HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem C: Review of Implementation of Street Bond MeasureEUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Eugene
Work Session: Review of 2012 Implementation of Bond Measure to Fix Streets and
2013 Pavement Management Report
Meeting Date: February 20, 2013 Agenda Item Number: C
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Kurt Corey
www.eugene - or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541 - 682 -8421
ISSUE STATEMENT
This work session is an opportunity for the Eugene City Council to review the fourth year of the
implementation of Measure 20 -145, the 2008 bond measure to fix streets. To facilitate this review,
two documents were prepared: the Citizen Street Repair Review Panel 2012 Report and the
independent accountant's report prepared by Isler CPA. These reports are provided as
informational items in compliance with the City Council resolution placing the bond measure on
the ballot. This work session will also review the 2013 Pavement Management Report.
BACKGROUND
Council Action History
Following considerable study and discussion, including forming a Council Committee on
Transportation Funding and convening an ad hoc citizen Street Maintenance Task Force, the
council on July 28, 2008, approved Resolution 4953, calling a city election on a measure
authorizing the issuance of $35.9 million of general obligation bonds to fund street preservation
projects. Eugene voters on November 4, 2008, approved the measure.
In the City Council resolution and the information provided to voters, there were specific
requirements related to accountability:
In order to promote accountability in the use of bond proceeds, the City Manager will
contract with an outside auditor to prepare a written report on the use of the bond
proceeds on a regular basis. The auditor will ascertain and report on whether the bond
proceeds were used for the authorized purposes and in compliance with the restrictions
set forth above. The City Manager will provide the report to the council and make the
report publicly available. (Resolution 4953, Section H)
To further promote accountability and citizen involvement in street preservation projects,
the City Manager has advised that he intends to create a street repair review panel. The
street repair review panel will prepare a 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
S:ACMO \2013 Council Agendas \Ml30220 \Sl3O220C.doc
Resolution. The City Manager will provide the street repair review panel's report to the
council and make the report publicly available. (Resolution 4953, Section I)
On April 14, 2010, the City Council held a work session to receive the first annual report from the
Street Repair Review Panel (SRRP) and the independent accountant's report. On January 19,
2011, the City Council received the year -two report from the SRRP regarding the implementation
of the 2008 bond measure to fix streets. On May 11, 2011, and October 26, 2011, the City Council
approved 22 additional streets to be repaired with the projected remaining bond funds, bringing
the total streets to be repaired to 54 streets. On February 29, 2012, the City Council received the
year -three report from the Citizen Street Repair Review Panel.
Street Repair Review Panel
In October 2009, a citizen group was formed to evaluate the City's use of the first year of bond
proceeds and report whether the bond funds were used in compliance with the council resolution.
The 12 community members serving on the 2012 Street Repair Review Panel (SRRP) were: John
Barofsky, Howard Bonnett, Janet Calvert, Mel Damewood, Paul Holbo, Steve Lee, Dave Perez, 011ie
Snowden, Clayton Walker, Victoria Whitman, Gary Wildish and Sue Wolling. During the past year,
the 12- member panel met three times over a three -month period in preparation of the report,
which included a physical inspection of the projects completed in 2012.
On January 9, 2013, the Street Repair Review Panel unanimously approved its fourth annual
report (Attachment A), which included the following conclusion:
Based on this limited review and all materials presented to us, we unanimously
conclude that the bond proceeds were used for the authorized purposes and in
compliance with the limitations and restrictions outlined in Council Resolution 4953.
(SRRP 2012 Report, Page 1).
The report from the SRRP highlighted the City of Eugene's effort to continually strive to improve
the quality, lessen the environmental footprint, and increase the cost efficiency of its projects.
Bond projects use warm mix asphalt pavement, reclaimed asphalt materials and in -place recycling
to realize environmental, economic, social, and health benefits to the community. The positive
economic impacts include the funding of more than 76 full -time equivalent jobs during the period
of construction.
The 2012 SRRP report recognized the successful renewal of the street bond measure at the polls.
On Nov. 6, 2012, Eugene voters resoundingly approved a new, $43 million bond measure to fix
streets and fund bicycle and pedestrian projects. Looking to the future, expectations are that
construction costs will return to pre- recession levels, which will reduce the likelihood that the City
will see much difference between programmed and actual costs for the final year of the bond
measure and into the future. The SRRP recognizes that while street bonds provide a partial
funding stopgap, they cannot be relied upon as the primary means of funding Eugene's ongoing
street repair needs in the future. Additional ways to fund street repair should be reviewed.
A web site tracking the bond measure implementation has been established at www.eugene-
or.govtgobonds The panel's 2012 report has been placed on the internet, and links to the online
S:ACMO \2013 Council Agendas \Ml30220 \Sl3O220C.doc
report will be sent to the Neighborhood Leaders Council and other community and business
organizations. In preparation of the 2013 report, the Street Repair Review Panel is scheduled to
reconvene in the fall, upon completion of the 2013 construction season.
Independent Accountant's Report
The accounting firm of Isler CPA, who also performed the annual audit of the City's FY12 financial
statements, was contracted to perform sufficient agreed upon procedures in order to determine
whether the expenditure of general obligation bonds were made in accordance with the purposes
and limitations outlined in the street repair bond resolution - namely, that expenditures were:
1. Used only for costs related to street preservation projects, off - street bicycle and pedestrian
path preservation projects and payment of bond issuance costs, and not to expand the
capacity of the street system; and also,
2. 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.
The accountant's procedures were performed for the period December 1, 2011, through
November 30, 2012, and were conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The independent accountant expenditure
testing concluded:
All tested expenditures were recorded in the proper account, fund and period and were
spent on street projects included in ExhibitA of City Council Resolution No. 4953 or
other street preservation projects approved by City Council, as permitted under
Resolution 4953. No exceptions were noted.
Further, it was the summary conclusion of the independent accountant that, "Based on our limited
testing, we noted that the City followed the purpose and limitation of the City Council Resolution
#4953." The Isler CPA report is included as Appendix C to the SRRP 2012 Report.
The Isler CPA 2012 report has been placed on the internet along with the report of the citizen
panel at www.eugene- or.gov /gobonds
Pavement Management Report
The annual Pavement Management Report is produced to update information and data regarding
the City of Eugene's transportation system 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. Currently, Public Works manages 1,328 lane miles (533 centerline
miles) of streets, and approximately 43 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.
S:ACMO \2013 Council Agendas \Ml30220 \Sl3O220C.doc
The 2013 Pavement Management Report was compiled by the Public Works Maintenance
Division's Surface Technical Team to provide updated information on the condition of asphalt
paving in Eugene using 2012 rating and inventory data. The 2013 Pavement Management Report
shows progress has been made on the condition of Eugene's streets, but more work is needed to
further reduce the backlog of needed repairs of City streets. Specifically, based on the 2011
ratings, and reported in the 2012 report, the calculated backlog of repairs on improved asphalt
streets was $118 million; as of the end of 2012, the current backlog has been calculated to be $100
million. Despite this short -term downward trend the backlog is projected to continue to grow in
the long -term unless there is an increase in funding that is both sufficient and sustainable.
The report includes an inventory of streets by improvement status and functional classification,
details how a pavement management system is used to inspect and rate pavement surfaces,
explains Eugene's pavement preservation program, and includes updated information about
treatment types and costs. Electronic copies of the 2013 Pavement Management Report are
available at www.eugene- or.gov /pw
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The Council's Goals include "Transportation Initiative: Develop mechanisms to adequately fund
our transportation system for cars, trucks, bikes and pedestrians including maintenance and
preservation and capital reconstruction."
COUNCIL OPTIONS
This work session is informational; no action is requested.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
This work session is informational; no action is requested.
SUGGESTED MOTION
This work session is informational; no motion is requested.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Citizen Street Repair Review Panel 2012 Report, including Auditor's Report
B. 2013 Pavement Management Report
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Kurt Corey, Public Works Director
Telephone: 541 - 682 -8421
Staff E -Mail: Kurt.A.Core @y ci.eugene.or.us
S:ACMO \2013 Council Agendas \Ml30220 \Sl3O220C.doc
Citizen Street Repair Review Panel 2012 Report
Implementation Update for Measure 20 -145 Bonds to Fix Streets
OEM&
R XING RICO" 'STRE TS
� 4 ft__
Public Works
Street Repair Review Panel
Memorandum
Date: January 18, 2013
To: Jon Ruiz, City Manager
From: Street Repair Review Panel
Subject: Year Four Report of the Street Repair Review Panel
uet? B oflds
Fixing Eugene's Streets
It is our pleasure to present the fourth annual report of the Street Repair Review Panel (SRRP). This panel
was formed, and this report was written, in response to the accountability provisions in Measure 20 -145
(2008 bond measure to fix streets).
The 12- member panel met three times over a three -month period in preparation of this report, which
included a physical inspection of the projects completed in 2012. We reviewed and accepted the report
prepared by the City's external auditor (Appendix C) with respect to the City's use of the bond proceeds
through November 30, 2012.
Based on this limited review and all materials presented to us, we unanimously conclude that the
bond proceeds were used for the authorized purposes and in compliance with the limitations and
restrictions outlined in Council Resolution 4953. We are also providing a detailed report, prepared at
our request and with our approval, from the Public Works staff on the bond projects constructed in 2012.
Highlights from our review of the 2012 street bond projects:
• 2012 Bond Measure - We draw your attention to the successful renewal of the bond measure at the
polls. On Nov. 6, 2012, Eugene voters resoundingly approved a new, $43 million bond measure to fix
streets and fund bicycle and pedestrian projects. Despite the economic stresses many are
experiencing in Eugene, the measure passed in every ward but one and, overall, by a larger majority
than the first measure. We attribute the success at the polls to increased understanding by the
electorate of the importance of maintaining our City's transportation infrastructure and to recognition
and appreciation by the electorate of the repairs funded by the current bond measure. We appreciate
the diligence and competence of the City's Public Works staff in planning and overseeing the
improvements in infrastructure achieved by the current bond measure. While street bonds provide a
partial funding stop gap, they cannot be relied upon as the primary means of funding Eugene's
ongoing street repair needs in the future. Additional ways to fund street repair should be reviewed.
• Triple Bottom Line - The City of Eugene continually strives to improve the quality, lessen the
environmental footprint, and increase the cost efficiency of its projects. Bond projects use warm mix
asphalt pavement, reclaimed asphalt materials and in -place recycling to realize environmental,
economic, social, and health benefits to the community. Warm mix asphalt reduces energy
consumption and improves workers' health and safety. In -place recycling reduces land filling,
material mining, and truck hauling which benefits the environment. It also reduces excavation of
existing roadway materials and importation of virgin construction materials which has direct
economic benefits, while the traveling public benefits from reduced construction time. It is estimated
that using the in -place recycling process for the street bond projects on 24th Avenue, Augusta Street,
City of Eugene . 101 E. Broadway, Ste. 400 . Eugene, OR 97401 . 541 -682 -8421 . 541 - 682 -6826 Fax
www.eugene- or.gov
2012 SRRP REPORT
Riverview Street, and Royal Avenue, eliminated the need to excavate and haul away 22,000 cubic
yards of material and eliminated hauling 39,000 tons of new base rock to the site, saving over 3,500
truck trips.
• Jobs Impact - Based on the Oregon Department of Transportation Highway Division jobs multiplier
model, the 12 bond measure repair projects completed in 2012 conservatively sustained
approximately 76 full -time equivalent jobs during the period of construction.
