLRD 707THPL WASHINGTONSTGARFIELDST 813THAVE BERTELSENRDCOMMERCEST 913THAVE FAIRMOUNTBLVDAGATEST 1015THAVE 11FAIRMOUNTBLVDAGATEST 17THAVE FILLMORESTCHAMBERSST 1219THAVE FRIENDLYSTPOLKST 1322NDAVE HAWKINSLNBRITTANYST 1425THAVE COLUMBIASTSPRINGBLVD 1527THAVE SPRINGOVERPASSAGATEST 1630THAVE MILLST(WEST)FERRYST(EAST) 1730THAVE MILLSTWILLAMETTEST 1830THAVE WILLAMETTEST100'EASTOFDENSMORERD 1939THAVE HILYARDSTDONALDST 2040THAVE NSHASTADILLARDRD 2143RDAVE ECHOHOLLOWRDJUHLST 22AVALONST WILLAKENZIERDKENTWOODDR 23BESTLN 39THAVEWILLAMETTEST 24BRAEBURNDR MILLSTPEARLST 25BROADWAY WOODSIDEDRFORRESTERWAY 26BUFFWAY WESTERNDRHARLOWRD 27CALVINST SPRINGBLVD50'NOFCRESTADERUTAST 28CAPITALDR 29MINDADR400'SOUTHOFMINDADR CARMELAVE AVALONSTJUHLST 30CASCADEDR MLK,JRBLVD(EAST)MLK,JRBLVD/CLUBRD 31CENTENNIALLP 28THAVE29THAVE 32CITYVIEWST SSFERRYSTBRIDGE50'SOFEWEBON/OFFRAMP 33COBURGRD 5THAVESOUTHEND 34COMMERCIALST FORRESTERWAYTANDYTURN 35CORYDONST HILYARDSTDILLARDRD 36EASTAMAZONDR KNOOPAVEROYALAVE 37ELIZABETHST WSHWY99ROYALAVE 38FAIRFIELDAVE 19THAVE24THAVE 39FILLMOREST SPRINGBLVDAGATEST 40FIRLANDBLVD COBURGRDWSDRWY1033 41FORRESTERWAY ROOSEVELT6THAVE 42GARFIELDST GOODPASTUREISRD(EASTINTERSECTION)GOODPASTUREISRD 43GOODPASTURELOOP (WESTINTERSECTION) 44 INTERIORSTNORTHENDOFCULDESACSOUTHENDOFIMPROVEDSECTION ağƦϔ{ƷƩĻĻƷbğƒĻ\[źƒźƷƭ BESTLNADKINSST 45IONEAVE 46JACOBSDRHWY99NFAIRFIELDAVE 8THAVE18THAVE 47JEFFERSONST 48JUHLSTNSADDR1424SOUTHEND ECHOHOLLOWRDELIZABETHST 49KNOOPAVE 50LARKSPURAVENORKENZIERD640FEETWESTOFNORKENZIERD NORKENZIERD(N)NORKENZIERD(S) 51LARKSPURLOOP 52LEIGHSTNORTHENDWESTERNDR 5THAVE13THAVE 53LINCOLNST 54LYDICKWAYTOMAHAWKLNHARLOWRD 1STAVE8THAVE 55MADISONST 56MAHLONAVEGARDENWAYHONEYSUCKLELN 30THAVE(NORTH)30THAVE(SOUTH) 57MILLST 58MONROEST1STAVEBLAIRBLVD FIRLAND43RDAVE 59NORTHSHASTALOOP 60PIONEERCTPIONEERPIKENORTHEND CHASASTFIRACRESDR(INCLCULDESAC) 61PIPERLN 24THAVE29THAVE 62POTTERST OAKWAYRDCALYOUNGRD 63ROLANDWAY 64SATRESTBAILEYLNWESTERNDR COBURGRDESDRWY1023 65SHARONWAY 66SPRINGBLVDFAIRMOUNTBLVDCAPITALDR WARRENSTWINTERCREEKDR 67TIMBERLINEDR 68TOMAHAWKLNHARLOWRD580'NORTHOFHARLOWRD CRESCENTAVEHOLLYAVE 69TULIPST 70VANNESSST23RDAVE27THAVE 8THAVE13THAVE 71WASHINGTONST 72ESHILYARDSSFOXHOLLOW WESTAMAZONDR CALVINSTWESTEND/MONROEMIDDLESCHOOL 73WESTERNDR 74WILLAMETTEST24THAVE29THAVE 10THAVE13THAVE 75WILLAMETTEST 76WOODSIDEDRCALYOUNGRDSHARONWAY INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT’S REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES To Jon Ruiz, City Manager City of Eugene Eugene, Oregon We have performed the procedures enumerated below, which were agreed to by the City of Eugene (“City”), solely to assist you in connection with the determination of whether expenditure of the 2012 general obligation bond funds approved for issuance through voter’s approval of Ballot Measure 20-197 were expended in accordance with the purposes and limitations outlined in City Council Resolution No. 5063; namely that such expenditures were: a) used only for costs related to street preservation projects, fund bicycle and pedestrian projects and payment of bond issuance costs and not to expand the motor vehicle capacity of the street system; and, b) limited to projects included in Exhibit A to the Resolution unless upon completion of all of the projects listed in Exhibit A the Council adds other street preservation projects to the list in order to utilize unspent bond proceeds. Management is responsible for the accounting records pertaining to the use of the bond proceeds. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in this report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. All procedures were performed for expenditures incurred from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. All procedures we performed were limited to documentation and information supplied to us by the City, as follows: An Excel spreadsheet detailing all charges allocated and/or invoices received by the City for expenditures related to the use of the bond proceeds Copies of Resolution No. 5063 and Ballot Measure 20-197 Copies of bids and contracts issued by the City for any projects to be completed using the bond proceeds Copies of supporting documentation including, but not limited to, invoices, cancelled checks, payroll records, certifications of payments and bank statements; and Copies of the City’s general ledger detail for the bond fund accounts. The procedures we performed and the associated findings are as follows: (1) Expenditure testing. From January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, total expenditures for the projects funded by the 2012 bond proceeds were $8,386,719 per the City’s general ledger. We tested $4,504,181 or 54% of those expenditures. All tested expenditures were supported by appropriate documentation such as vendor invoices, certifications of payment, payroll records, signed contracts, and photographs of the work in progress. All tested expenditures were recorded in the proper account, fund and period and were spent on street projects included in Exhibit A of City Council Resolution No. 5063 or other street preservation projects approved by City Council, as permitted under Resolution 5063. No exceptions were noted. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each are separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. City of Eugene Page 2 Street Bonds - agreed-upon procedures (2) We reviewed bids and contracts related to two of eight new construction projects during 2017. The bidding and contracting process for the two projects complied with the City’s procurement policies and procedures. (3) We recalculated the amount of unspent bond proceeds and compared that amount to the actual amount of bond proceeds remaining. The following is a summary of the 2012 bond proceeds and project expenditures from inception of the Street Bond project to December 31, 2017: Issuance to1/1/20151/1/20161/1/2017 12/31/201412/31/201512/31/201612/31/2017Total Bond proceeds8,500,000$ 6,289,700 6,690,000 8,750,000$ 30,229,700$ Project expenditures8,445,638 6,355,849 6,378,148 8,386,719 29,566,354 As of December 31, 2017, the City had $1,000,000 outstanding on the line of credit facility. From January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, the City received $8,750,000 in bond proceeds and was charged interest of $25,425; the City repaid $9,275,425 during the same period. At December 31, 2017, the City had $12,770,300 in authorized borrowing remaining on the bonds ($43,000,000 authorized less $30,229,700 in proceeds received to date). Based on our limited testing, we noted that the City followed the purpose and limitation of the City Council Resolution 5063. We were not engaged to and did not conduct an audit, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the financial records. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City Manager of the City of Eugene, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than this specified party. Isler CPA Eugene, Oregon January 31, 2018 2018 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT An Update on Asphalt Pavement Conditions and Programs (2017 Rating & Inventory Data) : Prepared by Public Works Maintenance Surface Technical Team 1820 Roosevelt Blvd. Eugene, OR 97402 Cover Photos (top left clockwise): GO BONDS, Maintenance Division performing street repair. Register Guard headline for bondapproval,11/8/2017, Map of all Pavement Preservations 2002-2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The annual Pavement Management Report is produced to update information and data regarding the including improved streets,unimproved streets and off- street shared-use paths. This report provides surface descriptions and associated mileage, reviews current treatment programs and costs, and projects future treatment needs based on several funding scenarios. The transportation system is a significant public asset. This asset is typically described in lane miles and/or centerline miles. Currently, Public Works manages 1365lane miles (549centerline miles) of streets, and approximately 45 centerline miles of off-street shared-use paths within the City limits. This report includes a breakdown of the street transportation system in terms of pavement type, level of improvement, and functional classification. Street (and off-street shared-use paths) condition data iscollected by Public Works Maintenance staff through on-site inspections. Pavement distress information is collected and a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score is generated. Formulas and methodology within the software helps establish efficient treatment recommendations and identify financial implications of various response strategies. The Pavement Management System (PMS) also provides a detailed street inventory and condition trends using street condition data collected since 1987. The City appreciates Eugene residents for approving the 2017 Bond Measure for street preservation, bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Of the $51.2 million bond,91 road projects will be completed with $5 million dollars going towards safety and infrastructure improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. A local gas tax was established in 2003 for a Pavement Preservation Program (PPP) since street repair funding was not at a level to keep pace with rehabilitation needs.Even with the local gas tax in place, it was reported in 2007, the anticipated backlog for rehabilitation needs would reach more than $282 million by 2016 (2007 Pavement Management Report). In 2008,a $35.9 million, five- year bond measure was approved by voters andan additional five-year bond for $43 million was approved by voters in 2012. With the approval of the 2017 five-year bond measure more than 204 streets in Eugene have been or are identified to be repaired by 2023.The revenues from the local gas tax and the bond measures have helped reduce the backlog of street repair projects over the last 14 years. The current calculated backlog for repairs on improved asphalt streets at the end of 2017 is $79.8 million, in2016 the reported backlog was $92 million. In addition to funding from the current street repair bond ending in 2023and rising constructions costs, other factors contribute to current and future backlogs: Since the beginning of the Pavement Preservation Program (PPP) in 2002 the primary focus for preservation has been arterial and collector streets.These formerly rehabilitated streets are now showing signs of deterioration beyond what can be addressed using standard maintenance practices. It is anticipated that costs will continue to increase at a steady rate. Changes in costs for construction materials and labor will affect long-term backlog estimates. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY () continued New construction techniques such as in-place recycling (also known as in-place cement treated base) which strengthens existing roadbed materials for reuse and lowers impacts to the environment have been successfully used in place of conventional reconstruction techniques and resulted in additional cost savings. Lane Transit District(LTD) West Eugene EmX project has increased the number of concrete street lane milesby constructing . Many distresses previously reported in these areas were eliminated through this project. It is also important to note that the backlog estimate does not take into account the repair needs for concrete streets, unimproved streets, sidewalks, off-street shared-used paths, or other elements of the transportation system. The 2018 report uses three funding scenarios to project treatment needs and costs over a 10-year period. The analyses for all three scenarios use costs updated by Public Works Engineering in 2016 and are adjusted to include a 2 percent inflation factor. Following is a summary of the analyses: Based on the projected funding (see table pg. 17), a $182 million backlog is projected in 10 years. Last year the projected backlog was $200 million in 10 years. Bond funding will end in 2023,decreasing pavement preservation from an average of $11.9million to $3million unless additional funding is approved beyond 2023. With the approval of the 2017 bond measure,it is projected that arterials and collectors at a reconstruct level are eliminated. By the tenth year, in addition to projected funding $8.2 million will be needed to prevent arterial and collector streets from falling into a reconstruct range. In addition to current and projected funding, $5 million annually is needed to prevent residential streets from falling into the reconstruct category and to eliminate the reconstruct backlog in10 years. 2 SCOPE OF REPORT This report is made up of four primary sections: Street Inventory: The street inventory is discussed including improvement status and functional classification definitions. : Pavement Management System (PMS)Abrief history and description of the Pavement Management System used by the City,the selection process and conversion to MicroPaver system is discussed. Included in this section are the rating methodology, pavement inspection frequency, pavement conditions described by the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), specific distress definitions and the resulting reports. Pavement Preservation Program (PPP): The Pavement Preservation Program is highlighted in this report, including Maintenance and Engineering division roles, treatment types and estimated unit costs, project prioritization, sustainable construction, current treatment costs,projected funding, historical and projected funding graphs, unimproved streets, and off-street shared-use paths. Projects: This section includes completed and future project lists and maps, including a map of the projects identified in the 2017bond measure. The City of Eugene has jurisdictional responsibility for many different types and classifications of transportation facilities. 