HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-1001 Study Session Packet
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Monday, October 1,2007 at 5:15 p.m.
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
1. Look Ahead Review
2. Review of regular meeting agenda for October 2, 2007
3. Recommendations from Transportation Financing Taskforce
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in
this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (T7Y phone number
1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Stud Session - Trans ortation Financin Task Force Recommendations
Meeting Date: October 1, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown i
Department: Public Works / Engineering E-Mail: brownp@ash).and.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 30 minutes
Statement:
The Transportation Financing Task Force was identified and formed as a result of the November 21,
2006 and January 16, 2007 Council meetings. Early discussion identified that the concerns were much
broader than "just streets" and renamed themselves the "Transportation" Financing Task Force. From
March 20, 2007 to the end of August the group held meetings on average every three weeks to discuss
the City's transportation network (streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, transit, etc.) and developed a set of
recommendations to balance the limited available funds with the competing needs to maintain and
operate the City's transportation system. This item will provide a review of the Task Force's
discussions and a set of recommendations for Council's consideration with respect to the street
network funding.
Background:
There is significant competition for regional, state and federal transportation dollars. The required
expenditures to adequately maintain our street network system far outweigh the typical revenues the
City receives. This has created a sizeable backlog in maintenance projects. Developing a consistent,
long-term street/transportation funding plan to maintain and improve the transportation network must
be a priority. Currently the City's Street Fund is used to provide funds to not only maintain City
streets, but also to maintain landscaped center medians, downtown street landscaped areas, downtown
sidewalks, the City's portion of the Rogue Valley Transit District and also funds new street
improvements and other transportation capacity improvements. The Street Fund also includes the
Storm Drain Division which is a separate division within the Fund.
The Transportation Financing Task Force focused on the street network or pavement, curb, gutter,
bikelanes on streets (not separate bike paths) and sidewalks adjacent to streets (not trails or separate
walking paths). The group specifically did not discuss transit or boulevard maintenance costs other
than recognizing that those costs are in the Street Fund. The current transportation system project need
is based upon two primary elements; 1) maintaining the existing street network and 2) new
improvements or extensions to the existing system. Based on the current CIP list, the total existing and
new improvement costs provide a capital program of just under $20,000,000 for the next 6 years.
Some of these projects are funded with grants, or local improvement dollars, or with a portion of the
dedicated state gas tax funds. If those dedicated, non-City funding sources are reduced from the
overall equation, there is an average of a little over $2 million a year short fall or gap that must be
financed through different sources of new funding.
The Transportation Financing Task Force spent 5 months reviewing different aspects ofthe City's
transportation system, maintenance programs, street improvement needs, standards, funding
Page 1 of 25
G:pub-wrks\admin\PB Streets'Street Financing Task Force\CC FINAL 0 IOCT07.doe
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
mechanisms that are typically used, brainstormed "out of the box" funding streams, and ultimately
developed a list of recommendations for the City Council's consideration. These recommendations
and the basis for the recommendations are presented in the attached section "Transportation Financing
Task Force Report; Detailed Background and Recommendations" on the next several pages.
Staff / Task Force Recommendation:
The committee focused primarily on street surfaces, but discussed the importance of including other
elements of the transportation network. Identifying the funding gap within the current 2008-13 Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP) and the operations system became an important focus as the team was able
to quantify current known quantities, but future unknowns must also continue to be addressed. There
are several different funding options available and the Task Force will recommend looking at a variety
of elements to encourage program stability. As with most programs, there will be trade-offs and
priorities established by each Council, and the recommendation is that all elements of the
transportation system, not just the street network, have a reasonable level of prioritization for overall
community sustainability. Sidewalks, bicycle lanes, multi-use paths, transit, freight movements for
business, as well as the street network all have value and importance to our community.
The Transportation Financing Task Force recommends implementing all or some portion of each of the
following funding options:
1. Adjust SDCs with revised TSP and CIP; include both reimbursement and improvement rates
2. Implement other charges / fees as acceptable to Council
a. Partial food and beverage allocation to Street Fund (existing or with the increased base)
b. Regional gas tax (with Jackson County)
c. Local or regional vehicle registration
d. Increase business license fees for those with heavy vehicle/truck activities
e. Bicycle registration
3. Look at the option to use Transient Occupancy Tax fees to supplement tourism impacts for
boulevard and downtown landscape maintenance costs
4. Increase transportation utility fee to meet all or a portion of the debt service gaps
5. Challenge staff and citizens to identify behavior changes or incentives that will reduce the use
of automobiles and provide financial incentives to broaden alternative transportation strategies.
6. Explore offsets or the sale of "carbon credits."
In addition to looking strictly at funding objectives, the Task Force felt strongly in the importance of
the overall transportation system and helping to reduce the reliability in the traditional automobile use.
Some of the funding mechanisms that were recommended above allow focus and exploration on the
behavior changes and re-emphasize the Transportation Element: "... The focus must be on people being
able to move easily through the city in all modes of travel. Modal equity then is more than just a
phase. It is a planning concept that does not necessarily imply equal financial commitment or equal
percentage use of each mode, but rather ensures that we will have the opportunity to conveniently and
safely use the transportation mode of our choice, and allow us to move toward a less auto-dependent
community. "
Page 2 of 25
G:pub-wrks\admill'PB Streets\Street Fiwlllcing Task Force'CC FINAL 0 I OCT07.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
A realization for this Task Force was the importance of transportation planning and a focus on more
than just streets. The need to integrate transportation system needs with all aspects of the City's
growth and policy direction may be intuitive in hind sight but is an item that the Task Force wants to
highlight for future Council policy direction. Again, emphasizing the Transportation Element:
"Ashland has a vision - to retain our small-town character even while we grow. To achieve this
vision, we must proactively plan for a transportation system that is integrated into the community and
enhances Ashland's livability, character and natural environment. "
Although not specifically identified as an initial objective for this group, the Task Force feels there is a
need to clearly define where transportation planning belongs and where the authority lies as Ashland
continues to grow and plan for more complex transportation challenges. Perhaps the need to identify a
Transportation Commission with traffic safety and bike/pedestrian as sub-committees should be
evaluated over the next year.
Related City Policies:
FY 2007-08 Budget - including the CIP
Ashland Transportation System Plan (1998) [htto://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=102l0]
Ashland Comprehensive Plan - including Chapter X Transportation Element (December 17, 1996)
Ashland Community Values Statement
Council Options:
Council could do one of the following:
1. Accept the Transportation Financing Task Force Recommendations as written or with slight
modifications.
2. Recommend further review on Task Force recommendations and modify them during the
Council meeting.
3. Reject the recommendations as presented and send them back to the Task Force for further
review and modifications based on Council discussions from the meeting.
4. Accept the Task Force recommendations in concept, but request a separate study session or
council meeting for further Council review.
5. Take no action on the Task Force recommendations.
Potential Motions:
Council moves to ... [do one of the following]:
1. Accept the Transportation Financing Task Force recommendations as written.
2. Accept the Transportation Financing Task Force recommendations with the following
modifications ... [state specific modifications or have staff repeat the discussion].
3. Reject the recommendations as presented and send them back to the Task Force for further
review based on Council discussions from the meeting.
4. Accept the Task Force recommendations in concept, but request a separate study session or
council meeting for further Council review.
And Council further thanks the members of the Transportation Financing Task Force for their
dedication and time spent on developing the recommendations.