• Overall Condition Index (OCI) - All roads in our transportation system age and gradually decline in
OCI until, reaching some range of OCI value, every road needs either an overlay or reconstruction. An
important program goal is to keep streets from falling into the more expensive reconstruction
category and to expend resources early on to preserve the condition of the street. It costs more to
rebuild the streets than to maintain them. In 2012, 11.8 lane miles of streets were rehabilitated to
keep them from falling into the reconstruction category.
• Forecast - By the expiration of the current measure, more street repair work will have been
completed than was programmed in the measure. Although our region is not fully recovered from the
recession beginning in 2008, the economic climate, leading to low bids during the early years of the
current bond measure, has changed. Expectations are that construction costs will return to pre -
recession levels, which will reduce the likelihood that the City will see much difference between
programmed and actual costs for the final year of the bond measure and into the future.
• Additional Projects - In 2011 the council approved 22 additional streets representing 30.7 lane
miles to be repaired with bond funds. At this time, the projected cost of the 22 additional streets is
$16.8 million. The City plans to construct 10 of the additional street sections in 2013 with remaining
bond funds, with the remaining 12 street sections to be constructed between 2014 and 2016 with
local gas tax funds.
• Active Transportation - The bond measure has allowed meaningful progress toward enacting
elements of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. Shared -use paths, reconstructed to greater depth
and width, will accommodate increased use well into the future. Meanwhile, street preservation often
has provided an opportunity to leverage other funds to add bicycle and pedestrian improvements on
streets. Thanks to conscientious staff efforts, programmed bond measure projects have incorporated
new or wider bicycle lanes, shared lane markings, and improvements in pedestrian facilities. Even
though few funds are available for the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (PBMP), the bond measure
has facilitated the construction of some PBMP projects on bond measure streets.
• Progress - To date, the use of bond proceeds has allowed the City to repair 66.8 lane miles of streets
at a cost of $24.3 million. In addition, $1.9 million has been spent reconstructing 2.3 miles of off - street
shared -use paths.
• Bottom Line - Many roads are getting fixed, the rate of deterioration has been slowed on others, and
the bonds are meeting the objectives of Ballot Measure 20 -145.
We appreciate the support and thoughtful responses to our questions provided by Public Works Director
Kurt Corey and his staff. The Committee also expresses our appreciation to the voters and taxpayers of
Eugene for their support of the bond measure. We believe the voters are getting a good return for their
investment
Additional information about the Street Repair Review Panel, including action summaries of our meetings
and a variety of reports and studies, can be found at www.eugene- or.gov/gobQnds
Please feel free to contact any of us for additional information.
SRRP Members
City of Eugene Staff
John Barofsky
Dave Perez
Kurt Corey
Matt Rodrigues
Howard Bonnett
011ie Snowden
Eric Johnson
Mark Schoening
Janet Calvert
Clayton Walker
Eric Jones
Tammy Smith
Mel Damewood
Victoria Whitman
Paul Klope
Robert Tintle
Paul Holbo
Gary Wildish
Jeff Lankston
Jenifer Willer
Steve Lee
Sue Wolling
2012 SRRP REPORT
2012 Report to the Citizen Street Repair
Review Panel
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. ............................... 4
CRITERIA FOR PROJECT SELECTION AND SCHEDULING ....... ............................... 6
FUNDING STATUS AND FORECAST ............................................. ..............................8
24TH AVENUE FROM JEFFERSON STREET TO CHAMBERS STREET ..................10
AUGUSTA STREET FROM 16TH AVENUE FROM 26 AVENUE AND RIVERVIEW
STREET FROM SYLVAN STREET TO 16TH AVENUE AND TO THE NORTHBOUND
1 -5 FRANKLIN BLVD OFF RAMP ................................................... .............................11
BREWER STREET FROM GILHAM ROAD TO NORKENZIE ROAD .......................... 12
CURTIS AVENUE FROM NORKENIZE ROAD TO 550 FEET EAST (CUL -DE -SAC). 13
GILHAM ROAD FROM HONEYWOOD STREET TO CRESCENT AVENUE ..............14
GOODPASTURE ISLAND ROAD FROM KINGSLEY ROAD TO 1,250 FEET NORTH
OF VALLEY RIVER DRIVE ............................................................. .............................15
ROYAL AVENUE FROM HIGHWAY 99 TO 100 FEET EAST OF WAITE STREET.... 16
SILVER LANE FROM RIVER ROAD TO GROVE STREET ............ .............................17
TANEY STREET FROM BARGER DRIVE TO MARSHALL AVENUE ........................18
TERRY STREET FROM 100 FEET NORTH OF AVALON STREET TO ROYAL
AVENUE.......................................................................................... .............................19
WARREN STREET FROM BAILEY HILL ROAD TO TIMBERLINE DRIVE ................ 20
WEST BANK PATH REPAIRS ...................................................... ............................... 21
APPENDIX A (LISTING OF BOND STREETS) ............................... .............................22
APPENDIX B (MAP OF BOND STREETS) ................................... ............................... 24
APPENDIX C (REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR) ..... ............................... 25
Photos on cover from 2012 projects: Gilham Road paving (top); West Bank Path (lower left);
Terry Street (lower right)
2012 SRRP REPORT
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
This report has been compiled for use by the Street Repair Review Panel (SRRP). It is intended
to give background on projects included in the 2008 voter - approved Bond Measure 20 -145, the
schedule for construction of these projects, and details of bond projects constructed in 2012.
The Street Repair Bond is a five -year bond, with construction of bond - funded projects starting in
2009 and bond - funded projects to be complete in 2013.
KEY TERMS
Bond - Bond Measure 20 -145, Bonds to Fix Streets, approved by Eugene voters in November
2008.
In -Place Recycling - A process in which a large piece of equipment called a reclaimer 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.
Inlay — An inlay treatment consists 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 loading. The term "overlay" is
commonly used to describe both the inlay and
overlay practices.
One of the benefits of performing an inlay
rR `A t
Milling pavement for inlay on
Goodpasture Island Road
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. The use of reclaimed asphalt pavement, or "RAP ", has been used for more than
20 years in Eugene. In 2012, approximately 10,800 tons of RAP material (30% by weight) was
incorporated into the pavement on bond - funded projects.
2012 SRRP REPORT
PPP - Pavement Preservation Program. This
is the current capital project program to
preserve Eugene's improved street system.
The 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 after it requires
reconstruction. This program was initiated in
2003 and, until passage of the 2008 street
re air bond was redominatel funded with
p 1 p y Paving on Augusta Street
local fuel tax and the reimbursement fee
component of transportation system development charges.
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. Reduces energy consumption to produce asphalt concrete, lowering costs and
greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Reduces off - gassing (smoke) of asphalt concrete by keeping 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. 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 required on City of Eugene projects.
SRRP MISSION
Per Resolution No. 4953, the SRRP "will prepare a 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."
2012 SRRP REPORT
CRITERIA FOR PROJECT SELECTION AND SCHEDULING
STREET PROJECTS
Street projects to be included in the bond were specifically listed (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.
Unlike the trends reported in previous years where actual costs were substantially lower than
budgeted costs, in 2012 total projected expenses for the bond projects are within 10 percent of
the costs originally budgeted in the bond. This is primarily due to increasing construction costs,
which is further explained in the Economic Status and Forecast section below.
Based on the favorable bidding climate early in the bond and cost reductions due to
rehabilitation and reconstruction techniques realized in the first two years of bond construction,
the City constructed the majority of the projects prior to 2013. The original bond allowed that if
all of the projects listed in the bond measure were completed and there were bond proceeds
remaining, the Council may add other street preservation projects to the list. In 2011, the
Eugene City Council approved additional streets to be repaired with remaining bond funds (See
Appendix A).
A list of the street bond projects, their estimated repair cost from the Pavement Management
System in 2008 dollars, and the year scheduled for construction is included in Appendix A. For
projects completed in 2009 through 2012, the list includes a comparison of programmed costs
to actual costs with any difference noted. Differences in total project costs on individual projects
will affect the funding available for future projects. The list also includes projected costs for all
projects through the end of the bond in 2013, including the streets added to the list by City
Council in 2011.
The remaining projects from the original bond measure to be constructed in 2013 are Blair
Street, Van Buren Street, and a section of Coburg Road. Including streets added by City
Council in 2011 to use the remaining bond funds, thirteen street sections with total programmed
budget of over $11 million are scheduled for 2013. The City plans to supplement the bond funds
with local gas tax funds as necessary to complete the entire list of additional streets Council
approved in 2011.
2012 SRRP REPORT
OFF- STREET (SHARED -USE) PATH PROJECTS
The 2008 bond measure states that the City
will allocate not less than $350,000 each year
to fund the overlay and reconstruction of
existing off - street bicycle and pedestrian
paths. These projects were not named in the
bond measure, but a list of prioritized projects
has been developed. As with streets, Public
Works Maintenance performs routine
inspection of off - street paths. Information on
path condition was cross - referenced with path
pedestrian and bicycle usage counts
collected by the Public Works Engineering
Transportation Planning team. City staff Paving on West Bank Path
presented the data to the citizen Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and
collaboratively developed a prioritized list of off - street path repair projects. This list is included in
Appendix A (also see the accompanying bond project map in Appendix B).
USE OF OTHER FUNDS IN CONJUNCTION WITH STREET BOND FUNDS
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 (Council Resolution 4953,
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 used to repair and rehabilitate the existing
wastewater and stormwater systems, respectively, that underlie much of the city's street
system. 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 were used for preliminary engineering conducted in advance of the street bond
measure's passage. This assured a quick start of bond measure projects in 2009. Local gas
taxes have also been used to include adjacent streets in the street bond project contracts.
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 controller.
2012 SRRP REPORT
SUSTAINABILITY
The City of Eugene continually strives to improve the quality, environmental footprint, and cost
efficiency of its projects. In 2012, Eugene continued to use warm mix asphalt pavement and in
place recycling to meet these sustainability criteria.
Warm mix asphalt continued to be specified for all the paving projects in 2011 in place of
conventional hot mix asphalt. 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 using warm mix as compared to 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% compared to hot mix asphalt.
In -place recycling (see Key Terms) was used on the street bond projects on 24th Avenue,
Augusta Street, Riverview Street, and Royal Avenue. It is estimated that using the in -place
recycling process for these streets eliminated the need to excavate and haul away 22,000 cubic
yards of material and eliminated hauling 39,000 tons of new base rock to the site, saving over
3,500 truck trips for the four streets.
The City of Eugene started using the in -place recycling process to realize the environmental,
economic and social benefits to the community that can come from this type of process. The
reduction in land filling, material mining, and truck hauling all have direct environmental benefits;
the reduction in excavating existing roadway materials and importing virgin construction
materials have direct economic benefits; and the reduction in construction time has a direct
social benefit.
Funding Status and Forecast
In 2012, construction costs increased significantly over early bond years. For example,
according to global energy advisor Poten & Partners, Inc., the average price for asphalt cement
in the Portland area in June 2011 was $541 per ton and in June 2012 was $639 per ton, an
increase of about 18% (published on the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
website and used to calculate asphalt escalation factors). According to the Construction Costs
Forecast by ODOT (published October 2012) ODOT projects that construction costs will
continue to increase at a more steady rate rather than with the volatility of recent years, for a
variety of reasons:
• Extreme volatility in fossil fuel market is not expected, with prices remaining steady over
the next few years (with seasonal fluctuations).