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 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, the City of Eugene divides the street inventory into two distinct categories: Improved streetsare those which have been fully designed for structural adequacy, have storm drainage facilities 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 (PPP). 3 Unimproved streetsare those with soil, gravel, or asphalt mat surfaces that have typically evolved to their existing state, have not been structurally designed, and have few if any, drainage facilities and no curbs or gutters. 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 ( maintenance service). Unimproved streets receive a low level of ongoing maintenance limited primarily to emergency pothole patching (three inches or greater in depth) and minimal roadside ditch maintenance.To address the growing number of potholes on City streets, the City Council augmented the street repair budget with General Fund allocations for a total of $2.35 million from FY 2009 through FY 2011. Subsequently, Public Works has allocated $200,000 per year from Road Fund for enhanced street repairs. The Maintenance Division has addressed potholes by either filling individual potholes or by performing maintenance overlays onentire street segments. Since 2008, more than 116unimproved streets,representing 52lane miles,have been resurfaced as a temporary treatment. In addition, several unimproved streets have been brought up to full urban street standards through assessment projects, attributable in part to more flexible design standards. em in centerline miles and 12-foot lane miles by pavement type and by functional class. Asphalt over Asphalt (ACP)Concrete (PCC)GravelUndevelopedTotal Concrete (APC) IMPROVED SYSTEM Miles12' Lane Miles12' Lane Miles12' Lane Miles12' Lane Miles12' Lane Miles12' Lane MilesMilesMilesMilesMilesMiles Major Arterial 13.9764.340.030.184.386.13000018.3870.65 Minor Arterial 63.19213.592.277.513.5611.92000069.02233.02 Major Collector 30.0792.341.152.723.258.87000034.47103.93 Neighborhood Collector 23.8761.850.451.231.604.48000025.9267.56 Residential 311.84720.752.285.9221.1553.890000335.27780.56 Total 442.941152.876.1817.5633.9485.290000483.061255.72 Bituminous Surface Asphalt (ACP)Concrete (PCC)GravelUndevelopedTotal (BST) UNIMPROVED SYSTEM Miles12' LaneMiles12' LaneMiles12' LaneMiles12' LaneMiles12' LaneMiles12' Lane MilesMilesMilesMilesMilesMiles Major Arterial 000000000000 Minor Arterial 1.693.15000000001.693.15 Major Collector 3.257.34000000003.257.34 Neighborhood Collector 4.138.32000000004.138.32 Residential 38.9064.234.366.890.030.038.8912.964.695.9156.8790.02 Total 47.9783.044.366.890.030.038.8912.964.695.9165.94108.83 4 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. The MicroPaver terminology for functional classification/section rankis identified as follows: Major Arterial (FC-1) - (A):Major Arterials are usually four or more lanes and generally connect various parts of the region with one anotheoutside worldThey 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) - (B):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 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) - (C):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) - (D):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. Local (FC-5 - (E):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. Local streets are also referred to as Residential streets. The following graph illustrates both centerline miles and lane miles by improvement type and functional classes. 1400 1300 1200 Mileage by Functional Class -Improved and Unimproved 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Major ArterialMinor ArterialMajor Colls.Neigh. Colls.LocalTotal Improved 12' lane miles 71233104687801256 Unimproved 12' lane miles 037890108 Improved centerline miles 18693426335482 Unimproved centerline miles 02345766 5 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM A Pavement Management System (PMS) performs analysis of collected rating data and reports on the current and projected conditions of the street system. In addition,it is used to evaluate the effectiveness of planning and funding priorities, and provides guidance in the decision making process.The goal of the decision making process is to prevent pavement failures through judicious maintenance. City of Eugene implemented MicroPaver in 2013. MicroPavercombines visual field inspection ratings, compiled under strict criteria, with computer tracking and condition analysis. Beginning collection of deterioration values by area, lineal footage thus keeping the program consistent with industry standards. This also allowed for smoother transition to MicroPaver with the ability to migrate three years of rating data with some modifications. With this migrated condition data, rating the entire asphalt street system the last three years plus construction history we are able to perform an analysis with rational accuracy to report financial needs and road conditions. There will be some variation in the outcomes of the analysis due to slight differences in rating and calculation methodology but overall the data is consistent. 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 geometricdesign. 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 width, surface age, and extent of past rehabilitations. Field inspections are conducted by pavement raters who walk each individual street segment evaluating the pavement surface for signs of distress. City arterial and collector streets are inspected annually; residential streets inspections are completed in a three-year cycle; and off- street shared-use path inspections are completed in a two-year cycle. Staff performed inspections on the entire street system using MicroPaver for the first three years, 2013-2015 providing an accurate baseline for analysis. Staff returnedto the annual inspection cycle in 2016. This year, 2017, staff inspected 157 miles of arterial and collectorstreets,100 miles of local streets in the University and Danebo/Bethel areas,plus 44 miles of off-street bike paths. 