Page 3 of 25
G:pub-wrks\admill'PB Streels,Strect Financing Task Force'CC FINAL 0 IOeT07.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Attachments:
Transportation Financing Task Force Detailed Background and Recommendations
City of Ashland Pavement Management 2007 (presentation)
Additional Information:
Transportation Financing Task Force meeting agendas and minutes may be found on the City's web
site at: http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?CCBID=217
Task Force Members:
Russ Silbiger Council Liaison
Keith Massie Traffic Safety
Arlen Gregario Budget Committee
Don Laws Citizen Member
Pam Hammond Chamber Representative
Gary Mallicoat Fuel Station Representative
Pam Marsh Planning Commission Member
John Stromberg Citizen Member
(resigned mid way through the process due to Planning Commission requirements)
Staff: Paula Brown, Lee Tuneberg and Dawn Lamb
Page 4 of25
G:\puo-wrks\admiIlPB StrcctsStrect Fillallcillg Task Force\CC FINAL 0 IOCT07.doc
rj.1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Transportation Financing Task Force Report
Detailed Background and Recommendations:
Summary
Although the Transportation Financing Task Force focused primarily on street surfaces, they discussed
the importance of including other elements of the transportation network. The Task Force focused on
identifying the funding gap within the current 2008-13 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). They did not
analyze or quantify specific transit, bike or pedestrian needs which will be more fully addressed in the
Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update.
Understanding the operations system became an important element as the team quantified current
known quantities. Future unknowns must continue to be systematically addressed. There are several
different funding options available and the Task Force recommended looking at a variety of elements
to encourage program stability. As with most programs, there will be trade-offs and priorities
established by Council, and the recommendation is that all elements of the transportation system, not
just the street network, have a reasonable level of prioritization for overall community sustainability.
The Task Force felt strongly in the importance of enhancing the overall transportation system and
helping to reduce the reliability in the traditional automobile use. Ensuring that the transportation
system has a committed focus for sidewalks, bicycles, transit, business and freight movement, as well
as for automobiles should be a long-term priority for our community.
How this Analysis is Organized
The Transportation Financing Task Force was very methodical in their approach to the situation. They
initially evaluated how the streets are classified and how they are rated (the street maintenance levels
and overall condition index, OCI). The Task Force reviewed the general maintenance costs and when
maintenance was determined, how long it lasted, etc. They looked at capital projects, street system
recommendations (from the TSP), costs, priorities and funding sources. As this project continued, the
discussion of the correct OCI standard was a topic of further discussion. The discussion then focused
on revenue sources and gap amounts. Along with standard considerations, there were some unique
ideas for additional funding. There are three primary recommendations from the Task Force; 1)
revisions to the OCI, 2) evaluate a variety of funding programs, and 3) provide better information to
the community on their impacts and how to help. The Task Force's report and analysis is laid out
along the discussion lines as follows:
Current System
Current Transportation and Improvement Needs
Current Street Overall Condition Index (OCI) Standards
Unpaved Streets and New Improvements
Capital Improvements Plan and Defining the "Gap"
** Task Force Recommended Street Condition Index
Current Revenue Funding Mechanisms
** Recommended Revenue Funding
Who should pay? And how much should they pay?
** Recommend providing Additional Information for Community Members
Define property owner's responsibilities and helpful maintenance tips
Page 5 of25
G:\pub-wrks\admil1\PB StreetsStrect Financing Task Forcc-CC FINAL 0 I OCT07.doc
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Current Transportation Maintenance and Improvement Needs
The current transportation system project need is based upon two primary elements; 1) maintaining the
existing street network and 2) improvements to the existing system. The current street condition index
indicates a total of$5.3 million in pavement costs alone to bring the streets to acceptable conditions
which are currently defined as an overall condition index (OCI) average of 78. It is estimated that
unless these projects are funded over the next 5-10 years, costs will significantly increase as the
pavement condition worsens and fully deteriorates. Street maintenance requires a funding stream of
approximately $800,000 to $1,000,000 annually to adequately maintain street pavement.
Funding for unpaved streets and new improvements are an additional cost. Currently unpaved streets
are considered new improvements and are paid though a combination of grants, local improvement
districts and City street funds. In addition to street pavement, there are necessary improvements to the
railroad crossings, bikepaths and sidewalk systems that will require an additional $1,000,000 annually
for at least the next 5-10 plus years. Transit needs were not discussed beyond keeping at least current
requirements and looking at the future needs through the TSP and Transit specific evaluations.
Current Street Overall Condition Index (OCI) Standards
~ Current OCI for all streets in the system is 78 and 78 is the standard average the City uses.
1) There are 11 street segments that are at an OCI of 29 and below and the cost to improve
those segments is $4,687,000. Currently 4 of these street segments are in the CIP.
2) There are 47 street segments that are have an OCI between 30 - 49 and the cost to improve
those segments is $1,856,000. Five of these segments are alleys that are high volume
alleys, but not typically a priority for the CIP. Four segments are currently in the CIP.
3) There are 21 street segments that are at an OCI between 50 - 69 that have portions that
require reconstruction and overlay with a total estimated cost of$I,833,500. Five of the 21
segments are Iowa Street segments and partially included in the CIP. The CIP should be
adjusted for the entire street section at a cost of $585,000.
4) There are 50 street segments that range on from 50 - 69 with only an overlay required at an
estimated cost of$I,916,500.
5) There are 143 street segments that are at an OCI between 70 - 85 and the cost to maintain
these segments with crack-sealing, patching and slurry seals is $2,021,000.
6) There are over 340 street segments that are at an OCI of 86 and better and the cost to keep
them that way by performing minor crack sealing and minor maintenance is $643,000.
~ In summary, total estimates for current streets are as follows:
1) Failed: OCI of29 and below
2) Poor: OCI between 30 and 49
3) Fair (III major): OCI between 50 and 69
4) Fair (II routine): OCI between 50 and 69
5) Good: OCI between 70 and 85
6) Excellent: OCI of 86 and better
TOTAL
$4,687,000
$1,856,000
$1,833,500
$1,916,500
$2,021,000
$643.000
$12,957,000
major improvements (CIP)
minor improvements (CIP)
major maintenance (>2" pave)
routine maintenance (<2" pave)
routine maintenance
minor maintenance
Page 6 of 25
G:puo-wrksadmin"PB Streets Street Financing Task ForceCC FINAL 0 IOCT07,c1oc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Unpaved Streets and New Transportation Improvements
Ashland's current (W&H Pacific, May 1998) Transportation System Plan (TSP) has been the basis for
transportation projects and capital infrastructure improvements for the past 9 years. The Transportation
Element (December 17, 1996), Chapter X of the City's Comprehensive Plan, remains in effect. The
City is currently in the process of hiring a consultant team to update several sections of the TSP
including the existing conditions and constraints, recommendations for needed transportation system
improvements and develop a prioritized 20-year Capital Improvements Project (CIP) list. The focus is
on all transportation needs; streets, sidewalks, transit facilities (not routes for this particular update as
that will be addressed separately) and bike lanes/paths. The consultant will also provide rationale and
revised methodology for updating the City's Transportation SDCs and will discuss funding needs,
balance and the requirement for SDCs and fees.
New streets, bikelanes, transit links (sidewalks to transit locations), safety improvements, railroad
crossing improvements, signalizations and other major improvements are included in both the TSP and
the CIP (shown on the next page). These projects annually add an additional $1,000,000 plus.
As previously discussed, the need for complete transportation amenities to insure a safe and reliable
transportation network goes beyond any traditional thoughts of asphalt roads for vehicles. Although
the asphalt on streets is utilized by more than just the automobile user, asphalt is often associated with
cars only. In general the traditional street network is also used by the trucking industry to get goods to
and from delivery locations, used by cyclists for recreation and commutes, used by transit to provide
that alternative mode of transportation and in the absence of sidewalks is also used by pedestrians
(although hopefully not on boulevards and collectors). Overall, the entire transportation network
(streets, sidewalks, multi-use paths, transit, etc.) needs to be healthy for the whole system to function
well.