• Construction materials cost forecasts a "bump up" for the remainder of 2013 with steady
increases through 2016 with producer prices overall steady (forecast average change
per FY 3.1 % through FY2020).
• Machinery /equipment cost forecasts a bump up for the remainder of 2013 and then
normal or average prices overall (forecast average change per FY 2.3% through FY
2020).
2012 SRRP REPORT
As noted in previous reports to the SRRP, construction bids, innovative treatment technologies,
and other variables substantially reduced project costs through the first three years of the bond.
The total budget for bond projects constructed in 2009 through 2012 was $30,507,000 (in 2008
dollars); total expenditures were approximately $25,265,000. As noted above, in 2011 City
Council approved 22 additional streets to be repaired with any remaining bond funds. At this
time, it is projected that the cost of the 22 additional streets is $16.8 million. The City plans to
construct 10 of the additional street sections in 2013 with remaining bond funds, with the
remaining 12 street sections to be constructed between 2014 and 2016 with local gas tax funds.
2012 Bond Construction Projects
The following pages are reports on individual street projects. The total costs for each project
listed are estimated as not all of the 2012 construction - related costs have been finalized as of
December 1, 2012.
2012 SRRP REPORT
In -place road recycling on Augusta Street
24th Avenue from Jefferson Street to Chambers Street
Project Description: This project consisted of reconstruction of 24 Avenue from Jefferson
Street to Chambers Street in south Eugene. This work on 24th Avenue was combined with a
local gas tax funded project to rehabilitate Jefferson Street from 19th Avenue to 24th Avenue
and reconstruct Jefferson Street from 25th Avenue to 28th Avenue.
Treatment Methodology: Pavement testing recommended the section from Jefferson Street to
Chambers Street needed to be reconstructed due to the poor condition of the street surfacing,
which was exhibiting load- related cracking distress in the eastbound lane some cracking
distress in the westbound lanes, except extensive cracking distress was observed in both lanes
from Polk Street to Chambers Street. Rather than reconstruct this street with conventional
methods, it was decided to reconstruct this street using the in -place recycling technique (see
Key Terms) with the cement - treated base and then paving with 7 inches of warm mix asphalt
pavement.
Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $942,000.
Total Bond Funds Programmed to the Project = $ 622,000
Total Projected /Actual Bond Funds Used = $ 934,000
Difference = $ - 312,000
Prior to budgeting for the bond measure, preliminary testing determined this street could be
rehabilitated with a mix of inlay, spot repair reconstruction and partial depth reconstruction.
Upon scheduling this project for construction, the street had very quickly deteriorated and full
depth reconstruction was recommended based on further testing. While the project costs are
higher than originally anticipated when the street repair bond was developed, using the
reclamation technique for construction was significantly less expensive than a conventional
reconstruction, which was estimated to be approximately $1,222,000.
Additional Sources of Funding: Stormwater and wastewater utility funds.
Project Photos:
24th Avenue pre- construction
24th Avenue post- construction
2012 SRRP REPORT
Augusta Street from 16th Avenue from 26 Avenue and Riverview
Street from Sylvan Street to 16th Avenue and to the northbound 1 -5
Franklin Blvd off ramp
Project Description: This project consisted of reconstruction of Augusta Street from 16th
Avenue to 26th Avenue and Riverview Street from Sylvan Street to 16th Avenue and to the
northbound 1 -5 Franklin Blvd off ramp in southeast Eugene. This work on Augusta Street was
combined with work to rehabilitate 16th and 26th Avenues between Riverview and Augusta
using local gas taxes.
Treatment Methodology: Augusta and Riverview Streets were in very poor condition with
significant fatigue (load related) and block cracking over approximately 80% of the surface.
Pavement testing confirmed the need to reconstruct these streets due to the poor condition of
the street surfacing. Because of poor subgrade soils and pavement too thin to support
collector -level traffic loading, it was decided to reconstruct the streets using the in -place
recycling technique (see Key Terms) which creates a cement - treated base by mixing existing
materials with dry cement and water. The cement - treated base was then paved with 7 inches of
warm mix asphalt pavement.
Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $1,261,000.
Total Bond Funds Programmed to the Project = $1,516,000
Total Projected /Actual Bond Funds Used = $1,121,000
Difference = $ 395,000
Using the reclamation technique for construction was significantly less expensive than a
conventional reconstruction as originally anticipated.
Additional Sources of Funding: Road capital (traffic calming), local gas tax (16th and 26th
Avenues), stormwater utility and wastewater utility funds.
Project Photos:
Augusta Street pre- construction
Augusta Street post- construction
2012 SRRP REPORT
Brewer Street from Gilham Road to Norkenzie Road
Project Description: This project included reconstruction of Brewer Street in northeast Eugene
from Gilham Road to Norkenize Road.
Treatment Methodology: Sections of this street were in poor condition and pavement testing
and evaluation showed that the west end of the project needed full depth reconstruction and the
east end needed partial depth reconstruction (removal of asphalt pavement and a portion of the
underlying base rock).
Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $346,000.
Total Bond Funds Programmed to the Project = $146,000
Total Projected /Actual Bond Funds Used = $346,000
Difference = $ - 200,000
In testing this street, it was determined that the subgrade soils and thin pavement were too
weak to support construction traffic and future traffic loading and the street needed a more
expensive treatment than originally anticipated when the street repair bond was developed.
Additional Sources of Funding: Stormwater utility fund.
Project Photos:
Brewer Street pre- construction
2012 SRRP REPORT
Brewer Street post- construction
Curtis Avenue from Norkenize Road to 550 feet East (cul -de -sac)
Project Description: This project included reconstruction of Curtis Street in northeast Eugene
from Norkenzie Road to 550 feet east to the end of the cul -de -sac.
Treatment Methodology: Sections of this street were in poor condition and pavement testing
and evaluation showed that the street needed partial depth reconstruction (removal of asphalt
pavement and a portion of the underlying base rock).
Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $91,000.
Total Bond Funds Programmed to the Project = $38,000
Total Projected /Actual Bond Funds Used = $91,000
Difference = $ - 53,000
In testing this street, it was determined that the subgrade soils and thin pavement were too
weak to support construction traffic and future traffic loading and the street needed a more
expensive treatment than originally anticipated when the street repair bond was developed.
Additional Sources of Funding: None.
Project Photos:
Curtis Avenue pre- construction
Curtis Avenue post- construction
2012 SRRP REPORT
Gilham Road from Honeywood Street to Crescent Avenue
Project Description: This project included rehabilitation of Gilham Road in northeast Eugene
from Honeywood Street to Crescent Avenue.
Treatment Methodology: While this street exhibited nearly continuous low to medium severity
cracking, pavement testing determined there was sufficient existing pavement and base
aggregate to rehabilitate this street by removing and repaving ( "inlay ") 4 inches of asphalt
pavement.
Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $493,000.
Total Bond Funds Programmed to the Project = $305,000
Total Projected /Actual Bond Funds Used = $469,000
Difference = $- 164,000
In order to remove enough depth of pavement to eliminate reflective cracking from occurring in
5 to 7 years, a thicker depth of pavement needed to be removed than originally anticipated
when the Street Repair Bond was developed, which increased the project cost.
Additional Sources of Funding: Stormwater and wastewater utility funds
Project Photos:
k
Gilham Road post- construction
2012 SRRP REPORT
Gilham Road pre- construction
Goodpasture Island Road from Kingsley Road to 1,250 feet north of
Valley River Drive
Project Description: This project included the rehabilitation of Goodpasture Island Road from
Kingsley Road to 1,250 feet north of Valley River Drive (near Delta Ponds Bridge) in north
Eugene.
Treatment Methodology: Pavement testing confirmed that this section could be rehabilitated
with an inlay treatment (remove existing and repave same pavement thickness) of 2 inches of
asphalt pavement. There were some sections that only required a seal treatment.
Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $196,000.
Total Bond Funds Programmed to the Project = $ 448,000
Total Projected /Actual Bond Funds Used = $ 193,000
Difference = $ 255,000
Because some sections only required a seal treatment, project costs were less than anticipated
in 2008.
Additional Sources of Funding: Stormwater and wastewater utility funds.
Project Photos:
2012 SRRP REPORT
Goodpasture Island Road pre- construction
Goodpasture Island Road post- construction
Royal Avenue from Highway 99 to 100 feet east of Waite Street
Project Description: This project consisted of reconstruction of Royal Avenue from Highway 99
to 100 feet east of Waite Street in northwest Eugene.
Treatment Methodology: Royal Avenue east of Waite Street was in poor condition and had
insufficient structure to support arterial -level traffic loading. Based on the condition and
projected traffic loading, pavement testing supported full depth reconstruction of this street. It
was decided to reconstruct this street using the in -place recycling technique (see Key Terms)
which creates a cement - treated base by mixing existing materials will dry cement and water.
The 9- inch -thick cement - treated base was then paved with 6 inches of warm mix asphalt
pavement.
Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $1,030,000.
Total Bond Funds Programmed to the Project = $1,565,000
Total Projected /Actual Bond Funds Used = $1,022,000
Difference = $ 543,000
Existing materials and soils were found to support the in -place recycling technique which was
significantly less expensive than a full depth reconstruction repair as originally anticipated when
the street repair bond was developed
Additional Sources of Funding: Stormwater and wastewater utility funds.
Project Photos:
Royal Avenue pre- construction
2012 SRRP REPORT
Royal Avenue post- construction
Silver Lane from River Road to Grove Street
Project Description: This project consisted of repairing Silver Lane from River Road to Grove
Street in north Eugene.
Treatment Methodology: Silver Lane was in fair condition and pavement testing supported
rehabilitating the street with an inlay treatment (see Key Terms, above) with full depth
reconstruction at isolated spots where base failures were evident.
Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $567,000.
Total Bond Funds Programmed to the Project = $ 305,000
Total Projected /Actual Bond Funds Used = $ 450,000
Difference = $ - 145,000
In order to remove enough depth of pavement to eliminate reflective cracking from occurring in
5 to 7 years, a thicker inlay treatment depth of the pavement was needed than originally
anticipated when the street repair bond was developed, which increased the project cost.
Additional Sources of Funding: Stormwater and wastewater utility funds, and transportation
system development charges.
Project Photos:
Silver Lane pre- construction Silver Lane post- construction
2012 SRRP REPORT
Taney Street from Barger Drive to Marshall Avenue
Project Description: This project consisted of rehabilitating Taney Street from Barger Drive to
Marshall Avenue in north Eugene.
Treatment Methodology: Taney Street was in fair condition and pavement testing supported
rehabilitating the street with an inlay treatment (see Key Terms, above) with full depth
reconstruction at isolated spots where base failures were evident.
Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $496,000.
Total Bond Funds Programmed to the Project = $ 349,000
Total Projected /Actual Bond Funds Used = $ 483,000
Difference = $ - 134,000
In order to remove enough depth of pavement to eliminate reflective cracking from occurring in
5 to 7 years, a thicker inlay treatment depth of the pavement was needed than originally
anticipated when the street repair bond was developed, which increased the project cost.
Additional Sources of Funding: Stormwater and wastewater utility funds, and transportation
system development charges.