6 Pavement Condition Index (PCI), Deduct Values, and Distresses Pavement distresses are dependent on pavement type and are rated by severity and extent. MicroPaver provides a numerical value calculated internally based on deduct values for the distresses rated per street segment.MicroPaver defines this value as Pavement Condition Index (PCI) which will be the term used throughout this report. A street with a PCI of 100 represents a new or recently rehabilitated street. This PCI value is the basis used to analyze the surface treatment needs. Distress data are collected using Tablets and then uploaded to the pavement management software. MicroPaver method rates severities and all their extents for up to 20 different distresses.As the condition of a streets surface begins to deteriorate,the PCI decreases. Asphalt distresses typically observed are alligatoring, longitudinal and transverse cracks, rutting, and raveling. Distresses in concrete streets typically observed and rated include cracks per panel, raveling, joint spalling, faulting, and crack sealing. Descriptions of some common distresses are shown below: Alligator Cracking:When the asphalt begins to crack in all direction it is called alligator cracking. Longitudinal Cracking/Transverse Cracking:These are cracks that run parallel to the roadway centerline (longitudinal) and perpendicular to the roadway center line (transverse).These distresses usually divide the piece into different sections and which are caused by repeated traffic loading. The low-severity cracks are not considered serious to the overall function and safety of the road. Medium to high-severity cracks are usually caused by heavy traffic loads and environmental factors and can become very serious distresses.The picture below shows longitudinal cracking. 7 Rutting:When the traffic of the street becomes heavy for long periods of times the asphalt begins to sink into the wheel path of the vehicles causing a rut. When there is a rut it is usually along the length of the road and is one to two feet wide and there are almost always two ruts, one for each wheel path of the vehicle. The severity of the rut is to more than Joint Spalling:Spalling is the deterioration of the edges of a concrete slab within twofeet (0.6m) of the joint. The edges get chipped off concrete slabs causing spalling. Spalling is caused by heavy traffic loads and environmental factors. Raveling:The roads, mainly asphalt, over time become worn out and rough not smooth as when they were first put in, often due to age and the effects of UV rays. Raveling measures the severity of the roughness and coarseness of the top layer of the street. 8 Faulting:Faulting is the difference in elevation across the slab. One side may be leaning up more over the other side. Causes are soft foundations, heavy traffic, poor construction, and environmental damage. How Pavement Management System Information is Used The primary purpose of maintaining a PMS is to collect and analyze information relating to street system condition and deterioration trends. With this vital information public works managers ensure 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: Pavement Preservation Project List Crack Seal Program Five-Year Surface List five-year moratorium for street cutting ODOT Oregon Mileage Report City of Eugene Public Infrastructure Table Annual Insurance Marketing Report Transportation Service Profile 9 PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PROGRAM Street preservation and rehabilitation, capital improvements, off-street shared-use path projects, and maintenance efforts make up PPP. Additionally, the City has budgeted funding for Maintenance Operations to repair portions of the unimproved street system through the Enhanced Street Repair Program. Both PW Maintenance and PW Engineering divisions have important roles within the PPP. PWMaintenance Roles Maintenance Division Surface Technical team completes the pavement rating, budget and street life analysis, resulting in a proposed list of projects which is forwarded to Engineering for field testing and final grouping. Surface Technical staff is responsible for producing this report. Operations staff is responsible for the preventative maintenance of all City streets (including concrete streets) and off-street shared-use paths. Preventative maintenance designed to extend the life of the transportation asset is of highest priority. Fully improved asphalt streets receive the highest level of maintenance.Maintenance activities are performed to mitigate hazardous conditions and to extend the useful life of the street. The goal of preventative maintenance is to PCI from slipping from preventative maintenance or minor rehabilitation into a reconstruction category. PW Engineering Roles The Engineering Division typically receives projects proposed for preservation from the Maintenance Division three years in advance of the planned construction. Engineering then performs field investigations to confirm the need for treatment, and reviews historic data on construction and maintenance of the streets. Streets are then prioritized for detailed pavement testing and design recommendations based on the available funding and the assessed condition of the streets. The pavement testing and design reports identify whether a street needs to be reconstructed or rehabilitated (overlaid) and the range of treatment options available. If a street is determined to be a full reconstruct,it is typically deferred until funding is identified and available, such as street repair bond measures. The Engineering Division is responsible for capital project management including design, stakeholder coordination and communication, contract administration, and construction management. For analysis and reporting of projected backlogs, the Engineering Division has provided construction costs based on historic and current road projects. 