New Streets
The TSP and CIP reflect new street sections based upon two primary elements; 1) paving dirt or
otherwise unpaved streets through Local Improvement Districts (LIDs), and 2) new connections to the
street network due to new development, ancillary to new development or other capacity driven
expansions. The current CIP (copied on page 9 of this document) shows four projects for new streets.
For most of these, there are grants, loans or combinations of additional funds that allow for the
improvements. The LIDs are more than just pavement projects to pave unpaved streets - they also
provide sidewalk(s), drainage and other ancillary improvements. All LIDs are funded at least in part
by the adjacent property owners; generally over 60% of the project costs are funded by City.
Bike Lanes and Bike Paths
A separate striped bike lane is required for all new avenues (arterials) and boulevards. The City has
been fortunate to add bike lanes on several existing avenues and boulevards. Bike paths (or multi-use
paths) and bike lanes are also included in the CIP. The current CIP includes two specific bike path
projects identified for the next 6 years, yet there are other projects that will also have bike lane features
(ie; Downtown Plan and the majority of all of the "new" street projects also have bike lane
components). When the TSP was developed in 1998, there were limited bike facilities on boulevard
and collector streets. Since then, there are added bike lanes on Siskiyou, N. Mountain Ave, Tolman
Page 7 of 25
G:puo-wrks'admin\PB Streets',street Finaneing Task Force'CC FIN AL 0 I OCT07 .doe
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Creek Road, portions of Ashland Street, portions of E. Main Street; the Greenway Bikepath was
extended from the Dog Park to Valley View Road, the multi-use path from North Mountain Park to
Munson, and the bikepath along the railroad from 8th to Shamrock were also completed. That said,
there are still significant portions of Ashland that are not "bike friendly" and will require attention for
bike amenities. The downtown couplet, North Main Street (north of downtown) need bike lanes, and
there were several separate bike paths identified in the 1998 TSP for areas along the railroad, school
route connections and park areas. The estimate in 1998 was an additional $3M - which translates to
approximately $4.5M today. All ofthe bike lanes and separate bike paths will be reviewed with the
2007 TSP Update. A rough estimate for bike path construction is $120/ linear foot (10 foot path) for
bike paths without significant right of way costs.
Sidewalks
The City's current CIP includes six separate sidewalk projects plus a line item for concrete safety items
which includes repairs to some existing sidewalks in the downtown core (as well as curbs, gutters and
some handicapped ramps). As stated previously, all LIDs have a sidewalk element as well and there
are seven additional LID projects listed in the CIP. Sidewalk projects cost approximately $8.50 /
square foot. This equates to $51.00/ linear foot for standard 6 foot wide sidewalk or $42.50 / linear
foot for a 5 foot wide sidewalk. The City's CIP shows $150,000 per year for sidewalk projects which
equates to approximately 2,940 feet a year (a little over half a mile of 6 foot wide sidewalk). The TSP
identified approximately 23.5 miles of stand alone (not related to street projects) sidewalk needs in
1998 at an estimated cost of over $3 million. It is estimated that the City has added roughly 9.5 miles
of sidewalk added since 1997, leaving 14 miles of sidewalk remaining. Priority projects were
identified as sidewalks along school routes, transit routes and sections of "missing links" and the
majority of those initial priority projects have been completed through grants, LIDs and City funds.
The City's standards vary for sidewalks from 5-6 feet in neighborhood residential streets to 6-12 feet
on arterials and collectors. Along with sidewalks, the City will install handicapped ADA ramps at
comers (approximately $1,000 per comer) to allow full access for those with less than full mobility
and enable access to transit stops. The TSP update will address new sidewalk needs. Sidewalk
projects are typically funded by a combination of City funds, some grant funds, and LIDs.
Safety Items; Railroad Crossings, Signalization, etc.
Infrastructure needs for safety improvements typically focus on intersection redesign / reconfiguration
and may include signalization or other traffic control measures. The City has several safety concerns
with railroad crossings that are currently in the design phase and on the CIP, however not all the
funding has been identified. In addition to the railroad crossings, the Wimer / Hersey realignment at
N. Main Street is also listed on the CIP for ODOT grant funds as it is part of the ODOT road system,
but those funds have not been allocated by ODOT. Typically, funding for these safety projects is
either through grants or City funds.
Page 8 of 25
G:\puo-wrks'admill'PB Streels\Slreel Finalleing Task Force\CC FINAL 0 IOCT07.doe
~~,
CITY OF
1~SHLAND
Capital Impl"Ovements Plan
2007-2013 Construction Years
Proj.ct authoriz<'d FY06 13
Dpscription 2006 07 2007 08 2008 09 200!HO 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 TOTAL Cost
TranS'P~rtat1on -------------- T FY07 oath 1_ FYO~ ~~~-10 FYll FYl2 c---!Y13 Project To!~
~us She.hers for High School (Si:-t-iyou lfi; Beach/~Jorse) in house 3-~- SO
North Ashland Bikewav Ph 11; Central A>hland Bikewav $155,.0.0.0'- .--- -- - - - -----s.lDD,DOD ----s.i5D,DDD - -- - - $85.0,.0.0.0
]{epave/rebuild B Street - Oak Street to 5th Street per PMS STPii\1PO_ __..__ _ _ __ --.!!lIc".Ollfl I _~25,o.QO
-.- -=+=-- --
Repave/rebuild A Street - Oak Street to 1st Street per PMS $[ P,MPO . $3.0,.0.0.0 ~911.III)O - .-- -._- _$315,o..QQ
~ve/reb_uild Granite Street - Nutley to Pio~eer S~!=et per Pl\IS __ L------_ ~50.000 -- $37.0,.0.0.0
Pavelrebuild - C & Eureka; (CMAQ-Congestion Miti.ation Air Quality) $185,.0.0.0 $100..0.00 $1.0.0,.0.0.0
Railroad Crossing bup; E. Main (.07) $74.0,.0.00 $130,.0.00 $450,0.0.0 $63.0,.0.0.0
Railroad Crossing bup; Hersey & Laurel (.08/.09) $20,00.0 $75.0,0.0.0 $75.0,000 $1,53.0,0.0.0
Railroad Crossing Imp; Oak & Walker (11) 1- SI.201l.000 $1,250,.0.0.0
IeITmon Street Extension Project (Brammo - OECDD) $9.0.0,.0.0.0 $600..0.00 $9.0.0,.0.0.0
Park and Ride Creation $25.0,0.0.0 S3D,000 $3.0,.0.0.0
Hersey Street PedestrianlSatety Improvements I $15.0..000 $15.0,.0.0.0
Miscellaneous Concrete Safety Repairs $15.0,.0.0.0 $I .0.0,.00.0 SIDD,ODD $1.0.0,.00.0 $1.0.0,.0.0.0 $1.0.0,.0.00 $1.0.0,.0.00 S675,DDO
Mise New Sidewalk Imorovements (bao;ed on nrioritized list in TSP) S8D.DOO SI50,DDO $15.0,.0.00 S 15.0,.0.00 $150,.0.00 $68.0 .oDD
RepaveIRebnild Allison Street per PMS STP 1M PO $35,.0.0.0 $2011.111111 $285,.0.0.0
Beaver Slide Pedestrian Improvements $70 OM $ 7.0,.0.0.0
Repave Iowa Street PMS - $140.000 Bump upl o $585,1100 ::> $14.0,0.0.0
f-!tebuild/Pave N Mountain; E.Main ~o Hersey _._ S450.000 $45.0,.0.00