Project Photos:
2012 SRRP REPORT
Taney Street pre- construction
Taney Street post - construction
Terry Street from 100 feet north of Avalon Street to Royal Avenue
Project Description: This project consisted of rehabilitating Terry Street from 100 feet north of
Avalon Street to Royal Avenue in west Eugene.
Treatment Methodology: Terry Street had a significant amount of medium severity cracking
with some areas of high severity cracking. A mix of partial depth reconstruction and inlay
treatment were used to rehabilitate this pavement.
Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $385,000.
Total Bond Funds Programmed to the Project = $ 978,000
Total Projected /Actual Bond Funds Used = $ 374,000
Difference = $ 604,000
When the street repair bond was developed, it was anticipated that this section of Terry Street
would need full or partial depth reconstruction. Based on pavement testing, it was determined
only the northbound side of the street on the south half of the project needed partial depth
reconstruction. The rest of the street only required an inlay treatment, significantly reducing the
overall project cost.
Additional Sources of Funding: Stormwater and wastewater utility funds, and transportation
system development charges.
Project Photos:
2012 SRRP REPORT
Terry Street pre- construction
Terry Street post- construction
Warren Street from Bailey Hill Road to Timberline Drive
Project Description: This project consisted of rehabilitating Warren Street from Bailey Hill
Road to Timberline Drive in southwest Eugene.
Treatment Methodology: Warren Street had a significant amount of cracking on the southern
end of the project. There were areas with cracking elsewhere along the project, although
primarily in the northbound lane. Poor quality gravel base was encountered beneath the asphalt
pavement during pavement testing. Based on the pavement testing it was determined that a 5
inch deep inlay treatment was needed, with full depth spot repairs where the pavement and
base had failed.
Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $460,000.
Total Bond Funds Programmed to the Project = $ 217,000
Total Projected /Actual Bond Funds Used = $ 452,000
Difference = $ - 235,000
The depth of distressed pavement to be removed with the inlay treatment was deeper than was
anticipated and more full depth spot repairs were needed than originally anticipated when the
street repair bond was developed increasing the project costs.
Additional Sources of Funding: Stormwater utility funds and transportation system
development charges.
Project Photos:
Warren Street pre- construction
2012 SRRP REPORT
Warren Street post- construction
West Bank Path Repairs
Project Description: This project replaced the existing asphalt surface with a concrete surface
on the West Bank Path from the Greenway Bike Bridge to Stephens Drive.
Treatment Methodology: The existing asphalt path was cracking due to expansion and
contraction of the underlying soils. Sections of the path that were deemed to be stable were
overlaid with 6 inches of concrete reinforced with structural fibers. Where the existing path was
experiencing severe cracking and movement the existing path surface was removed and the
path was stabilized with additional base rock and /or reinforcement.
Structural fibers were incorporated into the new concrete path to help prevent cracking due to
soil expansion and contraction. The pavement structure thickness is based on the soil
conditions and use of the path by emergency and maintenance vehicles.
Costs: Total project costs, from all funding sources, are estimated at $361,000.
Total Bond Funds Programmed to the Project = $350,000
Total Projected /Actual Bond Funds Used = $361,000
Difference = $ - 11,000
Project Photos:
2012 SRRP REPORT
West Bank Path post- construction
West Bank Path pre- construction
APPENDIX A
2012 Report from Engineering to the Citizens Street Repair Review Panel
5 -Year Street Bond Proiect List - Costs and Forecast
Project
Bailey Hill Rd
18th Ave
East Side Of
8
proposed
Programmed
Revised
Projected/
Over / (Under)
Map #
Street name
From
To
Ward(s)
Treatment
Cost (2008)
programmed
Actual Cost
programmed
15
Goodpasture Is Rd
Norkenzie Rd
Delta Hwy Bride
5
Overlay
$ 367,000
Cost
$ 435,000
Cost
U. - tinn Year 9nnq
6
Bailey Hill Rd
18th Ave
East Side Of
8
Reconstruct/Overlay
$ 1,866,000
$ 1,866,000
$ 883,000
$ (983,000)
14
Goodpasture Is Rd
Bridge Over Slough
Bertelsen
5
Reconstruct/Overlay
$ 1,319,000
$ 1,319,000
$ 689,000
$ (630,000)
15
Goodpasture Is Rd
Norkenzie Rd
Delta Hwy Bride
5
Overlay
$ 367,000
$ 367,000
$ 435,000
$ 68,000
20
Railroad Blvd
Van Buren
Chambers
7
Overla
$ 421,000
$ 421
$ 398,000
$ 23,000
construction rear ZUUy iocais= Z,bb4,000 - P Z,b04,000 S 7,17b,000 S (twa,000)
r n�rr „mri n veer gnin
1
18th Ave
510' East Of Chambers
City View
1
Reconstruct/Overlay
$ 1,733,000
$ 1,733,000
$ 1,333,000
$ (400,000)
14
Goodpasture Is Rd
Bridge Over Slough
Kingsley Rd
5
Reconstruct/Overlay
$ 1,319,000
$ 1,319,000
$ 689,000
$ (630,000)
1750 -feet North of Valley
River Dr
1250 -feet North of
Valley River Dr
16
Harlow Rd
1 -5
Coburg
4
Reconstruct/Overlay
$ 1,202,000
$ 1,202,000
$ 889,000
$ 313,000
18
Patterson
E 13th Ave
23rd Ave
3
Reconstruct
$ 2,134,000
$ 2,134,000
$ 1,285,000
$ (849,000)
2
18th Ave
Hil and
Patterson
1
3
23rd Ave
Hil and
Patterson
1 3
29
Willamett e St
306' North Of 29th Ave
140' South Of 29th
Ave
2
1 Reconstruct
$ 405,000
$ 405,000
$ 550,000
$ 145,000
29
Willamette St
46th Ave
152nd Ave
2
10verlay
1 $ 500
1 $ 500
1 $ 412
$ 88 000
construction 7earzu iocais= zo t,Zeui,uuu zo r,zas,uuu 4. b,7bu,uuu 4. tz,7sb,uuul
r n�rr „mri n veer gnii
2
18th Ave
Patterson
Washington
1,3
Reconstruct/Overlay
$ 2,052,000
$ 2,052,000
$ 1,773,000
$ (279,000)
5
Alder
Broadway
18th Ave
3
Reconstruct/Overlay
$ 964,000
$ 964,000
$ 1,190,000
$ 226,000
9
Coburg Rd
850' North Of Cal Young
450' North Of 1 -105
Off Ram
4
Overlay
$ 1,479,000
$ 1,479,000
$ 1,457,000
$ (22,000)
11
Conger St
7th Ave
11th Ave
7
Overlay
$ 147,000
$ 147,000
$ 190,000
$ 43,000
17
Hil and St
E 24th Ave
34th Ave
2,3
Reconstruct
$ 2,900,000
$ 2,900,000
$ 1,360,000
$ 1,540,000
19
Pearl
4th Ave
200' North Of
Broadwa
7
Reconstruct/Overlay
$ 470,000
$ 470,000
$ 667,000
$ 197,000
21
River Rd
Horn Ln
Railroad
7
!Overlay
$ 2,000,000
$ 2,000,000
$ 1,118,000
$ 882,000
29
Willamette St
140' South Of 29th Ave
46th
2
ReconstrucUOverla
$ 2,254,000
$ 2,254,000
$ 1,755,000
$ 499,000
30
Wilson St
W 5th Ave
W 7th Ave
1 7
10verlay
$ 100
1 $ 100
1 $ 81
$ 19 000
construction Yearzu99 iocais= 4. iz,3bb,uuu J 74sbb,000 J Y,OY7,000 ri (.,110,000)
r n�rr „mri n veer gniq
4
24th Ave
Jefferson
Chambers
1
Reconstruct/Overlay
$ 622,000
$ 622,000
$ 934,000
$ 312,000
31
Augusta St
16th Ave
26th Ave
3
Reconstruct
$ 1,516,000
$ 1,516,000
$ 1,121,000
$ (395,000)
23
Riverview St
Sylvan
16th Ave
22
Franklin Off Ramp
247' South Of
Franklin Off Ramp
8
Brewer St
Gilham Rd
Norkenzie Rd
5
Reconstruct/Overlay
$ 146,000
$ 146,000
$ 346,000
$ 200,000
12
Curtis Ave
550' East Of Norkenzie
Norkenzie
5
Overlay
$ 38
$ 38
$ 91,000
$ 53,000
13
Gilham Rd
Honeywood St
Crescent
5
Overlay
$ 305,000
$ 305,000
$ 469,000
$ 164,000
14
Goodpasture Is Rd
Kingsley Rd
1250 -Feet N of
Valley River Drive
5
Overlay
$ 448,000
$ 448,000
$ 193,000
$ (255,000)
24
Royal Ave
Hwy 99
100' East Of Waite
St
8
Reconstruct
$ 1,565,000
$ 1,565,000
$ 1,022,000
$ (543,000)
25
Silver Ln
River Rd
Grove
7
Overlay
$ 305,000
$ 305,000
$ 450,000
$ 145,000
32
Taney St
Barger
IMarshall
6
Reconstruct
$ 349,000
$ 349,000
$ 483,000
$ 134,000
26
Terry St
1100' North Of Avalon St
Royal
6
Reconstruct/Overlay
$ 978,000
$ 978,000
$ 374,000
$ (604,000)
28
Warren St
Bailey Hill
ITimberline Dr
8
1 ReconstrucVOverla
$ 217
$ 217
$ 452,000
$ 235,000
VOns RUG[IOn rear &U 1,4 locals = y 0,40V,000 ,D 0,40&,000 0 0 0 (0-
r-tn-tinn Year gnin *Th- ctr-tc -ra arirtart by (.it,, rm -i1 anrt -ra nmt Hart of tha mrimi -I Rmnrt KA-ci ira
7
Blair Blvd
2nd Ave
Monroe
7
Reconstruct/Overlay
$ 1,228,000
$ 1,300,000
$
$
27
Van Buren
RR Crossing
Blair Blvd
7
Reconstruct
$ 305,000
$ 388,000
$
$
9
Coburg Rd
Crescent
South Onramp
Beltline
4
Overlay
$ 515,000
$ 515,000
$
$
33
5th Avenue*
High Street
Blair Street
7
ReconstructlOverlay
$ 2,000,000
$
$
34
5th Avenue*
SS HWY 99
ES Bailey Hill Rd
7,8
Reconstruct
$ 1,900,000
$
$
36
40
49
10th Avenue*
Broadway*
Olive Street*
WS Olive St
WS Lincoln St
NS 10th Ave
WS Jefferson St
ES Monroe St
NS 13th Ave
7
Reconstruct
$ 922,000
$
$
37
18th Avenue*
Washington Street
510' East of
Chambers
1
Reconstruct
$ 2,800,000
$
$
39
Alder Street*
SS 18th Ave
NS 24th Ave
3
Reconstruct
$ 1,043,000
$
$
41
Coburg Road*
City Limits
Crescent Ave
4,5
Overlay
$ 334,000
$
$
47
Hil and Street*
SS E Broadway
i S E 11th Ave
3
Overla
$ 329,000
$
$
54
Willamette Street*
INS 19th Ave
ISS DRWY 2415
1 1
10verlay
$ 419
$
$
I nese sneers were aooeU oy i,ny i,owtcu anti "onstruction rear w t.s totals = a /,o4b,ouu a 7 a - a
were not part of the original Bond Measure
2012 SRRP REPORT
APPENDIX A
2012 Report from Engineering to the Citizens Street Repair Review Panel
5 -Year Street Bond Project List - Costs and Forecast
Project
8th Avenue*
WS Lincoln St
WS Monroe St
7
Proposed
Programmed
Revised
Projected/
Over / (Under)
Map #
Street name
From
To
Ward(s)
Treatment
Cost (2008)
Programmed
Actual Cost
Programmed
42
Donald Street*
SS E 46th Ave
NS Fox Hollow Rd
2
Overlay
Cost
$
Cost
Construction Year 2014 - 2016 (paid for with Local Gas Tax Funds) * These streets were added by City Council and were not part of the original Bond Measure
35
8th Avenue*
WS Lincoln St
WS Monroe St
7
Reconstruct
Programmed
$ 643,000
$
$
38
46th Avenue*
WS Donald St
ES Willamette St
2
Reconstruct
Cost (2008)
$ 257,000
$
$
42
Donald Street*
SS E 46th Ave
NS Fox Hollow Rd
2
Overlay
$ 763,000
$
$
43
Donald Street*
Willamette St
40th Ave
2
Reconstruct/Overlay
$ 500,000
$
$
44
Friendly Street*
NS W 24th Ave
NS W 28th Ave
1
Overlay
$ 346,000
$
$
45
Garden Way*
SS Harlow Rd
S 110 Sisters View A
4
Overlay
$ 609,000
$
$
46
Harris Street*
18th Ave
28th Ave
3
Reconstruct/Overlay
$ 1,738,000
$
$
48
Marshall Avenue*
Hughes
Echo Hollow Rd
6
Overlay
$ 556,000
$
$
50
Roosevelt Blvd.*
Danebo Rd
Terry St
8
Overlay
$ 371,000
$
$
51
Terry Street*
Olympic Circle
Barger
6
Overlay
$ 264,000
$
$
52
River Way*
SS Valley River Dr
SS Cul -de -Sac
5
Reconstruct/Overlay
$ 383,000
$
$
_Valley
53
Willakenzie Rd*
ES Bogart Ln
ES Coburg Rd
4
Overlay
$ 593,000
$
$
* These streets were added by City Council and Construction Year 2014 -2016 Totals = $ $ 7,023,000
were not part of the original Bond Measure
Off - Street (Shared Use) Path Project List
Project
Off - Street Path
JVan Buren St.