10 Treatment Types and Estimated Costs For the purpose of reporting projected backlogs the Engineering Division provides construction costs based on historic and present road projects. Treatments reflected in the backlog analysis are limited to three types;slurry seal, overlay,and reconstruction and reporting is based on a system wide approach, not at the project level performed by Engineering.Each functional class has an estimated unit cost for overlay and reconstruction treatments. For local streets (FC-5) an additional maintenance option, slurry seal, is considered. Slurry Seal:The slurry seal option allows for a cost-effective treatment to seal the surface and restore the skid resistance of local street segments, which do not carry high traffic loads. This treatment is not used on streets which require strengthening or reconstruction. Typical slurry seal costs include street cleaning, removal of vegetation, minor base repairs (dig-outs), sealing of cracks, and application of an emulsified asphalt 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. Overlay:Typical overlay rehabilitation costs include 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 are 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. Reconstruct: Typical street reconstruction costs include 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 or have severe drainage problems. The following table identifies the estimated costs for the various treatment types including costs to upgrade curb ramps to comply with The American with Disabilities Act (ADA).The slurry seal treatment is exempt from ADA requirements. Beginning in 2016, construction costs will be udated on a bi-annual basis. Improved System Updated Eng.Updated Eng.Updated Eng. 2006 cost2011 cost2016 cost Overlay - FC 1 & 2$215,000$243,000$336,000.00 Overlay - FC 3 & 4$184,000$214,000$311,000.00 Overlay - FC 5$169,000$195,000$255,000.00 Re-Const - FC 1 & 2$765,000$724,000$892,000.00 Re-Const - FC 3 & 4$677,000$679,000$884,000.00 Re-Const - FC 5$505,000$505,000$649,000.00 Slurry Seal - FC 5$19,000$25,000$44,000.00 11 The following graph identifies the trigger points (PCI) for each treatment based on Functional Class. Project Prioritization Selecting streets or street segments for treatment is done through a process involving analysis, testing, and staff experience. Using the data produced by MicroPaver, and combining this information with estimated revenues allows staff to approximate backlogs and group potential street segments for consideration for treatment under the Pavement Preservation Program. Stbasis. Public Worksmain 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. 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. A prioritized list of 32 street repair projects to be funded by a local bond measure was approved by Eugene voters in 2008. The list, approved by City Council, was developed by staff based on citizen input, information about needed street rehabilitation and reconstruction from the pavement management system, and equitable geographic distribution of projects throughout the 12 community. Subsequently, a 12 member Street Repair Review Panel (SRRP) was formed to document the use of the bond proceeds. In2011, City Council approved the addition of 22 streets selected in the same manner and recommended by the citizen review panel to be repaired. In 2012, a second five-year bond measure was approved by Eugene voters with a prioritized list of 76 street repair projects (Exhibit A) and additional funding to support bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects.The list was developed using the same criteria as above and approved by City Council. In 2017, a third five-year bond measure for street preservation, bicycle and pedestrian improvements was approved by Eugene voters. Of the $51.2 million bond, 91 road projects will be completed with $5 million going towards pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, andsafety improvements. Sustainable Construction Since 2008, Eugene has been inthe forefront of sustainable construction and paving practices, some of which include paving with warm mix asphalt (WMA), using reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP), and full depth reclamation (FDR). Production of warm mix asphalt solution for the environment with noticeable reduced energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Exposure to fuel emissions, fumes, and odors are reduced for asphalt producers, construction workers and the public. Benefits of paving with WMA are the ability to extend the paving season in colder weather, longer haul distances, and better road performance. Warm mix asphalt is identical to conventional hot mix asphalt, except that through a special mixing process itis produced at a temperature approximately 50 to 100 degrees cooler than conventional hot mix asphalt. This mixing process for asphalt aids in compaction during paving, assists in preventing premature aging andslowsthe aging process of asphalt. In Eugene, all asphalt producers have retrofitted their plants to produce warm mix asphalt. Council set goals in 2011 for waste reduction byrequiring that the quantity of materials placed in landfills be reduced. In addition to using WMA, Public Works conducted twopilot projects specifying that reclaimed asphalt shingles (RAS) be used as a binder in the asphalt mix, thereby keeping this material from entering the waste stream. The City continues to use warm mix asphalt and in-place recycling techniques to improve the quality, environmental footprint, and cost efficiency of the street bond projects. Key terms in sustainable construction practices: In-Place Recycling: A process in which a large piece of equipment called a reclaimer pulverizes and mixes the existing base rock and a portion of subgrade soils with dry cement and water to create a cement-treated base. This process greatly reduces the use of virgin materials and trucking that are needed using conventional remove-and-replace construction techniques. Full Depth Reclamation: When applicable, partial or full-depth reclamation (FDR) is used as a cost and time-saving alternative to traditional reconstruction. Associated costs include replacement of striping and pavement markings, adjustment of manholes, and other work needed to return the street to normal operation. 13 Crack Seal: Placing specialized materials into cracks in unique configurations to keep water and other matter out of the crack and the underlying pavement layers. Crack sealing can be used for two different reasons in pavement maintenance. One is a treatment to seal the cracks in order to prevent moisture intrusion into the pavement. The other is preparatory work for other treatments, such as overlays, and slurry seals. Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP):The term given to removed and/or reprocessed pavement materials containing asphalt and aggregates. These materials are generated when asphalt pavements are removed for reconstruction, resurfacing, or to obtain access to buried utilities. When properly crushed and screened, RAP consists of high-quality, well-graded aggregates coated by asphalt cement that can be reused as a substitute for a portion of virgin materials in asphalt and aggregate base. Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS):A primary reason for the high potential value of recycled shingles is that they contain ingredients that hot mix asphalt (HMA) producers purchase to Asphalt shingles also contain a fibrous mat made from organic felt (cellulose) or fiberglass that can also be valuable as fiber in some asphalt paving mixes. Current Treatment Costs This chart provides detail of the current cost for treatment of the entire improved system excluding concrete streets at the end of the 2017rating period. The total estimated treatment cost backlog at the end of 2017 is$79.8million down from $92million reportedin 2016. Treatment Costs By Functional Class 2017 Year End $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 Major ArtMinor ArtCollNeigh. CollLocalTotal Slurry $0$0$0$0$14,332,000$14,332,000 Overlay$0$6,248,000$340,000$992,000$34,631,000$42,211,000 Reconst$1,747,000$3,498,000$6,939,000$1,209,000$9,913,000$23,306,000 Total $1,747,000$9,746,000$7,279,000$2,201,000$58,876,000$79,849,000 14 Projected Funding for Pavement Preservation Program FY16through FY23 From the inception of the Pavement Preservation Program (PPP), Eugene has been faced with the challenge of securing adequate, sustainable funding for this program. Currently there are several sources that contribute funding for pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. The primary source of ongoing revenue is the s ), which is currently levied at 5 cents per gallon. The reimbursement component of Transportation System Development Charges (SDCs) have historically generated close to $800,000 per year for PPP projects. The cumulative effect of these factors is that PPP annual revenues, which were once projected at $4.2 million per year, are now projected to level out at approximately $3.3 million per year In2008, voters approved a $35.9 million dollar bond measure dedicated to 32 street preservation projects and shared-use path rehabilitation work. Based on numerous economic factors construction bids were significantly less than anticipated allowing 22 streets to be added to the original 32 streets approved by voters. In2012, voters approved a second $43 million bond measure dedicated to 76street preservation projects plus $516,000 annually to support bicycle and pedestrian projects. The measure will generate approximately $8 million annually for FY14 through FY18. Projects funded through this bond are anticipated to be completed in 2018. In 2017, a third five-year bond measure for street preservation, bicycle and pedestrian improvements was approved by Eugene voters. Of the $51.2 million bond, 91 road projects will be completed and will include $5 million going towards pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and safety improvements. Projected Funding Sources Pavement Preservation Projects FY16 through FY23 Fiscal YearLocal Gas TaxSDCBondOtherTotal Funding Note 1Note 2Note 3Note 4 FY16 (actual)$3,050,845$501,878$6,934,842$62,755$10,550,320 FY17 (actual)$3,081,192$474,812$8,600,000$44,962$12,200,966 FY18 (est)$3,000,000$316,300$8,900,000$23,000$12,239,300 FY19 (est)$3,000,000$300,000$6,220,000$23,000$9,543,000 FY20 (est)$3,000,000$300,000$8,448,000$23,000$11,771,000 FY21 (est)$3,000,000$300,000$8,808,000$23,000$12,131,000 FY22 (est)$3,000,000$300,000$9,178,000$23,000$12,501,000 FY23 (est)$3,000,000$300,000$9,968,000$23,000$13,291,000 Notes: 1) Local Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (gas tax) revenues are assumed at the 5-cent level throughout the forecast period. 2) SDC reimbursement revenue is projected to maintain low level of activity through the forecasted period. 3) November 2017 voters passed a 3rd 5 year bond. November 2012 voters passed a second five year bond measure starting FY15. 4) "Other" revenue generally includes investment interest, permit fees and other miscellaneous resources. The estimated fiscal years do not include reimbursements from other agencies. 15 Historical and Projected Funding Outcomes Using the PMS software, an analysis for a 10-year period (2017through 2027) has been completed based on the current funding, including the 2017bond measure. The PMS software evaluates the deterioration of each segment based on individual PCI 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 to prevent the street from falling into an overlay or reconstruct range. In the following four graphs this projected evaluation includes historical data to present a more comprehensive view of the street system. The graphs show the impact of past and current funding over a 20-year period (2007to 2027). percentage Each graph indicates the of streets that fall within a specific treatment range (reconstruct, overlay and no treatment). Plotting the percentages of streets within a treatment range over time visually demonstratesthe overall condition of streets within that class. This is useful when deciding how to allocate funds in future years. Arterial streets have been a major focus of the PPPsince 2002; as a result,the percentage of arterial streets within the reconstruct treatment range will steadily decline and be eliminated by the end of the 2017 bond measure (2023). In the same year we see a slight increase in the overlay range due to streets nearing the end of their useful life. Prior to the 2017 bond measure, stabilization of the arterial system provided an opportunity to redirect funds to the collector system with a small portion dedicated to the residential system. 16 Similar to arterial streets, reconstruction and overlay treatment needs have decreased since 2008 as a result of completed and upcoming projects. Analysis indicates a stable collector system with reconstruct treatments eliminated and anincrease in overlays. As with the arterial system, once the bond ends in 2023 it is projected that streets which have previously been treated will begin to show deterioration. 17 Residential (Local) streets will make up 83percent of the total street system backlog in 10 years. To date,residential streets have not been adequately funded for preservation. Between the three bond measures approximately 31 centerline miles have or will receive repair, less than 10 percent of the residential street system. The percentage of streets within the overlay treatment range continues to increase. Looking back, the percentage of residential streets within the no- treatment range has been dropping and is projected to continue so that by 2027,over 57percent of residential streets will require treatment. The primary treatment for residentials to date, 190 lane miles (81centerline miles),hasbeen slurry seals which are included in the no treatment category.Slurry seal treatment may increase the life by five toseven years, and increase the PCI condition. Following this time period these same streets will typically fall into the mid to low end overlay treatement category. 