I-~' Main.Street & Wimer Street Intersection S~ety Improvements - $750,.000 $75.0,.0.0.0
RepaveIRebnild Oak Street - L~hia Way to Railroad Tracks per PMS $280,.000 $28.0,.0.0.0
Bike p<th Improvement on N Main section S50.DOO $6.00.00.0 $65.0,.0.0.0
.-!larrison St (Siskiyou to Iowa to Euclid) PMS; STP'1\lPO -_.~- $25,.000 $1~1I,1I110 S2D5,DDO
RepaveIRebuild Normal Ave - Ashland St to Siskiyou Blvd perPMS $190,000 $19.0,.0.0.0
Signal Installation at Tohnan Creek Road & Siskiyou Boulevard $25.0,.0.00 $25.0,.0.0.0
Repave Taylor Street per Pl\fS $100,000 $1.0.0,0.0.0
Downtown Plan Phase II $'50.00.0 $750.000 $1.5.0.0,.0.0.0
Signal In&allation at Oak Street & Hersey Street I I $3.0.0,.0.00 $3.0.0,.0.0.0
I--~treet Improvementsipavem...t per PMS (goal i.o; $250,ODD/y.....) I - $250,000 $250,000 S5DD,DDD
Nevada Street Extension & Bridge Canst, Bea- Creek to Mountain Ave $1,500,000 $1,800,000 $3,3.0.0,.0.0.0
Subtotal Tnmsportodon $2,410,000 I $1,420,000 $2,830,000 $2,855,000 $3,~20,000 $3,050,000 $2,300,000 $16,875,000
Locallmnrovement Districts
Noe: Costsstll'WnaretDlalprojl'Jrtcosts,Otyportlonvarlos (avJ.CiIo,..) FY07 anth FYD8 FY09 FYlO FYll FYI2 FY13 Project Totals
-- i
Sidewalk - Nevada Street; TSP school routes some SD
Pavement nlus; Sheridan Street & Schofield Street Loca1lmnrovement Distri $3.0.0 .oDD $387,.0.0.0 $437 .oDD
Pavement olus; Plaza Avenue Local Improvement District $35,.0.0.0 $275,.0.0.0 $275,.0.0.0
Pavement plus; Unoer Beach Street $6.0,.0.0.0 $4.0.0..0.0.0 $46.0,.0.0.0
r-Sidewalk - Lanrel Street; Hersey to Randy $36.0..000 $36.0,.00.0
Pavement DruS; Libertv Street Local Improvement District $24.0.0.0.0 $24.0,.0.0.0
Pavement olus; Clay Street Local Improvement District S5DO,00D $5.0.0,0.001 SI,DDD,DDD
Miscellaneous Loca1lmprovement Districts $20.0,.0.0.0 $2.0.0,.0.0.0 $4.0.0,.0.0.0
Pavement plus; Waterline Road Local Improvement District I $400,.0.00 $4.0.0,.0.0.0
Snbtotal Locallmnrovemenl District< $335,0.00 $807,000 $915,000 $500,000 $500,000 I $200,000 $600,0.00 $3,572,00.0
Total existing and new improvement costs provide a capital program of just under $20,000,000 for the
next 6 years. Some of these projects are funded with grants, or local improvement dollars, or with a
portion of the dedicated state gas tax funds, If those dedicated, non-City funding sources are removed,
there is an average of a little over $2 million a year short fall or gap that must be financed through
different sources of new funding,
Page 9 of 25
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
TaskForce Recommended Revisions to the Street Condition Index
The Task Force spent a significant amount of time discussing the Overall Condition Index, how it is
developed, the skew that an average allows, street functions and utilization / classification, impacts of
failed streets and how to make a fair recommendation. The following recommendations were
developed:
~ Boulevards / Arterials (average 75; minimum 60)
The rationale for the minor decrease in average OCI is based on the improvement curve from the street
crew (see below and attached presentation on City of Ashland Pavement Management 2007). 'The
pavement begins it's degradation without the ability to improve with routine maintenance at 65.
Pavement is in the "good" range when it is between 70 and 85. Maintaining all boulevards at 75 with a
minimum level at 60 would ensure the majority are in the "good" to "excellent" range. Setting the
minimum at 60 allows the distress to be caught and fixed before becoming a load bearing concern.
~ Avenues / Collectors (average 70; minimum 60) see discussion above
~ Neighborhood streets (average 60; desired minimum 30)
The desired minimum is 30, but falling below that might be acceptable in some circumstances. Below
30 indicates that the street has failed and other than a full dig out and replacement, there is no other
maintenance option. The Task Force is recommending that no streets be in the failed category due to
significant cost of replacement and the increased safety risk due to failed pavement.
~ In general, it is recommended that no street segments be allowed to fall below 30 as that
requires a complete dig out and full replacement to bring the street segment back to an
acceptable rating. This does not include currently unpaved or unimproved streets.
~ It is recommended the City's Boulevard and Avenues not be allowed to fall below 60. Once
they fall below 60, a plan should be developed for improvements during the next budget cycle.
86-1 00
. ..__.____w~_m_mmw^
Excellent
,Crack Seal
,.......Ipaichlng
T)'!)lcal Maintenance
ReD_If leoatluntt\
Feasible Repair Types
L_(~~~.".
PCI Condition:
" " _ Group _: Group
i'~<c<~":'~~"::'"""':::-;;;:~'~-
_._..._.._._~....__."_...__.,.:::;:;~""",",.,.,"",l,.",,,,,."..".,.,..."...........w..._.....,....
I : Pavemen~ with little
, or no dlstre'ts~. .
($1.40) If If = linear foot
~""(j~:~I!(1 "."..~:f~~.":~q~~~f_~-f~~f~-~
5 y = 5 quare yard
70--85
Good
143
50-69
Fair
71
3049
4' Poor
"
11 0-29
Failed
II
III
,.........................................................."..'....,........... ..--~.........-.... ..........................,....".... .."...,
i Pay eme nts with slgnlficll{rt
'dlstre ss, nonload related. '~ .
Pay eme nts with significant \ .
dlatre SS, load related.
PlItchlng"40% drop in quality
iT)'!)e III slurry Seal ($1.60) sy lin the first 75% of life
Overlays <2" ($8.51) sy Iwould an avg
lof $450/syto fix
See also the attached
2007 Pavement
Management
presentation for more
detail and explanation
on the OCI and street
system repairs.
IV
i Paveme nts with major
1 dlstre 88.
Ovei'llly>2" {$12.76} s~
'40% drop in the
Reconstru~i~~;fi:s~~~\ .
. $17.00) sY,
v
Pavements with extensive
.amount~_~! major dlstre.s~:.
6
9
12
15
20
25
Page 10 of25
G:'pub-wrks,adminPB Streets\Street Financing Task Foret"CC FINAL 0 I OCT07.do(
~~,
z
0
~ 0::
Uj:l::l ~ ~
SO () ()
CI:lt:) w w
l'~ ~ ..J ..J
..J ..J
..J 0 0
=....:l U <( () ()
=U ~ 0:: 0:: 0::
N= W 0 0
~ ~ Z
~~ <( :::: ::::
~~
~
~
U
Map of Overall Necessary Repairs, Types and Cost
~i
.r-
~
Q) ~
~
't:
~ ..... 0) co
~ Q) N ..... .......
~ 1:) ~ N cO cO
2 ~ 't: a; ....... co
~ 'ti) Q) IO~ co
> E-4 <<> ~
c -B 0 .....
co 10 ('t)
Ii 8 2 c ~ co co~ 0)
Q) CiS i5E ~ ..... N
.i 0:: ~ ~
I I 1;.: I I
Q
)1 CJ
Page 11 of25
G:\pub-wrks\admiIlPB Slreels\Slreet Financing Task Forcc\CC FIN AL 0 I OCT07 .doc
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Current Revenue Funding Mechanisms
Current revenue funding for the street fund includes State gasoline taxes, franchise fees (paid from the
water and wastewater enterprise funds and from cable television service providers), systems
development charges (SDCs are currently in the process of being updated along with the TSP project
list), the City's transportation utility fee, Local Improvement District fees for specific projects, as well
as some State and Federal Transportation Program grant funds for applicable projects. There are also a
handful of smaller grant loan programs that the City has used or applied for in the past including
Special Public Works Funds, Safety and other program funds.