lChambers St.
1 1
Proposed
Programmed
Revised
Projected/
Over / (Under)
Map ID
Project
From
To
Ward(s)
Treatment
Cost (2008)
Programmed
Actual Cost
Programmed
350,000
1 $ 350,0001
$ 361,000
1 11,000
Construction Year 2013
Cost
Cost
Construction Year 2009
A JAmazon Path 11 9th Ave 131 st Ave 1 3 lReconstruct 1 $ 648,000 1 $ 648,000 1 $ 730,000 1 $ 82,000
Construction Year 2010
B
IFern Ridge Path
JVan Buren St.
lChambers St.
1 1
1 Reconstruct
$ 410,000
$ 410,000
$ 405,000
$ (5,000)
C
Westmoreland
Connector Path
Polk Street
500' West of Polk St.
1 1
1 Reconstruct
Construction Year 2011
D I South Bank Path
Maurie Jacobs Park IRiver Play Park 1 7 lReconstruct 1 $
367,000
1 $ 367,000
1 $ 466,000
1 $ 99,000
Construction Year 2012
E JWest Bank Path
I Greenway Bridge Istephens Dr. 1 7 lReconstruct 1 $
350,000
1 $ 350,0001
$ 361,000
1 11,000
Construction Year 2013
F ISouth Bank Path
IRiver Play Park JDeFazio Bridge 1 7 lReconstruct I $
350,000
1 $ 350,000
$ -
I $
Total Off - Street Path Project Costs = $
2,125,000
$ 2,125,000
$ 1,962,000
$ 187,000
Summary of Bond Funds
Total Street Projects in 2008 Dollars $ 30,850,000
Total Off - Street Path Projects $ 2,125,000
Bond Issuance Costs $ 130,000
Inflation $ 2,795,000
Total Bond Funds $ 35,900,000
Summary of Bond Revenue and Expenditures
Bond Funds Available for Construction Costs (amount above less issuance costs) $ 35,770,000
Projected Street and Shared Use Path Expenditures thru FY13 $ 36,662,000
Projected Bond Planning /Pre - Design Expenditures $ 903,000
Sub -Total Bond Costs thru FY13 $ 37.565.000
Projected Local Gas Tax Funding Needed to Supplement Bond Funds thru FY13 $ 1,795,000
Projected Local Gas Tas Funding Needed in FY14 - FY16 $ 7,023,000
Projected Total Local Gas Tax Funding to Complete Projects $ 8,818,000
2012 SRRP REPORT 23
APPENDIX B
Citizens Street Repair Review Panel 2012 Report
Eugene Street Bond Project List
p I December 2012
b,aako, ok o. \N••
Cl— LakeRe
stirs J e. �, ee�����eRa I._._ S?� f_• _"'+'' 1 � I �!
51
Ward 6
26
50 is
zs
a
� J
324 NPa,k 4 no,�s�
48
r "I J
24
21
D
20
Ward 7 a
4 w„ a
27
D w, 30
� w „na�m 11
.e a�
Ward 8
3 Wfetnave
9 1
` e wvm 40 a36 - ea `� o C'�
D
a A
2 Ward I 54\
«� g 3 _
Ward 3
1 17
w roe .. �_ _.. � • iL„. �..� • ;_.! f'—••1.._� _ �� _ �s ���o. � ss,aa� � 9 sQ ; ✓'�� —s i
y W:1 °._ !
�j w3s-- 43
Legend
Council Ward
Construction Year
1
2009
2
2010
3
2011
4
—2012
5
—2013
6
City Streets
7
�•_� Eugene UGB
8
R,d by Cfty of Eugene
M Eng I nfa Teem, December 2012 (Ref# 1112 1667)
29 1
�e r
♦.� ��a °a ��1'i
_.._.._. 42 f
1
608o
1
FIXING E( "Wi fTREM 1.._..I
N
1�1
� 25 05 Miks
����.a•�A e
41 ►r
7 � 9
tl 12 ' °4
15
Ward 5 10 if
w Ward 4 +
45 z i
-� r
[gut
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT McQ!L REYALL - ;, E �McGladrey
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 the expenditure of general
obligation bond funds approved for issuance through voter's approval of Ballot Measure 20 -145 were
expended in accordance with the purposes and limitations outlined in City Council Resolution No. 4953;
namely that such expenditures were: a) used only for costs related to street preservation projects, off-
street bicycle and pedestrian path preservation projects and payment of bond issuance costs and not to
expand the 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. 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 between December 1, 2011 and November 30,
2012. All procedures we performed were limited to documentation and information supplied to us by the
City, as follows:
• An Excel spreadsheet detailing all payments made, charges allocated and /or invoices received by
the City for expenditures related to the use of the bond proceeds
• Copies of Resolution No. 4953 and Ballot Measure 20 -145
• 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, as needed
The procedures we performed and the associated findings are as follows:
(1) Expenditure testing. From December 1, 2011 through November 30, 2012, total expenditures for the
projects funded by the bond proceeds were $7,492,730 per the City's general ledger detail of the
bond fund. We tested $3,712,383, or 50 %, of those expenditures. All tested expenditures were
supported by appropriate documentation such as invoices from vendors, 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. 4953 or other street preservation projects approved by City
Council, as permitted under Resolution 4953. No exceptions were noted.
2012 SRRP REPORT
City of Eugene
Street Bonds - agreed -upon procedures
Page 2
(2) Bond proceeds and project expenditures. The following is a summary of bond proceeds and
project expenditures from inception of the Street Bond project to November 30, 2012:
From Issuance to 12/1/2009 12/1/2010 12/1/2011
11/30/2009 11/30/2010 11/30/2011 11/30/2012 Total
Bond proceeds $ 2,795,000 $ 5,555,000 $ 9,690,000 $ 7,460,000 $ 25,500,000
Project expenditures 2,682,749 5,737,236 9,631,111 7,492,730 25,543,826
(3) As of November 30, 2012 the City had $4,000,000 outstanding on the line of credit facility
($7,460,000 in proceeds plus interest of $4,565 less $3,464,565 repaid) with $10,400,000 in
authorized borrowing remaining on the bond ($35,900,000 authorized less $25,500,000 in
proceeds).
Based on our limited testing, we noted that the City followed the purpose and limitation of the City Council
Resolution 4953.
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
JkLt CPA
Eugene, Oregon
December 20, 2012
2012 SRRP REPORT
2013 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
An Update on Asphalt Pavement Conditions and Programs
(2012 Rating & Inventory Data)
88118nds
FAX /NC EUCFW� STRFM
f "s I Approximately 423 Lane N
e
} L_
Prepared by:
Public Works Maintenance
Surface Technical Team
1820 Roosevelt Blvd.
Eugene, OR 97402
RA, Mgt
For comy or 11
Hlfinriral and Vrojesied Fonding impe[IS to Totai Syrtem Vr—
an 1
�w
.......... - ..
��na ivmn amW �. •.u.m.mn
E�narx nanar wogs m
Smas
Eagsrn UW
196.E Rabaf
Cover Photos (top left clockwise): GO BONDS, Asphalt distress photos, System condition
index graph, Completed pavement preservation projects map 2002 to2012.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The annual Pavement Management Report is produced to update information and data regarding the
City of Eugene's transportation system 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 conservatively estimated to represent a $500 million public asset. This
asset is typically described in lane miles and /or centerline miles. Currently, Public Works manages
1328 lane miles (533 centerline miles) of streets, and approximately 43 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. Comparative statistical
data includes both lane miles and centerline miles.
Street (and off - street shared -use path) condition data are collected by Public Works Maintenance staff
through on -site inspections. An Overall Condition Index (OCI) score is then generated using
CenterLine, the current Pavement Management System (PMS) used by the City. The CenterLine
analysis helps establish efficient treatment requirements and identify financial implications of various
response strategies. The PMS also provides street inventory and condition trends using 25 years of
street condition information.
The current estimated street repair backlog on improved asphalt streets at the end of 2012 is $100
million Because street repair funding levels have not kept pace with rehabilitation needs, the City
established a local gas tax in 2003 for a pavement preservation program (PPP). In 2008 a $35.9
million, five -year bond measure was approved by voters and another five -year bond for $43 million
was approved by voters in 2012. Between these funding sources more thanl26 streets in Eugene are
identified to be repaired by 2018. The revenues from the local gas tax and the first bond measure
have helped reduce the backlog of street repair projects. Specifically, based on the 2011 ratings and
reported in the 2012 Pavement Management Report the calculated backlog of repairs on improved
asphalt streets was $118 million; as of the end of 2012 the current backlog has been calculated to be
$100 million.
In addition to the infusion of local gas tax and bond funding, other factors have contributed to the
current status of the backlog:
Several projects previously defined as needing to be reconstructed have been redesignated for
overlay treatment after detailed testing was performed. An overlay treatment is much less
expensive than a reconstruct treatment and can provide a comparable service life if the base is
properly designed and undamaged.
In recent years, the cost of projects has been lower than anticipated. However, according to
the Construction Costs Forecast (ODOT, October 2012) costs will continue to increase at a
more steady rate rather than with the volatility of recent years. Changes in costs for
construction materials and labor will affect long -term backlog estimates.