18 This graph of the combined arterial, collector and residential streets reflects the recommended treatment needs for the overall street system and indicates the insufficient funding for residential streets.n overlay The projected $182 million backlog in 10 years represents a majority of streets in the high-end overlay ranges. Arterial, collector, and residential streets benefitting from past rehabilitations may only require minimal work such as a thin-lift overlay; much lower in cost then overlay costs used for the current analyses. 19 Concrete Improved Street System Of the 549 centerline miles of streets 34 centerline miles (85lane miles) are concrete. In 2015 staff were able to refine concrete street inventory data so condition inspections could be completed. Unlike asphalt streets, concrete streets require panel counts plus an average width and length of the panel for the calculation of PCIs. Concrete segments are best evaluated when defined as a city block. Historical concrete designs for typical city blocks contained 66 panels, three columns of panels within a block length,or 33 panels with twocolumns. Concrete streets like bike paths are built for alife of 50 or more years until complete reconstruction. Deterioration of concrete streets occur within individual panels with many panels in a street not requiring repair. Due to these unique factors for concrete streets,analyses which predict future needs of this system tend to be less accurate then asphalt surfaces. However like unimproved streets and bike paths we can provide a current condition of this system. Past repair for these streets were primarily provided by City maintenance crews which consisted of panel replacements for the worst deteriorated panels. Historical construction data indicate that 60percent of concrete streets are over 70 years in age. Based on past maintenance repairs these streets over time may have had a majority of panels replaced. By the end of the 2017 Bond Measure (2023), approximately 17 lane miles (six centerline miles) of concrete streets will have been rehabilitated from the past and current funding sources. An estimated $5 million will be spent on approximately seven lane miles of concrete streets through the new bond measure. % Condition of Concrete System by Functional Class 2017 30.00 25.00 20.00 Arterials 15.00 Collectors Locals 10.00 5.00 0.00 FailedSeriousVery PoorPoorFairSatisfactoryGood 20 21 Unimproved Street System 549centerline miles of improved and unimproved streets. The unimproved portion of this total includes 52 centerline miles (90lane miles) of asphalt and bituminous surface streets. This section of the report is intended to describe the overall condition of unimproved asphalt streets, potential treatment needs, associated rehabilitation costs, along with a projected backlog repair cost for addressing this classification of street. It is important to note that any treatment short of being brought up to full urban street standards should be considered temporary. The estimated cost to improve this classification to meet the urban street standards is approximately $60 million. In addition, the following backlog figure is separate from the improved street backlog figure. Based on 2017 rating data of the unimproved street system there is a backlog of temporary repair projects, typically maintenance overlays, totaling an estimated $3.10million, down from $3.62 million reported in 2016.The following charts and graphs indicate that 68 percent of the system falls into a no treatment category, up from 64 percent reported in 2016, due in large part to recent maintenance overlay and FDR treatments completed over the past several years. Approximately 116unimproved streets have benefited from full or partial treatment since 2008. Seventeen orks Maintenance plans on spending $200,000 annually to address a portion of these streets. 2017 Unimproved Asphalt Street Condition and Rehabilitation Report (2017 Rating Data) Rehabilitation PCILane Miles% of SystemConditionUnit Cost/SQFT *Treatment ** Cost 0-100.80.8%Poor$144,461$3.00FDR 11-205.15.7%Poor$809,424$2.50FDR or 2"AC 21-309.510.6%Poor$905,731$1.501.5"-2" AC 31-404.85.3%Fair$451,440$1.501.5"-2" AC 41-505.25.8%Fair$491,357$1.501.5"-2" AC 51-601.21.4%Fair$117,850$1.501.5"-2" AC 61-651.92.1%Fair$181,526$1.501.5"-2" AC 66-704.24.7%Good$0$0.00No Treatment 71-802.93.3%Good$0$0.00No Treatment 81-859.010.1%Good$0$0.00No Treatment 86-909.310.3%Excellent$0$0.00No Treatment 91-10039.9%Excellent$0$0.00No Treatment 35.7 Total $3,101,789 ** Example Rehabilitation * Unit cost based treatments. Actual 89.6100.00% on recent project treatment would costs need further analysis. 22 The following graphs are a visual representation of the information provided on the preceding page. 23 Off-StreetShared-Use Paths Shared-use paths are used by a variety of non-motorized users including; pedestrians, cyclists, skaters, and runners. Shared-use paths are typically wider than an average sidewalk and paved (asphalt or concrete). There are approximately 45 miles of shared-use paths within UGB. In 2017, staff rated 45miles of shared-used paths. In 2015 approximately 30 miles of shared-use paths were in a PCI condition of 90 or above. In 2017 this dropped to 23 miles. The City standards for shared-use paths require a concrete structure no less than six inches deep and 12 feet wide. Paths designed, constructed or reconstructed to current standards are expected to have a 50 year life. Of the $51.2 million 2017 bond, $5 million will go towards pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and safety improvements. 