The following are revenue streams that the City has used in the past:
1) State Gas Tax - consistent source of funding and provides approximately $1,100,000 annually
which is split between maintenance ($860,000) and capital ($240,000).
2) ODOT Funding programs (competitive funding programs - no guarantees)
a) ODOT Access Management Grant; Ashland Street where we were able to reduce the
number of driveways and conflicts on the State's system and we took Jurisdictional
Transfer/Exchange where the City received long term maintenance funds as estimated by
ODOT for accepting the street as a City street.
b) ODOT STIP Modernization Funds (projects funded as a reimbursement grant to the
City); Siskiyou Blvd - included ODOT Jurisdictional Exchangeffransfer (City received
long term maintenance funds from ODOT for accepting the street as a City street).
c) ODOT STIP Preservation Funds (projects completed by ODOT); E.Main Street,
Siskiyou Blvd from Walker south to 1-5.
d) Fund Exchange; City makes use of the fund exchange program routinely so that the City
can contract directly for construction projects that are in our TSP and in the Rogue Valley
Metropolitan Planning Organization's Regional Transportation Plan (RVMPO RTP).
Typically this is a way to use city contracting and acquisition rules and avoids the lengthy
process of going directly through the state for processing. The City did this for Union
Street, Sherman Street, and many others. It is likely we will use the fund exchange for the
2007 Street Projects (A Street, etc.). The City receives the funds with a 6% discount. The
State reimburses us for approved contracted work.
e) TE - Transportation Enhancement; actually administered by ODOT but is a federal
program which has funded bikepaths, sidewalks and may help fund railroad projects.
f) Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Program; typically designed to put in sidewalks or bike
lanes in built out sections of cities and is smaller than the TE program. The City has been
aggressive and has received several grants utilizing the Bike and Pedestrian funds. The
sidewalks on Oak Street, Downtown bump outs, and other projects have been funded
through this grant program.
g) CMAQ - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality; also administered by ODOT but a
federal program for grants to improve air quality; can be applied to paving unpaved streets,
purchase of street sweepers, diesel retrofit, etc.
Page 12 of25
G:plIb-wrksadmin\PB Strcets\Street Financing Task ForceCC FINAL 0 I OCT07.do(
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
h) STP - State Transportation Program Funds; prior to 2003, the City received a direct
allotment of funds from the state. Once the City was required to be a part of the MPO, this
automatic funding Source was replaced with a competitive process within the MPO
prioritization. The City negotiated a 7 year authorization for projects that had been
previously approved and in the process for STP funds. This has funded a significant
portion of the Water Street Bridge project, Union Street and Sherman Street, and is slated to
fund a portion of A Street and B Street.
i) SPWF - Special Public Works Funds; to extend infrastructure for economic development
benefits and is currently being used for the Jefferson Street Extension (Brammo)
j) IOF - Immediate Opportunity Funds (ODOT and OECDD); tied directly to economic
development, not speculations; will provide street or road improvements
3) City Funding streams
a) Fees - Transportation / Street User Fees; Currently the FY2007-08 budget anticipates
revenues of$I,130,500 as a result of the 15% raise in Transportation User Fees. Instead of
anticipating only a 2% cost of business increase. An additional 3% increase (5% total)
would boost the revenue by $56,500 annually.
b) SDCs - Transportation Systems Development Charges (SDCs); charged to developers for
new construction. Currently the City only has a new improvement SDC and does not
account for reimbursements from prior improvements. This will be evaluated with the TSP
and SDC Update beginning in September 2007.
c) LIDs - Local Improvement District charges (currently based on Resolution 99-09)
Budget Figures
STREET FUND - Operations 2007 2007 2008
2004 2005 2006 Adopted Prelim ReVised 2009 2010 2011 2012
#260 Actual Actual Actual Budget Actual Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection
Revenues
Taxes (local) 234,496 224,250 264,072 250,000 206,462 225,000 229,500 234,100 238,800 238,800
Intergovernmental
Revenue 916,554 1,028,132 1,006,267 1,530,566 989,809 860,??oo 877,200 894,700 904,900 922,600
Intergovernmental
Grants 366,549
Storm Drain Fees 291,325 311,193 326,992 634,000 347,816 503,200 562,400 607,400 656,700 708,500
Transportation
Fees 873,886 933,641 970,123 1,092,500 1,037,112 1;130,500 1,306,900 1,411,500 1,524,400 1,646,400
Mise Service 42,317 38,143 1,449 40,000 10,615 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Interest on Invest 20,959 21,022 50,259 40,000 80,760 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Mise Revenues 399 2,582 14,930 5,000 138,169 25,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Interfund Loan 270,000
Total Revenues 2,379,936 2,868,963 2,634,092 3,592,066 3,177,292 2,803,700 2,948,000 3,005,500 3,064,300 3,064,300
Actual % of Final
But/yet 92% 93% 78% 88%
Page 13 of25
G:\puo-wrks\admill,PB Strcets\Street Fillalleillg Task Force'CC FINAL 0 IOCT07,doc
r.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Recommended Revenue Funding
As one would expect, the Transportation Financing Task Force discussed costs based on system use.
The underlying agreement was those that use the road system more, should pay more for that use.
There was no real issue with the current system of City revenues and all agreed that transportation user
fees, SDCs and LIDs should continue, but they should also be reviewed for increases. There were
some additional opportunities that are discussed below.
1) Who should pay?
a) Those who use the most, should pay the most
i) Automobile / Vehicle Users
ii) Truck Drivers (heavier - more road damage)
iii) Local Delivery Trucks
(1) define truck routes and increase the pavement to withstand the wear and tear
(2) can we limit truck traffic on some streets (not allow?)
iv) Bicyclists (registration fees) - need to keep bikelanes clean and user friendly
v) Community in general- use of sidewalks, local streets, etc
vi) Schools (with the increase in parents who drive their children to and from school should
parents pay more for the increased use of the streets?; can there be incentives so that there
are less driving trips to school?)
vii) Visitors (glad to have visitors but they should share a portion of the costs - especially with
the Boulevard Maintenance and downtown landscaping being funded from the Street Fund)
viii) Developers (see the discussion in SDCs)
b) Fees and other revenue collection sources should be related to fuel use, miles driven, or
something similar, not taxes or utility bills; and where possible, adjusted for impact.
c) Revenue Generating Ideas:
i) Local Gas Tax (in Ashland, there are 9 gas stations including 3 that are locally owned, 4
franchises and 2 card lock stations). Although a local (Ashland) gas tax was discussed,
there was general consensus that a purely local gas tax is probably not the way to go as it
might promote buying gas just outside City limits especially at exit 19. It would be another
"Ashland Only" fee. It is estimated that 1.2 million gallons of gas is sold each month in
Ashland. As such, a l~gas tax would generate $144,000 annually.