• In 2009 the City was awarded approximately $3 million of federal American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds that were earmarked for projects constructed in 2010. This
"bought down" the backlog in the short term, but because the ARRA funds were one -time
funding, they will not result in a significant ongoing or cumulative effect.
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 have been successfully
used in place of conventional reconstruction techniques resulting in substantial cost savings.
• There has been an increase in inventory of improved streets through capital improvement
projects (CIP), privately engineered public improvements (PEPI) and jurisdictional transfers.
Overall, even though the backlog figure declined in 2012, the current level of funding -- including the
two bond measures -- is insufficient to stabilize the backlog long term. Annually, a number of streets
needing a less expensive treatment are falling into a more costly treatment category due to lack of
funding to repair them. It is also important to note that the backlog estimate is limited to improved
asphalt streets. It 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 2012 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 Engineering in 2011 and are adjusted
to include a 2% inflation factor. Following is a summary of the analyses:
• Maintaining the current level of funding, including the 2008 and 2012 bond measures, results
in a total projected backlog of $238 million in 10 years. Last year, prior to approval of the
2012 bond, the projected 10 -year backlog was $264 million.
Increasing the funding level to $12 million annually would prevent arterials and collectors
currently from falling into the reconstruct range and eliminate the reconstruct backlog for
arterial and collector streets in 10 years. Prior to this year's report, these results required a
funding level of $15 million annually.
Increasing the funding level to $19 million annually would prevent any street from falling
into the reconstruct range and eliminate the total reconstruct backlog in 10 years. Prior to this
year's report, these results required a funding level of $18 million annually. Due to the
substantial and increasing backlog in Residential treatment needs (residential streets account
for approximately 64% (lane miles) of the system) additional funding is required to achieve
the same results as in previous years.
2
SCOPE OF THIS 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): A brief history and description of the Pavement
Management System used by the City is discussed, including rating methodology, pavement
inspection frequency, pavement conditions described by the Overall Condition Index (OCI),
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, sustainable construction, current, historical and projected funding, unimproved streets,
projected funding, project prioritization, and off - street shared -use paths.
Projects: This section includes completed and future project lists and maps, including a list and
map of the projects identified in the 2012 bond measure.
EUGENE'S STREET INVENTORY
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 system allows a reporting of both centerline miles (intersection to
intersection) and lane miles of each segment of the system. While commonly used in reporting
distance, centerline miles do not relate equally across streets of different widths or different number
of lanes. For this report, comparisons typically are shown both in centerline and 12- foot -wide lane
miles unless otherwise noted.
Improvement Status
For purposes of establishing budget allocations and rehabilitation priorities, and performing
maintenance activities based on established maintenance policies, the City of Eugene divides the
street inventory into two distinct categories:
Improved streets are those which have been fully designed for structural adequacy, have storm
drainage facilities provided which include curbs and gutters, and have either an asphalt concrete (AC)
or a Portland cement concrete (PCC) surface. Typically, these streets were either fully improved
when the area was developed and paid for by the developer, or were improved through a local
improvement district (LID) and paid for in part by the abutting property owners. In some cases a
street may have been fully improved while under state or county jurisdiction and then surrendered to
the City. Improved streets receive the highest level of ongoing maintenance and are eligible for
rehabilitation funding through Eugene's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Pavement
Preservation Program (PPP).
Unimproved streets are those with soil, gravel, or asphalt mat surfaces 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 (see "City of Eugene Street Maintenance Policy and Procedure Manual" for levels of
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 $2.3 5 million from FY
2009 through FY 2011. Subsequently, Public Works has allocated $200,000 per year from Road Fund
for enhanced pavement repairs. The Maintenance Division has addressed potholes by either filling
individual potholes or by performing maintenance overlays over entire street segments. During the
past five years more than 75 unimproved streets, representing more than 23 lane 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.
The following tables categorize Eugene's Improved and Unimproved Street System in Centerline
Miles and 12 -foot Lane Miles by Pavement Type and by Functional Class.
IMPROVED
SYSTEM
As halt ACP
Asphalt over
Concrete (APC )
Concrete (PCC)
Gravel
Undeveloped
Total
Miles
12' Lane
Miles
Miles
12'
Lane
Miles
Miles
12'
Lane
Miles
Miles
12'
Lane
Miles
Miles
12'
Lane
Miles
Miles
12' Lane
Miles
Major Arterial
13.12
59.11
0.03
0.16
1.38
2.84
0
0
0
0
14.53
62.11
Minor Arterial
60.61
203.74
2.23
7.38
3.73
11.81
0
0
0
0
66.57
222.92
Major Collector
30.18
92.72
1.16
3.17
2.88
7.91
0
0
0
0
34.22
103.8
Neighborhood
Collector
23.48
60.91
0.60
1.62
1.58
4.35
0
0
0
0
25.66
66.88
Residential
303.89
705.97
2.42
6.19
21.57
54.86
0
0
0
0
327.88
767.02
Total
431.28
1122.45
6.44
18.52
31.14
81.77
0
0
0
0
468.86
1222.73
UNIMPROVED
SYSTEM
As halt ACP
Bituminous
Surface BST
Concrete (PCC)
Gravel
Undeveloped
Total
Miles
12' Lane
Miles
Miles
12'
Lane
Miles
Miles
12'
Lane
Miles
Miles
12'
Lane
Miles
Miles
12'
Lane
Miles
Miles
12' Lane
Miles
Major Arterial
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minor Arterial
1.01
1.96
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.01
1.96
Major Collector
2.74
6.29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.74
6.29
Neighborhood
Collector
4.36
8.66
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.36
8.66
Residential
38.88
64.27
3.95
5.91
0.03
0.03
8.73
12.87
4.46
4.96
56.05
88.04
Total
46.99
81.18
1 3.95
1 5.91
1 0.03
1 0.03
1 8.73
1 12.87
1 4.46
4.96
64.16
1 104.95
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.
Major Arterial (FC -1): Major Arterials are usually four or more lanes and generally connect
various parts of the region with one another within the city and with the "outside world ". They
serve as major access routes to regional destinations such as downtowns, universities, airports,
and similar major focal points within the urban area. Major Arterials typically carry an average of
more than 20,000 vehicles per day. Major Arterials receive high priority maintenance.
Minor Arterial (FC 2): Minor Arterials are typically two or three lanes. These streets provide the
next level of urban connectivity below major arterials. In most cases their main role tends to be
serving intra -city mobility. Minor Arterials carry between 7,500 and 20,000 vehicles per day.
Minor Arterials receive priority maintenance.
Major Collector (FC -3): Major Collectors can be found in residential, commercial, and industrial
areas. They typically carry between 2,500 and 7,500 vehicles per day. Major Collectors have a
higher priority for maintenance than local streets.
Neighborhood Collector (FC -4): Neighborhood Collectors are found only in residential
neighborhoods and provide a high degree of access to individual properties in a neighborhood.
They typically carry between 1,500 and 2,500 vehicles per day.
Local (FC -5): Local streets provide access to individual properties along the roadway. They are
narrow, slow- speed, and low - volume service facilities. They typically carry fewer than 1,500
vehicles per day, and receive low priority maintenance. 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.
Mileage by Functional Class - Improved and Unimproved
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Major
Minor
Collector
Neigh.
Local
Total
Arterial
Arterial
Collector
*Improved 12' lane miles
62
223
104
67
767
1223
■Unimproved 12'lane miles
0
2
6
9
89
106
*Improved centerline miles
15
67
34
26
327
469
OUnimproved centerline miles
0
1
3
4
57
65
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.
The PMS used by the City of Eugene since 1987 is CenterLine. CenterLine was developed by
Washington's League of Cities and Washington County Roads Administration Board in conjunction
with the Washington Department of Transportation (WDOT). The PMS combines visual field
inspection ratings, compiled under strict criteria, with computer tracking and condition analysis. The
rating methodology for field inspections used prior to 2010 was the WDOT Standard method.
Beginning in 2010 the rating methodology was revised to the WDOT's Extended (WSEXT) method,
keeping the program consistent with industry standards. Eugene's FMS contains 25 years of
historical data and has the ability to estimate financial needs and road conditions 20 years into the
future.
Starting with the next rating season the City will be converting from CenterLine to a new pavement
management system yet to be determined. CenterLine no longer provides customer support, making it
necessary to migrate all of our historical data to a new system. Rating data will still be collected
using WSEXT method. A more complete description of this conversion will be reported in the future.
Pavement Inspection Frequency
Two predominant work efforts required to maintain the PMS are updating the street inventory and
performing the annual inspection of surface conditions. City streets are divided into segments based
on their Functional Classification (FC), pavement type, and geometric design. Segments are the basic
unit for evaluating streets and surface conditions. A segment is defined as a portion of a street with a
beginning and ending description. Changes in geometric features are used as a guide for determining
segments. Examples of geometric differences are surface type, segment 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.
In 2010 and 2011 all streets were inspected to establish an accurate baseline using the WSEXT rating
method. In 2012, the program resumed with standard annual inspection intervals as described above.
ra
Overall Condition Index (OCI), Deduct Values, and Distresses
Pavement distresses are dependent on pavement type and are rated by severity and extent. A street
with an OCI of 100 represents a new or recently rehabilitated street. This OCI value is the basis used
to analyze the surface treatment needs. Distress data are collected using handheld computers
(IPAQ's) and then uploaded to the pavement management software. The extended method (WSEXT)
rates severities and all their extents; this information is then used to determine a deduct value. A
segment's OCI is calculated by subtracting the deduct values from 100. As the condition of a street's
surface begins to deteriorate the OCI 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 are vertical (longitudinal)
and horizontal (transverse) in length. 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.
IN
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 a long length of the road and is 1 to 2 feet wide and there are almost always two ruts,
one for each side of the vehicle.
Joint Spalling: Spalling is the deterioration of the edges of a concrete slab within 2 feet
(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.
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 PMS Information is Used
The primary purpose of maintaining a PMS is to collect and analyze information relating to street
system condition and 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
3]
PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Street preservation and rehabilitation, capital improvements, off - street shared -use path projects, and
maintenance efforts make up Eugene's Pavement Preservation Program (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 have
important roles within the PPP.
PW Maintenance 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 are 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 prevent a street's OCI from slipping 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.
Treatment — Functional Class
Improved System
Overlay - FC 1 & 2
12'
Updated
II. cost
$215,000
Lane Mile Cost
pd2013
2012
$243,000
cost with
% inflation
$248,000
Overlay - FC 3 & 4
$184,000
$214,000
$218,000
Overlay - FC 5
$169,000
$195,000
$198,000
Re -Contt - FC I & 2
$765,000
$724,000
$738,000
Re -Contt - FC 3 & 4
$677,000
$679,000
$693,000
Re -Contt - FC 5
$505,000
$505,000
$515,000
Slurry Seal - FC 5
1 $19,000
1 $25,000
1 $26,000
11
The following graph identifies the trigger points (OCI) for each treatment based on Functional Class.
Sustainable Construction
Since 2008, Eugene has been in the 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 is a "green" 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 it is 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 and slowing the
aging process of asphalt. In Eugene, all asphalt producers have retrofitted their plants to produce
warm mix asphalt.