24 The following graphs show the division of surface types and widths within the system as of 2017. Off-Street Shared-Use Path Surface Type: Off-Street Shared-Use Path Existing Widths: Asphalt Less Than 12' or 35% 12'34% Greater Concrete 66% 65% Less Than 12'12' or Greater AsphaltConcrete The following graph shows the path condition in 2017 for the system. Miles of Off-Street Shared-Use Paths by Condition (Last rated in 2017) 50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 Poor 0-50 PCI 30.00 23.3 Fair 51-69 PCI 25.00 Good 70-89 PCI 20.00 Excellent 90-100 PCI 16.1 15.00 10.00 4.0 5.00 0.3 0.00 25 Shared-use path projects have been historically funded by state and federal grants and more recently by voter-approved bond measures. There is currently no long-term funding identified specifically for shared-use paths. The following is a list of completed and current projects, including shared-use paths funded by the bond measures. Fiscal Name Year Funding Fern Ridge Chambers - City View 2004 STP-U Garden Way Bike Path 2005 STP-U Monroe Bikeway 2006 STP-U N Bank Path Club Rd 3000'W 2006 STP-U Transportation Enhancement West Bank Trail 2007 (TE) Funds Delta Ponds Bridge 2007 Various Federal and Local Funds Amazon: SEHS - 31st Bike Path 2009 PBM Fern Ridge Path Rehab/Westmoreland Connector 2010 PBM South Bank Path Rehab 2011 PBM West Bank Trail Extension 2011 STP-U/TE Fern Ridge: Chambers - Arthur 2012 ODOT Rapid Readiness Funds W Bank: Greenway - Copping 2012 PBM Amazon/Willamette River Path Connectors 2012 State Urban Trail Funds North Bank Path: DeFazio Bridge to Leisure Ln. 2012 STP-U Fern Ridge: Terry - Greenhill 2013 STP-U/TE South Bank Path - Riverplay to DeFazio Bridge 2013 PBM South Bank Path - Knickerbocker Bridge to Franklin Blvd 2015 N/A Fern Ridge Path - Commerce to Connector Path 2016 LGT Jessen Multi-Use Path BeltLine Hwy to Ohio St. 2018 TE Project Funding Abbreviations PBM Paving Bond Measure LGT Local Gas Tax/SDC/Other STP-U Surface Transportation Funds-Urban (Federal) TE Transportation Enhancement (Federal) 26 Scheduled Street Projects for 2018 Lane 2018 Project Name and LimitsFunding Miles 7th Place (7th Ave/Hwy 99 to Bailey Hill Rd) 4.01 PBM 11th Avenue (Danebo St to Bertelsen Rd) 5.05 LGT 30th Avenue (Willamette St to Ferry St) 0.69 PBM Buff Way (Woodside Dr to Forrester Wy) 0.28 PBM Carmel Avenue (Minda Dr to 400' S. of Minda Dr) 0.21 PBM Cody Avenue (Golden Gardens to Blue Heron) 3.10 PBM Corydon Street (Forrester Way to Tandy Turn) 2.30 PBM Danebo Ave (Cody to Burnett) 0.44 LGT Forrester Way (Coburg Rd to Drwy 1033) .039 PBM Garfield Street (Roosevelt Blvd to 6th Ave) 2.30 PBM Larkspur Avenue (Norkenzie Rd to 640' W of Norkenzie 0.33 PBM NNorkenzie Rd) Larkspur Loop (Norkenzie Rd (N) to Norkenzie Rd (S)) 0.61 PBM Mill Street (30th Ave (N) to 30th Ave (S)) 0.05 PBM Piper Lane (Chasa St to Fir Acres Dr) 0.31 PBM Roland Way (Oakway Rd to Cal Young Rd) 0.334 PBM Sharon Way (Coburg Rd to Drwy 1023) 0.60 LGT Tulip Street (Crescent Ave to Holly Ave) 0.19 LGT West Amazon Drive (Hilyard St to Fox Hollow Rd) 2.01 LGT Willamette Street (23rd Ave to 29th Ave) 1.36 LGT Woodside Drive (Cal Young Rd to Sharon Wy) 0.56 LGT Project Funding Abbreviations PBM Paving Bond Measure LGT Local Gas Tax/SDC/Other 27 The following map illustrates the Pavement Projects scheduled for 2018. 28 The following map illustrates Pavement Preservation Projects since inception of the program 2002- 2017. 29 The following map illustrates the Enhanced Street Repair Program 2008-2017. 30 The following map illustrates Pavement Preservation Projects and Enhanced Street Repair Program since inception of the programs 2002 - 2017. 31 32 33 34 35 Project List for 2017 Bond Measure to Fix Streets MAP # Street NameFromTo 103RD AVENUEHIGH STPEARL ST 204TH AVENUECOBURG RDPEARL ST 305TH AVENUECHAMBERS STGRANT ST 408TH AVENUECHAMBERS STMONROE ST 508TH AVENUEWILLAMETTE STMILL ST 608TH AVENUEGARFIELD STCHAMBERS ST 711TH AVENUECHARNELTON STCHAMBERS ST 811TH AVENUECHAMBERS STGRANT ST 911TH AVENUETYINN STBERTELSEN RD 1017TH AVENUEHILYARD STOAK ST 1119TH AVENUEWILLAMETTE STHIGH ST 1219TH AVENUEHILYARD STFAIRMOUNT BLVD 1320TH AVENUEWILLAMETTE STOAK ST 1424TH AVENUEHARRIS STAGATE ST 1546TH AVENUEFOX HOLLOW RDDONALD ST 16AGATE STREETN 163 BLACK OAK RDFIRLAND ST 17ALDER STREET30TH AVE32ND AVE 18ALDER STREET24TH AVE27TH AVE 19AMAZON PARKWAY19TH AVE2693 S OF E 24TH 20ARROWSMITH STREETTERRY ST11TH AVE 21BAILEY HILL ROAD5TH AVE11TH AVE 22BAILEY LANEBOGART LNLUELLA ST 23BALFOUR STREETTERRA AVENORTH END 24BEDFORD WAYOAKWAY RDFAIR OAKS DR 25BREWER AVENUEBREWER AVENUESOUTH END 26BROADWAYMILL ST11TH AVE 27BROOKSIDE DRIVEBRAE BURN DR (NORTH) ADDR 999 28BROOKSIDE DRIVEBRAE BURN DR (SOUTH) MONTARA WAY 29CALGARY STREETHOLLY AVEELANCO AVE 30CANDLELIGHT DRIVEAVALONROYAL 31CARMEL AVENUEGILHAM RDNORWOOD ST 32CARMEL AVENUEDIANE STGILHAM RD 33CATALINA STREETJUHL STWILLHI ST 34CHAMBERS STREET11TH AVE13TH AVE 35CHAMBERS STREET18TH AVE24TH AVE 36CHARNELTON STREET4TH AVE6TH AVE 37CHASE STREET + CDS500' NORTH OF MARSHALLNORTH END 38CLAREY STREETBEAN ST1071' S OF BEAN ST 39COBURG ROADFERRY STREET BRIDGEOAKWAY RD 40CONCORD STREETBERNTZEN RDJACOBS DR 41CRCENT AVENUENORKENZIE RDADDRS 1670 42ECHO HOLLOW CDSWEST END (CDS) (880-960)ECHO HOLLOW RD 43ELANCO AVENUE + 1 CDS (NORTH)NORKENZIE RDEND OF NORTHERLY CDS 44FAIR OAKS DRIVEOAKWAY RDFAIRWAY LP 36 MAP # Street NameFromTo 45FAIRMOUNT BOULEVARD15TH AVECOLUMBIA ST 46FRANKLIN BOULEVARD EBWALNUT ST11TH AVE 47FRANKLIN BOULEVARD WBWALNUT ST11TH AVE 48FULLER AVENUEECHO HOLLOW RDJAY ST 49GARDEN AVENUEMOSS STWALNUT ST 50HAWTHORNE AVENUEWEST ENDFAIRFIELD AVE 51HILYARD STREETW AMAZON DR40TH AVE 52JESSEN DRIVEELIZABETH STHWY 99 53LAKEVIEW DRIVE207' E OF SARAH LNGILHAM RD 54LARIAT DRIVEOAKWAY RDLARIAT DR 55LARIAT MEADOWS DRIVELARIAT DREAST END 56LARIAT MESALARIAT DREAST END 57LAURELHURST DRIVE + 5 CDSMELROSE LPBARGER DR 58LAURELHURST DRIVE + SHEFFIELD CT CDSHARRIET AVEROYAL AVE 59LAVETA LANEBARGER DRSOUTH END 60LAWRENCE STREETDRWY 366TH AVE 61LEMMING AVENUETARPON STSHILO ST 62LINCOLN STREET13TH AVE22ND AVE 63LINNEA AVENUE + 1 CDSNORKENZIE RDTARPON ST 64MILL STREET16TH AVE18TH AVE 65MILL STREET2ND AVE4TH AVE 66MONTEREY AVENUENORKENZIE RDLARKSPUR AVE 67MONTREAL AVENUECALGARY STBALFOUR ST 68NORWOOD STREETMONTEREY STMARLOW ST 69OAK STREET7TH AVE20TH AVE 70OLIVE STREET5TH AVE6TH AVE 71PEARL STREETBROADWAY17TH AVE (AMAZON BRIDGE) 72POLK STREET18TH AVE28TH AVE 73POLK STREET67' N OF 6TH AVE72' S OF 7TH AVE 74PORTLAND ST29TH AVE31ST AVE 75PRIMROSE STREET + 1 CDSBARGER RD100' N OF PARKER PL (S) 76QUEBEC STREETCALGARY STELANCO ST 77RIVER ROADMAXWELL RDBELTLINE RD 78ROBIN AVENUE200' EAST OF RUSKIN ST396' EAST OF TANEY ST 79ROOSEVELT BLVDBELTLINEAPPROX 800' EAST OF BELTLINE 80ROYAL AVENUE CUL DE SACROYAL AVEN END CDS 81SPYGLASS DRIVECAL YOUNG RDLOOP AROUND BACK TO SPYGLASS DR 82STAGECOACH ROADCANDLELIGHT DRSURREY LN 83SUNDANCE STREETSUNDIAL RDEAST END 84SUNDANCE STREET CDSNORTH ENDSUNDANCE ST 85SURRY LANESTAGECOACHWELCOME WY 86TARPON STREET + CUL-DE-SACBREWER AVELEMMING AVE 87TERRA AVENUEMONTREAL AVEGILHAM RD 88TERRY STREETROYAL AVEROOSEVELT BLVD 89WALNUT STREETFRANKLIN BLVDGARDEN AVE 90WELCOME WAYCANDLELIGHT DRROYAL AVE 91WINDSOR CIRCLE EAST/WTWILSHIRE LNWILSHIRE LN 37 Memorandum ifallprojectslistedinExhibitAarecompleted andtherearebondproceedsremaining,theCouncilmayaddotherstreetpreservationprojectsto thelist. StreetToFromCouncilLane WardMiles JerryStreet LouisStreet RichardAvenue BargerDrive VillardStreet 19Avenue th TotalLaneMiles=6.31 TotalEstimatedCost=$3.36M