Tigard - a quick side note, the City of Tigard enacted a 3~ local gas tax as of April 1, 2007
as a result of a citizen task force recommendation to specifically raise funds for one specific
project. The tax will be collected until $SM is raised or December 31,2011, whichever
Page 14 of25
G:pub-wrksadmin,PB Streel,,streel Financing Task Foree\CC FINAL 0 IOCT07.do(
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
comes sooner. Tigard entered into an agreement with ODOT to collect the tax. Local
communities can enact up to a 4t gas tax without additional legislation. Often local gas
taxes are raised for specific project purposes and have finite time limits. Currently the
average local gas tax is 2.4t
ii) County Gas Tax. Realizing that there is benefit from a mandatory gas tax as part of the
solution to a long term funding, a better or more palatable solution is in supporting a
regional or county gas tax. This decision would have to gain support from other Jackson
(and maybe Josephine) County communities, but all would benefit in developing a revenue
source for long term maintenance. For Ashland, a 5tgas tax would generate approximately
$720,000.
iii) Increasing the State Gas Tax. The Governor has made transportation a top issue to
resolve in the 2008/2009 term. The Oregon Transportation Commission is looking for
funding options and may potentially advocate for a state gas tax. If this is in place, ODOT
would take a portion right off the top for ODOT's transportation needs, then distribute the
remainder back to Cities and Counties. This would not be as beneficial as the direct return
from local or County gas taxes, but may be the best overall solution to transportation
deficits.
iv) County Vehicle Registration Fee. Another thought is to look at a county wide vehicle
registration fee based on the size (weight) of the vehicle. The nexus is that the heavier the
vehicle, the more stress on the road network.
v) Local (Ashland) Vehicle Registration. The thought is to gain revenue from the multiple
vehicle household that is paying the same in street user fees, but has more impact due to the
number of vehicles.
vi) Bicycle Registration Fees could be used to help off-set some of the additional costs for
bikelane maintenance. There were questions as to the practicality and cost to administer
such a fee.
vii) Business Licenses. Similar to the registration fees, local business licenses could be based
on the type of business (SIC coding) and charge more for business use, delivery type
businesses, etc. Some significant impacting vehicles are from outside of Ashland and may
be problematic for collecting business license fees. There may be additional impacts to
local businesses as a result.
viii) Revenue Bonds (will need a stable and defined revenue stream to pledge for repayment)
ix) Franchise Fees: Currently only water, wastewater and telecommunications utilities pay
franchise fees for the road impact (trenching). As electric lines start to go underground,
should the electric utility contribute their "fair share" and if so, since all of the electric
franchise fees currently go to the General Fund, how will that be impacted?
x) Payroll tax; This funding mechanism is somewhat of an unknown. The State administers
this and takes 10% administrative fee. There may be other constraints as well.
Page IS of25
G:pub-wrks\admin\PB Streets\Strect Financing Task Forcc,CC Fl N AL 0 I OCT07 ,doc
r.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
xi) SDC: four different ideas came up:
(1) Increase the SDC to fully cover the impacts to future development; although this is the
plan, the CIP needs to include a full listing of projects that are capacity driven for the
next 20 years. With the update to the TSP this can provide an equitable and appropriate
increase for future capacity to accommodate growth and increases in level of
performance (generally the improvement fee portion of the SDC).
(2) Evaluate a reimbursement SDC; reimbursement fees considers the cost of existing
facilities, prior contributions from existing users, and the value of unused capacity. The
objective of the reimbursement fee is that future system users contribute no more than
an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities.
(3) Charge developers for temporary construction use for the increased truck traffic on
surrounding streets during development/construction.
(4) Investigate having hillside developments pay more for the long-term maintenance of
hillside streets (storm water, deicing, snow removal, etc).
xii) Transportation / Street User Fees:
(1) Increase revenues with a second year of a 15% raise in Transportation User Fees.
(2) Base the Transportation Utility Fee on the distance people drive from the center of town
(ie: the cost would be based on the miles from Siskiyou Boulevard)
xiii) Local Improvement Districts are an appropriate source of funding for local streets. The
Task Force recommends continued use of LIDs, especially with local streets. The correct
proportional share that the residents versus the City pays for each portion of the street
improvement was not discussed although there was a desire in looking at the residential
share increasing. This will be evaluated with Council's LID review process.
xiv) Food and Beverage fees (sunsets at 2010); two items came up with this discussion:
(1) Using a portion of the food and beverage tax for street improvements (perhaps limiting
to new sidewalks or other specific use, or using this to fund the Boulevard Maintenance
/ Landscaping that is currently funded through the Street Fund)
(2) Add additional items (snack food and canned beverages) to the required food and
beverage tax and provide a percentage for transportation improvements. Right now
canned soda, bottled water and pre-packaged snack foods are not included in the food
and beverage tax, but are often sold at restaurants (and gas stations).
xv) Parking fees and parking lot charges (permits, monthly charges, parking lots); generally
charging for parking is considered "okay" by most businesses, but there should be a way to
gain revenue from longer term parking and not penalize short term (1-2 hour) parking.
Several issues will come up with parking fee structures including;
Page 16 of25
G:'pub-wrks\admil1'PB Streets\Street Financing Task Force{~C FINAL 0 IOCT07.du<:
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
(1) Winter vs summer rates
(2) Use of parking fees in the Plaza
(3) Hargadine Parking Lot for businesses or local residents vs tourists
(4) College and hotel parking lots and their impacts vs the common home use
xvi) Parking tickets provide an additional revenue source but are not popular.
xvii)Tax Increment Financing (TIF) was an item that the task force did not specifically
discuss, but could be an option for gaining revenue basis for specifically identifiable areas.
Revenue from property taxes, based upon increases that are added to a fixed tax base, are
then attributable to transportation improvements. TIF can be used to secure bonds. Oregon
allows for tax increment financing as a result of state constitutional amendment in the
1950s. Current Oregon law, Urban Renewal Law- ORS 457, allows TIF districts to be
established, up to 15% of the total land area. Typically the areas are reserved for Urban
Renewal Districts
Page 17 of25
G:\pub-wrks\admiuPB Streets-Street Financing Task Force-CC FINAL 0 IOCT07.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Solving the $2M Question - Balancing Funding Needs and Revenue Generation
As previously discussed, the Street Fund includes transportation, storm drain and boulevard
maintenance activities. The scenarios identified below include all current activities but the focus is
transportation. At this point there is insufficient revenue to pay for annual street operations. Recent
fee increases have improved the ratio but more transportation revenues are needed. Potential
adjustments are reflected in this report but the Storm Drain utility will have to be addressed separately.
As long as both utilities remain in the Street Fund there will be some sharing back and forth.
Scenarios Identified:
Budget Adopted: This is what was included in the budget... basically the adopted budget with known
projections as oflate Spring 2007. This was staffs first attempt to present the Street Fund and
Transportation costs segregated so that the reader could get a feel on operational activities separate
from capital project activities. Consistent with the rest of the budget, projected costs were held at 5%
Personal Services (staff) increases and 2% for all Materials & Services. Project costs were as included
in the CIP and Revenues had limited increases and growth, based upon anticipated rate increases as
budgeted for 2006-2007.
Budget Revised: In this scenario staff adjusts the numbers as they would have done in the budget
process had staffknown then how the end of the year would look (project completions, spending, etc.).
Revised budget figures include borrowing as it probably should occur, all things being equal. No
attempt is made to reduce projects or levels of maintenance, increase rates, adjust SDCs, etc.
No Debt: This scenario is done to provide a sense of the "gap" that needs to be addressed. It works as
a control to show what would happen if Ashland did the projects in the CIP with no borrowing.
Essentially, this scenario shows how soon the City is out of money. It allows the existing rate revenue
to grow and falsely shows operational fund balances doing the same but capital fund balances going
negative immediately. Within two years the operational fund balance cannot make up for the capital
fund balance loss.
Loans/Rates/SDCs: The final scenario attempts to show the other end of the spectrum. . . what could be
required to meet the CIP as it was presented in the budget with more conservative estimates on
personnel and operational costs. This scenario presents the gap solution when compared to the "No
Debt" scenario. If no other resources are identified AND no projects or service levels are reduced,
what rate and SDC increases would be needed over the next 5 years.