12
Council set goals in 2011 for waste reduction by requiring that the quantity of materials placed in
landfills be reduced. In addition to using WMA, Public Works conducted two pilot 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.
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 to 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 enhance their
paving mixtures including asphalt cement (or AC "binder ") and mineral aggregate. 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.
13
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 2012 rating period. The total estimated treatment cost backlog at the
end of 2012 is $100 million down from $118 million reported in 2011.
$120,000,000
$10C
$8C
$6C
$4C
$2C
Treatment Costs By Functional Class 2012 Year End
,000,000
1 000,000
,000,000
1 000,000
1 000,000
$0
Major Art
Minor Art
Coll
Neigh. Coll
Local
Total
■Slurry
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9,173,000
$9,173,000
■Overlay
$1,698,000
$5,859,000
$3,978,000
$3,598,000
$36,672,000
$51,805,000
❑Reconst
$4,645,000
$10,353,000
$10,568,000
$2,952,000
$10,622,000
$39,140,000
■Total
$6,343,000
$16,212,000
$14,546,000
$6,550,000
$56,467,000
$100,118,000
Historical and Projected Funding Outcomes
Using the PMS software, an analysis for a 10 -year period (2013 through 2022) has been completed
based on the current funding, including the 2012 bond measure. The PMS software evaluates the
deterioration of each segment based on individual OCI ratings. The software then projects when to
apply the necessary treatment at the proper time. When possible, the system applies a less expensive
treatment earlier in the degradation curve 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 (2002 to 2022). Each graph indicates the percentage 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 demonstrates the overall condition
of streets within that class. This is useful when deciding how to allocate funds in future years.
14
Arterial streets have been a major focus of the Pavement Preservation Program since 2002; as a result
the percentage of arterial streets within the reconstruct treatment range steadily declined from 2008 to
present and is projected to stabilize after 2014. This stabilization provides an opportunity for funding
to be allocated towards preservation (preventative maintenance) of the streets, a primary goal of the
pavement management system. Preventative treatments (including overlays) are far less expensive
and can extend the life of a street considerably. Additionally, further analysis of the arterial
classification shows a period of time where there is an opportunity to direct a large portion of
available funds to other street classifications for treatment.
15
Historical and Projected Funding Impacts to Arterial Streets
lac%
9a%
80%
_O
70%
60%
f
50%
s dip
40%
30%
•
o wes •
•
20%
■
•
• •
•
•
• • ••••.•..•■
•�
10%
•
•
••w
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
— —No Treatment Overlay • • • • Reconstruct
Arterial streets have been a major focus of the Pavement Preservation Program since 2002; as a result
the percentage of arterial streets within the reconstruct treatment range steadily declined from 2008 to
present and is projected to stabilize after 2014. This stabilization provides an opportunity for funding
to be allocated towards preservation (preventative maintenance) of the streets, a primary goal of the
pavement management system. Preventative treatments (including overlays) are far less expensive
and can extend the life of a street considerably. Additionally, further analysis of the arterial
classification shows a period of time where there is an opportunity to direct a large portion of
available funds to other street classifications for treatment.
15
Similar to arterial streets, reconstruction and overlay treatment needs have decreased since 2008 as a
result of completed and upcoming projects. As with arterial streets, further analysis has shown that a
majority of streets in the overlay treatment category are in the upper end of the OCI scale. Streets in
the upper range of the OCI scale have a number of years remaining before they are at risk of falling
into the reconstruct category. Once again, with more arterial and collector streets in the upper range
of the OCI scale, a portion of available funding can potentially be directed to the residential
classification where street repair needs continue to rise. Beginning in 2017, it is projected that streets
which have previously been treated will begin to show expected deterioration.
16
Historical and Projected Funding Impacts to Collector Streets
100%
90 %is
s
80% ...
♦.
70% -
60%
50%
4 /
40%
•••••!•�• !
30%
! •
•!,
•
20%
_ _ •
_.
!
•
!
10%
•
0%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2419 2020 2021 2022
i No Treatment
Overlay ....Reconstruct
Similar to arterial streets, reconstruction and overlay treatment needs have decreased since 2008 as a
result of completed and upcoming projects. As with arterial streets, further analysis has shown that a
majority of streets in the overlay treatment category are in the upper end of the OCI scale. Streets in
the upper range of the OCI scale have a number of years remaining before they are at risk of falling
into the reconstruct category. Once again, with more arterial and collector streets in the upper range
of the OCI scale, a portion of available funding can potentially be directed to the residential
classification where street repair needs continue to rise. Beginning in 2017, it is projected that streets
which have previously been treated will begin to show expected deterioration.
16
Residential (Local) streets make up 56% of the total street system backlog. To date residential streets
have not been adequately funded to keep them from deteriorating, therefore we see very little change
from the projections reported in 2012. The 2012 bond measure identifies approximately 15 centerline
miles for repair, less than 5% of the functional class. Although the percentage of streets within the
reconstruct range has increased gradually to date, it is projected to climb at a much faster rate in the
future, which reflects a street's lifecycle, aggravated by the lack of preventative treatment. The
percentage of streets within the overlay treatment range continues to increase as well. Reflectively,
the percentage of residential streets within the no- treatment range has been dropping and is projected
to continue so that by 2022 less than 40% of residential streets will require no treatment. In that same
time period, residential streets requiring reconstruction increases to more than 25% of the system.
17
Historical and projected Funding Impacts to Residential Streets
100%
90%
80%
•
60%
50%
40%
20%
10%
!
!!i!!��!lii
2002
2009 2004 Zoos 2006 2047 2003 2009 2410 2021 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Zan 2918 2019 2020 2021 2022
� � No Treatment Overlay • • • Reconstruct
Residential (Local) streets make up 56% of the total street system backlog. To date residential streets
have not been adequately funded to keep them from deteriorating, therefore we see very little change
from the projections reported in 2012. The 2012 bond measure identifies approximately 15 centerline
miles for repair, less than 5% of the functional class. Although the percentage of streets within the
reconstruct range has increased gradually to date, it is projected to climb at a much faster rate in the
future, which reflects a street's lifecycle, aggravated by the lack of preventative treatment. The
percentage of streets within the overlay treatment range continues to increase as well. Reflectively,
the percentage of residential streets within the no- treatment range has been dropping and is projected
to continue so that by 2022 less than 40% of residential streets will require no treatment. In that same
time period, residential streets requiring reconstruction increases to more than 25% of the system.
17
This graph of the combined arterial, collector and residential streets reflects the impacts to the overall
street system due to insufficient funding for residential street treatments as well as a treatment
strategy that includes reconstruction as well as overlay treatment. The percentage of streets needing
"no treatment" declines, while streets requiring a "reconstruct" treatment increases.
18
Historical and Projected Funding Impacts to Total System Streets
100%
F
90%
80%
4 ft
dop an
70%
_
do
60% -
50%
—
40%
30%
20%
— —
..
10%
• rrrrr r• r•
.. •� R _�,•
r
0%
2002 2003 2004 2665 2006 2007 2008 2609 2010 2611 2912 2013 2014 leis 2016 2617 2018 2619 2620 2621 2022
� i No Treatment Overlay • • • • Reconstruct
This graph of the combined arterial, collector and residential streets reflects the impacts to the overall
street system due to insufficient funding for residential street treatments as well as a treatment
strategy that includes reconstruction as well as overlay treatment. The percentage of streets needing
"no treatment" declines, while streets requiring a "reconstruct" treatment increases.
18
Unimproved Street System
The City's transportation system consists of 533 centerline miles of improved and unimproved
streets. The unimproved portion of this total includes 51 centerline miles (87 lane 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 2012 rating data of the unimproved streets system there is a backlog of temporary repair
projects, typically maintenance overlays, totaling an estimated $9.8 million, down from $11.3 million
reported in 2011. The following charts and graphs indicate that 45 percent of the system falls into a
no treatment category, up from 36 percent reported in 2011, due in large part to recent maintenance
overlay and FDR treatments completed over the past five years. More than 75 unimproved streets
have benefited from full or partial treatment since 2008. Thirty three percent of the system falls into
the "poor" category. Currently, Public Works Maintenance plans on spending $200,000 annually over
the next four years to address a portion of these streets.
2012 Unimproved Asphalt Street
Condition and Rehabilitation Report
(2012 Rating Data)
OCI
Lane
Miles
% of
System
Condition
Rehabilitation
Cost
Unit Cost /SQFT
0 -10
6.77
7.61%
Poor
$2,573,683
$6.00
1120
11.72
13.18%
Poor
$2,970,317
$4.00
21 -30
10.68
12.01%
Poor
$1,522,541
$2.25
31 -40
6.01
6.76%
Fair
$856,786
$2.25
41 -50
4.18
4.70%
Fair
$595,901
$2.25
51 -60
7.56
8.50%
Fair
$1,077,754
$2.25
61 -65
1.72
1.93%
Fair
$245,203
$2.25
66 -70
1.63
1.83%
Good
$0
$0.00
71 -80
2.63
2.95%
Good
$0
$0.00
81 -85
3.89
4.37%
Good
$0
$0.00
86 -90
4.75
5.33%
Excellent
$0
$0.00
91 -100
27.42
30.83%
Excellent
$0
$0.00
Total
Rehabilitation
$9,842,185
88.96
100.00%
* Unit cost based on
2010 estimated costs
19
The following graphs are a visual representation of the information provided on the preceding page.
of Unimproved Streets by Condition
45 °
40 36%
35 33%
30 26% 27% —
■ 2010
25 22% ■ 2011
20 2012
15 10%
°
10 6%
5
0 .
Poor Fair Good Excellent
Lane Miles of Unimproved by Condition
40.0 38
35 _
35.0 32
30.0 -- - ■ 2010
25.0 22 21 23 —. ■ 2011
20.0
2012
15.0
10.0 8
5.0
0.0
Poor Fair Good Excellent
20
Projected Funding for Pavement Preservation Program FY12 through FY18
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 City's local motor vehicle fuel tax ( "gas tax "), 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. In the
current economic environment, building permit activity continues to be low, reducing the level of this
funding stream. 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 million per year
In 2008, 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.
In 2012, voters approved a second $43 million bond measure dedicated to 76 street preservation
projects plus $516,000 annually to support bicycle and pedestrian projects. The measure will generate
approximately $8 million annually for FY14 through FY18.
With the funding identified approximately 112 lane miles of City streets and will be repaired. To date
approximately 3 miles of off - street shared -use paths have been repaired.
Projected Funding Sources Pavement Preservation Projects
FY12 - FY18
Fiscal Year Local Gas Tax SDC Bond
FY12 (actual) $3,045,192 $390,645 $7,140,000
FY13 (est.) $3,060,000 $136,600 $7,480,000
FY14 (est.) $3,060,000 $186,746 $7,840,000
FY15 (est.) $3,060,000 $186,746 $8,000,000
FY16 (est.) $3,060,000 $186,746 $8,290,000
FY17 (est) $3,060,000 $186,746 $8,590,000
FY18 (est) $3,060,000 $186,746 $8,900,000
Total
Other* Funding
$41,748 $10,617,585
$20,580 $10,697,180
$37,088 $11,123,834
$35,644 $11,282,390
$36,710 $11,573,456
$37,463 $11,874,209
$36,845 $12,183,591
* "Other" revenue includes investment interest, permit fees and other miscellaneous resources.
21
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 CenterLine, 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.