Page 18 of25
G:pub-wrksadmin'PB Streets\Strcct Financing Task Forcc'CC FINAL 0 IOCT07.dol'
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The following tables compare the scenarios
Street Fund Street Fund Street Fund Street Fund Street Fund Street Fund Street Fund Street Fund
Total Total Overt EFB EFB Borrow Borrow LID Borrow
Revenue Budget (Under) in Total Total
2008 2008 2008 2008 2013 2008 2009 to 2013 2009 to 2013
Budget Adopted $4,410,000 $5,899,174 ($1,489,174) $1,223,241 ($4,575,829) $0 $5,080,080 $1,205,800
Budget Updated $4,410,000 $5,899,174 ($1,489,174) $986,190 ($4,812,880) $0 $6,285,880 $1,205,800
Budget Revised $7,571,775 $5,299,174 $2,272,601 $4,687,965 ($2,945,512) $3,328,075 $3,227,323 $1,454,550
No borrowing/debt $4,243,700 $5,299,174 ($1,055,474) $1,359,890 ($8,225,460) $0 $0 $0
Loans/Rates/SDCs $7,571,775 $5,299,174 $2,272,601 $4,687,965 $1,773,588 $3,328,075 $3,227,323 $1,454,550
The above table shows the budgeted disconnect between revenue and expenses in 2008 is $1.5 million
however that scenario included heftier increases in rates sooner than what was implemented. No
borrowing (and no debt service) still shows a one-year shortfall of$1.1 million. The scenarios that
include borrowing in 2008 adequately cover capital costs for the year contributing to the $2.3 million
surplus. The assumptions used for the scenarios result in a shortfall in all of them except where
operational costs (including debt service) are offset by rate and system development charge increases.
Th hI b I
th
d b 'ld th
eta e e ow compares e assumptions use to Ul e scenanos.
Annual Annual Annual Change in Change in
Percentage Tranportation Storm Drain Tranportation Storm Drain
Increase for Utility Rate Utility Rate SDC Rate SDC Revenue
Staff/M&S Growth/iner. Growth/iner. Growth/iner. Growth/iner.
Budget Adopted 5.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Growth
2.00% 1.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% Rate Change
Budget Updated 5.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Growth
2.00% 1. 00% 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% Rate Change
Budget Revised 5.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Growth
2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Rate Change
No borrowing/debt 5.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Growth
2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Rate Change
Loans/Rates/SDCs 6.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Growth
14.00% 0.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% Annual Rate Change
20.00% 20.00% 450.0Q% 350.00% One Time Change
2010 2009 2009 2009
Page 19 of25
G:\puo-wrk.s\admin\PB Strccts\Strcet Financing Task Forcc-CC FIN AL 0 I OCTO? .doe
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
As you can see in the table, only the Loan/Rates/SDCs scenario includes a higher "inflationary" rate
for operational costs. The original budget rate revenue did include a 1 % annual adjustment for debt
service consistent with early discussions with Council, but only the last scenario included adjustments
to address all of CIP and operational costs. The table shows the estimated rate increases and SDC
changes needed for Transportation are another 20% utility fee increase in 2010 (a 15% increase was
effective August 1, 2007) and potentially 4 to 5 times the SDC revenue will be adjusted as early as
2009.
The following chart demonstrates the ending fund balance impact of the five scenarios.
Long Term Equity (Total EFB)
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
-$1,000,000
-$2,000,000
-$3,000,000
-$4,000,000
-$5,000,000
-$6,000,000
-$7,000,000
-$8,000,000
-$9,000,000
Actual
Actual
. Adopted
~ - Revised
)I( No Debt
. Loans,Rates, SDCs
No Debt scenario indicates if nothing is done (CIP stays as presented, no higher rate increases and no
borrowing) the fund will be out of cash in 2009 and over $8 million "in the hole" by 2013. Increases
and adjustments presented in the table for Loans/Rates/SDCs maintain the fund balance until 2013.
Even with a "maintained" fund balance, the City would need to:
. Review operations and capital improvements each year,
. Update the rate model routinely
. Complete a review of SDCs and adjust accordingly.
Please note that changes in projects and service levels will impact these estimates. Alternate revenue
streams can and will reduce rate requirements and funding for CIP.
Page 20 of 25
G:pub-wrks'admin'PB StrcetsStrcct Financing Task Force'CC FIN AL 0 IOCT07.doc
r~'
CITY Of
ASHLAND
Potential Consequences of Taking No Action
So - what if the City did nothing with regard to increasing revenues and just concentrated on routine
maintenance of our existing street system? What are the impacts of not gaining the necessary revenues
to improve the transportation network?
Not easily quantified but there are ways to model these effects. The exact numbers are beyond the
immediate capabilities of staff and would take longer than the Task Force timeframes, but staff is able
to provide the following qualitative estimates of the consequences.
With steady state gas tax and current fees and rates, revenues are approximately $3.5-5M per year (see
budget without bond issues). As described in the previous scenarios, the street operations portion of
the budgeted Street Fund would continue to maintain an appropriate fund balance, but the capital
program would suffer within the first 2 years.
The City's Boulevards are currently in "good" or better shape. Routine maintenance would keep them
in good condition for the next 5-10 years. After that, the street network would begin to deteriorate.
The City's Avenues (major collectors) are generally in good shape as shown on the overall map on
page 10. There are several segments that need overlays, but very few are in bad sh~e. Those major
collector streets that are identified for extensive work include: 'A' Street (Oak to 3 ), B' Street (2nd to
5th), E. Hersey (Oak to Mountain), Beach (Siskiyou to Henry), Normal A venue (Ashland Street to
Siskiyou), Chestnut Street, and S. Mountain (Ashland to Prospect). These street sections would go
from a cost of roughly $8-1 O/square yard to $14-17/square yard and street safety would likely start to
be compromised within 5 years if improvements are not made. Within 5-10 years, the increased level
of deterioration would impact the structural integrity and might require load limitations or avoided use
of the street sections.
The "collector streets" identified for minor improvements or thin overlays include Helman Street
(school to Hersey), Laurel (Hersey to Main), Oak (1 st to Lithia Way), Gresham (Siskiyou to Fairview),
Iowa (Terrace to Siskiyou), Ashland (Taylor to Morton), Park (Siskiyou to Nezzla). Some of these
sections could be included in operational maintenance and keep the streets going for the next 5 years,
but after that there will be increased deterioration. The difference in costs for minor or routine
maintenance versus full replacement is $2/square yard versus $ 16/square yard (700% increase!).
Neighborhood streets have a different function as their primary purpose is to provide connectivity to
the neighborhood collectors. There are different expectations for neighborhood streets. Some expect
them to be perfect while others like the deterioration as that tends to slow down traffic. If these streets
do not get the routine maintenance, there will be safety concerns that must be addressed. Other than
that, the cost will increase significantly when major repairs are necessary and the residents will
complain that their tax dollars are not being wisely spent.
Page 21 of25
G:\pub-wrksadminPB Streets'Street Financing Task Forcc'CC FINAL OIOCT07.doc
ria'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Solving the $2M Question - Task Force Recommendations
I) Continue to explore and exploit ODOT Funding programs
a) ODOT Access Management Grants
b) ODOT STIP Modernization Funds (including ODOT Jurisdictional Exchange/Transfer).
c) ODOT STIP Preservation Funds (projects completed by ODOT)
d) Fund Exchange; when appropriate consider this option to balance long term City gains for
design standards and functionality (ie; City should consider this for North Main Street, the
Downtown couplet, and the section of Ashland Street from the railroad overpass to 1-5)
e) Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Program
f) STP - State Transportation Program Funds; focus on the competitive process within the MPO
prioritization.
g) SPWF - Special Public Works Funds; as appropriate projects are identified for business
development
h) IOF - Immediate Opportunity Funds (ODOT and OECDD); as appropriate projects are
identified are identified for business development
2) Judiciously review and when appropriate use Federal funds (through ODOT)
a) TE - Transportation Enhancement; cautiously consider continuing these options and
opportunities, but be aware of the additional federal funding requirements.
b) CMAQ - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality; cautiously consider continuing these options
and opportunities, but be aware of the additional federal funding requirements.