Streets are not prioritized on a "worst first" basis. Public Works' main objective is to keep street
segments from slipping into the reconstruction category, which typically costs four to five times more
per lane mile than rehabilitation. By rehabilitating (overlaying) a street before it significantly
deteriorates, 15 to 20 years of useful life can be added to a street at a substantial cost savings over
reconstruction. 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 community.
Subsequently, a 12- member citizen review panel was formed to document the use of the bond
proceeds. In 2011, 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.
Off - Street Shared -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 41 miles of shared -use paths identified in the Pavement Management
System. The complete system of shared -use paths was surveyed and rated in 201 fusing the new
rating methodology. With this updated information a future analysis will be performed to project the
condition and funding needs of this infrastructure. 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.
ON
The following graphs show the division of current surface types and widths within the system.
Off - Street Shared -Use Path Surface Type: Off - Street Shared -Use Path Existing Widths:
Asphalt, '.
36%
Concrete,
64%
Miles of Off - Street Shared -Use Paths by Condition
35.00 -
28.85
30.00 -
25.00
■ Poor 0 -50 OCI
20.00 ❑ Fair 51 -69 OCI
■ Good 70 -89 OCI
15.00 ■ Excellent 90 -100 OCI
10.00 8.25
5.00 4.23
1.48
11 1
0.00
23
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.
Name
Fiscal 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
West Bank Trail
2007
Transportation Enhancement (TE) Funds
Delta Ponds Bridge
2007
Various Federal 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
Project Funding Abbreviations
PBM — Paving Bond Measure
LGT — Local Gas Tax /SDC /Other
STP -U —Surface Transportation Funds -Urban (Federal)
TE — Transportation Enhancement (Federal)
24
Scheduled Street Projects for 2013
Project Name
Limits
Lane Miles
Funding
5TH AVE
High to Blair
3.35
PBM
5TH AVE
Hwy 99 to Bailey Hill
2.88
PBM
10TH AVE
Olive to Jefferson
1.04
PBM
18TH AVE
Washington to 330' East Of Chambers
2.67
PBM
ALDER ST
18th to 24th
0.93
PBM
BLAIR BLVD
2nd Ave to Monroe
1.74
PBM
BROADWAY W
Lincoln to Monroe
1.02
PBM
COBURG RD
County Farm Rd to Chad
1.99
PBM
COBURG RD
Beltline to Willakenzie Rd
2.54
LGT /FHWA
HILYARD ST
Broadway to E 13th Ave
1.00
LGT /PBM
LORANE HWY
Washington to Paige
1.78
LGT
OLIVE ST
W 10th Ave to W 13th Ave
0.61
PBM
VAN BUREN ST
Railroad Crossing to Blair Blvd
0.43
PBM
WILLAMETTE ST
W 19th Ave to South Of 24th Ave
1.18
PBM
25
The following map illustrates the Pavement Projects scheduled for 2013.
A.
X I
a� fill
_I
R � t
I
2113 Pavement Preservation Program
(Bond Measure, Local Gas Tax, Other)
Approximately 23 Lane Miles
I11 C
'►�," '
I � 1 IV it y
i
�RI•R� till
Aim
1 y
11 Hii
�2.
Legend
—2013 Repairs
Streets
Eugene UGE
Water Bodies
JW
J
26
The following map illustrates Pavement Preservation Projects since inception of the program.
Pavement P reservat ion Prog
(Bored Measure, Local Gas Tax, Other
2002-2012
Approximately 400 Lane Mies
s �
a
n
-
_ r
i
w
1
i f
Legend
CV- Slurry Seals
— Street Repairs
Streets
Eugene UGB
Water Bodies
– ,# ki
-
rd
f+r
'f
J
rag
f �p J�
27
The following map illustrates the Enhanced Street Repair Program 2008 -2012.
2 008 - Enhanced Street Repair Program
Appro ximately
"
r+
f .
�y. � +�a �ae '��x _�yy +�s.:.^�F
r�
Legend
Enhanced Pothole Program
Streets
Q; Eugene UGB
Water Bodies
NINE
n
r 7
a
28
Attachment B
Eugen Street Preservation Projects
... �. ��._ti_...�..�.._...j � a�wu ��. >r��'� t•� �� � crcr iww
.._ / f
49 '7} gy 4; p X47 W 52
i Win.. •� • V� vy, 5,� s0 .. or f �
a
A t i
«.. s a)' ...w.b.,.
4)
47
L o. 4 �
7 -
a
m..._ a......�. a 74 ,• 76
a
rn
Legend a
w
Go band Projects
City Streets
City Limits t
Eugene VG6 a ON os
P.uCwC @tl by 6�ry.# @l+gShE PUY @ng LiFd 74aM,JUM MttIRad+150614M1
See accompanying index for specific project information 1
%
s
PQ
1. 1..�..�..¢'•a.
*
..nw �.� .x..... ..p.a
...rw w.
�
^•,a n r.l ���i
... �. ��._ti_...�..�.._...j � a�wu ��. >r��'� t•� �� � crcr iww
.._ / f
49 '7} gy 4; p X47 W 52
i Win.. •� • V� vy, 5,� s0 .. or f �
a
A t i
«.. s a)' ...w.b.,.
4)
47
L o. 4 �
7 -
a
m..._ a......�. a 74 ,• 76
a
rn
Legend a
w
Go band Projects
City Streets
City Limits t
Eugene VG6 a ON os
P.uCwC @tl by 6�ry.# @l+gShE PUY @ng LiFd 74aM,JUM MttIRad+150614M1
See accompanying index for specific project information 1
%
s
PQ
Exhibit A
Project List for 2012 Bond Measure to Fix Streets
Map #
Street Name
Limits
1
01ST AVE
WASHINGTON ST- VAN BUREN ST
2
01ST AVE
BLAIR BLVD - WEST END
3
02ND AVE
BLAIR BLVD- GARFIELD ST
4
CSTH AVE
BERTELSEN RD - WEST END
5
06TH AVE
BERTELSEN RD- COMMERCIAL ST
Fi
07TH AVE
BERTELSEN RD - OSCAR ST
7
017TH PL
7TH AVE /HWY 99 - BAILEY HILL RD
8
13TH AVE
WASHINGTON ST- GARFIELD ST
9
13TH AVE
BERTELSEN RD- COMMERCE ST
10
15TH AVE
FAIRMOUNT BLVD - AGATE ST
11
17TH AVE
FAIRMOUINT BLVD - AGATE ST
12
19TH AVE
FILLMORE ST - CHAMBERS ST
13
22ND AVE
FRIENDLY ST - POLK ST
14
25TH AVE
HAWK INS LN - BRITTANY SF
13
27TH AVE
COLUMBIAST - SPRING BLVD
16
30TH AVE
SPRING OVERPASS - AGATE ST
17
30TH AVE
MI LLST(W EST) - FERRYST(EAST)
18
BOTH AVE
MILL ST - WILLAMETTE ST
19
39TH AVE
WILLAMETTE ST -100' EAST OF DENS MORE RD
20
40TH AVE
HILYARD ST - DONALD ST
21
43RD AVE
N SHASTA - DILLARD RD
22
AVALONST
ECHO HOLLOW RD - JUHL ST
23
BEST LN
WILLAKENZIE RD- KENTWOOD!DR
24
BRAE BURN DR
39TH AVE - WILLAMETTE ST
25
BROADWAY
MILL ST - PEARL ST
2£
BUFF WAY
WOODSIDE DR - FORRESTER WAY
27
CALVIN ST
WESTERN DR - HARLOW RD
2.8
CAPITAL DR
SPRING BLVD - 50' N OF CRESTA DE RUTA ST
29
CARMELAVE
MINDA DR - 40k0]' SQLJTH 0 F MINDA DR
30
CASCADE DR
AVALON ST- JUHL ST
31
CENTENNIAL LP
MILK, JR BLVD (EAST) - MLK, JR BLVD /CLUB RD
32
CITY VIEW ST
28TH AVE - 29TH AVE
33
COBURG RD
SS FERRY ST BRIDGE -50'S OF EWEB ON /OFF RAMP
34
COMMERCIAL ST
5TH AVE - SOUTH END
35
CORYDON ST
FO]RRESTER WAY - TANDY TURN
35
EAST AMAZON DR
HILYARD ST - DILLARD RD
37
ELIZABETH ST
KNOD P AVE - ROYAL AVE
38
FAIRFI ELD AVE
WS HWY 99 - ROYAL AVE
39
FILLMORE ST
19TH AVE - 24TH AVE
407
FIRLAND BLVD
SPRING BLVD - AGATE ST
41
FORRESTER WAY
CC BURG RD - WS DRWY 10733
42
GARFIELD ST
ROOSEVELT - 6TH AVE
43
GOODPA5TURE LOOP
GOODPASTURE IS RD (EAST INTERSECTION) - GOODPASTU RE IS RD
(WEST INTERSECTION)
44
INTERIOR ST
NORTH END OF CUL DE SAC - SOUTH END OF IMPROVED SECTION
30
Exhibit A
Map 4
Street Name
Limits
45
ION AVE
BEST LN - ADK INS ST
4G
JACOBS DR
HWY 99N - FAIRFIELID AVE
47
JEFFERSON 5T
8TH AVE- 18TH AVE
48
1UHLST
NSADDR 1424 -SOUTH END
49
K'NOOPAVE
ECHO HOLLOW RD- ELIZABETH ST
50
LARKSPUR AVE
NORKENZIE RD- 640 FEET WEST OF NORKENZIE RD
51
LARKSPUR LOOP
NORKENZIE RD (N) - NORKENZIE RD (S)
52
LEIGH ST
NORTH END - WESTERN DR
53
UNCOLN ST
5TH AVE -13TH AVE
54
LYDICK WAY
TOMAHAWK LN - HARLOW RD
55
MADISON ST
1ST AVE - 8TH AVE
56
MAHLON AVE
GARDEN WAY - HONEYSUCKLE LN
57
MILL ST
30TH AVE (NORTH) - 30TH AVE (SOUTH)
58
MONROE ST
1ST AVE - BLAIR BLVD
59
NORTH SHASTA LOOP
FIRLAND -43RD AVE
60
PIONEER CT
PIONEER PIKE - NORTH END
51
PIPER LN
CHASA ST - FIR ACRES DR (INCL CUL -DE -SAC)
62
POTTER ST
24TH AVE - 29TH AVE
63
ROLAND WAY
OAKWAY RD - CAL YOUNG RD
64
SATRE 5T
BAILEY LN - WESTERN DR
65
SHARON WAY
CO BURG RD - ES DRWY 1023
66
SPRING BLVD
FAIRMOUNT BLVD - CAPITAL DR
67
TIMBERLINE DR
WARREN ST- WINTERCREEK DR
68
TOMAHAWK LN
HARLOW RD -580° NORTH OF HARLOW RD
69
TULIP ST
CRESCENT AVE - HOLLY AVE
70
VAN NESS ST
23RD AVE - 27TH AVE
71
WASHINGTON ST
8TH AVE- 13TH AVE
72
WEST AMAZON ❑R
ES HILYARD - SS FOX HOLLOW
73
WESTERN DR
CALVIN ST- WEST END/MONROE MIDDLE SCHOOL
74
WILLAMETTE ST
24TH AVE - 29TH AVE
75
WILLAMETTE ST
10TH AVE - 13TH AVE
76
WOODSIDE DR
CAL YOUNG RD- SHARON WAY
31