3) City Funding streams
a) Fees - Transportation / Street User Fees: recognize the balance and strive for equity for all
transportation users. Recommend an annual fee increase of 5% for the next several years to
gain better funding revenues, equity among users and meet inevitable debt service
requirements.
b) SDCs - Transportation Systems Development Charges (SDCs): evaluate increasing the
proportional share charged to developers so that as much as an additional $250,000 is collected
(this might change with the TSP update and any new or updated project lists). Have the TSP
Update address the following ideas:
(1) Increase the SDC to fully cover the impacts for future capacity to accommodate growth
and increases in level of performance (improvement fee portion of the SDC).
(2) Evaluate a reimbursement SDC; reimbursement fees consider the cost of existing
facilities, prior contributions from existing users, and the value of unused capacity. The
Page 22 of 25
G:\pub-wrksadminPB Stn:ets',Strec1 Financing Task Force\CC FIN AL 0 I OCT07 .doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
objective of the reimbursement fee is that future system users contribute no more than
an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities.
(3) Charge developers for temporary construction use for the increased truck traffic on
surrounding streets during development/construction.
(4) Investigate having hillside developments pay more for the long-term maintenance of
hillside streets (storm water, deicing, snow removal, etc).
c) LIDs - continue to utilize the LID resource especially for neighborhood streets and also a
portion of neighborhood collectors. Defer the actual rate ffee adjustments to Council's LID
reVIew.
d) TOT - explore options of using a portion of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to offset the
cost oflandscaping in the downtown core and along Siskiyou Boulevard and the North Main
entry. Potentially offer incentives for those businesses that have vans or offer bikes as
opposed to requiring their lodgers to use vehicles to get around.
4) New Revenue Recommendations for Ashland
a) County Gas Tax. City of Ashland should help push for support from other Jackson (and
maybe Josephine) County communities for a regional gas tax as part of a revenue source for
long term maintenance. For Ashland, a 3tgas tax would generate approximately $432,000, and
5t would provide $720,000.
b) Local (Ashland) Vehicle Registration. The focus would be on Ashland residential vehicle
users. Assume 18,000 vehicles at $20fvehicle would generate $360,000 annually.
c) Bicycle Registration Fees might be harder to enforce but a $10/bike registration fee assuming
10,000 bicycles would be $100,000 toward bike path maintenance.
d) Business Licenses. Explore the opportunity to generate revenues from those businesses that
routinely use a large number of vehicles for moving goods and services in town.
e) Food and Beverage fees (sunsets at 2010); Although there is likely great competition for the
long term use of the food and beverage fees, this committee would like the Council to
recommend evaluating the following ideas:
(1) Using a portion of the food and beverage tax for street improvements (perhaps limiting
to new sidewalks or another specific use, or using this to fund the Boulevard
Maintenance f Landscaping that is currently funded through the Street Fund).
One cent would provide $390,000 annually.
(2) Add additional items (snack food and canned beverages) to the required food and
beverage tax and provide a percentage for transportation improvements. Right now
canned soda, bottled water and pre-packaged snack foods are not included in the food
and beverage tax, but are often sold at restaurants (and gas stations).
f) TOT. Explore a way to fund all of the boulevard maintenance and downtown landscaping
costs through TOT charges ($165,000 are the labor costs).
Page 23 of 25
G:pub-wrksadmiIlPB StrCl'tsStrect Fillallcing Task Forcl'\CC FINAL OIOCT07.doc
r;.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
g) Incentives. Identify if there are appropriate incentives (ie- walk your kids to school vs driving)
to reduce the individual fees or "taxes" paid for those that specifically do not use the road
network as much as automobiles. Offer "Bike to School" incentives for parents.
h) Sell "Carbon Credits". Similar to the green power initiatives, sell "carbon credits." If you
still drive a lot or use an SUV, buy carbon credits as an offset.
i) Identify a Tax Increment Financing (Urban Renewal) zone to provide funding for
improvements to transportation needs in that zone.
Summary of Potential New Funding Options:
New Revenue Type Assumption Option 1 Option 2
County Gas Tax Assumed 1.2 million gallons of 3t tax ~ $432,000 5t tax ~ $720,000
gas sold monthly in Ashland
Local (Ashland) Assuming 10,000 vehicles $20/vehic1e ~ $200,000 $lO/vehic1e ~ $100,000
Vehicle Registration
Bicycle Registration Assume 10,000 bicycles and
registration is only required for 18 $lO/bike - $100,000 $5/bike - $50,000
Fees year olds and above
Business Licenses Assume 150 businesses with major $100/ business license not worth the effort
local transportation ~ $15,000
Food and Beverage 1 t provides $390,000 1 t to transportation Add additional items
fees (sunsets at 2010): directly ~ $390,000 for $390,000
TOT $165,000 to fund current Parks TOT eligible for Find another source for
labor costs $165,000 the maintenance costs
Page 24 of 25
G:.pub-wrksadmin'PB Streets'Street Financing Task Force'CC FINAL 0 IOCT07.doe
r4.'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Beyond the Money - Getting Help from Ashland Community Members
(trees, sidewalks, weeds in the cracks, etc)
To familiarize themselves with the City's transportation network and gaps, the Task Force members
were able to take a tour of City streets. They were introduced to some of the maintenance concerns
facing the City's Street crews. One of the ideas that came out of the site review was to define the
potential lack of understanding that property owners might have with respect to the maintenance
responsibilities. Each individual can make a difference in extending the life of their street. A
proposed flyer is attached that could be used as either a handout or door hanger to help define the
property owner's responsibilities and provide helpful maintenance tips (sidewalk / curb weeds, etc).
Page 25 of 25
G:.puh-wrk.s\admill'PB Strcct,;\Strcet Financing Task ForceCC FINAL (J IOCT07.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Weeds and Grasses-
Silent Pavement and Concrete Destruction
We need your help to avoid these problems.
Weeds and other vegetation along the curbs and gutters
do extensive damage to our street system. Any vegetation
along the crack between the concrete and the asphalt
allows water to seep in under the asphalt. Water causes
damage beneath the asphalt that often will not show up for
years, but when it does, our roads show signs of wear and
often turn into crumbling sections of asphalt and costly
repairs.
Your help in eliminating the weeds, grasses and other
vegetation along the curb will help to avoid water damage
to the asphalt and costly tax payer street repairs.
For suggestions on eliminating these problems, call Dean
Walker, Code Compliance, at 552-2424 ~4 .
r_~
CITY OF
f\SHLAND
Maintaining Sidewalks and Streetscapes
Related Ashland Municipal Code Sections
Duty to Repair and Clear Sidewalks
It is the duty of the owners of land adjoining any street to
maintain in good repair and to remove obstructions from
the adjacent sidewalk.
A. The owner of real property responsible for maintaining
the adjacent sidewalk shall be primarily liable to any
person injured because of any negligence of such person
in failing to maintain the sidewalk in good condition.
B. If the City is required to pay damages for the injury to
persons or property caused by the failure of the owner to
perform the duty which this section imposes, such owner
shall compensate the City for the amount of the damages
thus paid, plus court costs and fees incurred by the City.
The City may maintain an action in any court of competent
jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Section.
[13.04.020]
Weeds Declared NUlisance
The growth of grass, weeds, shrubbery, and vegetation
upon vacant and other lots and parcels of land, and the
streets and alleys abutting thereon, in the City, during the
summer season constitutes a fire menace, and greatly
increases the fire hazard in the City, and is declared to be
a nuisance. [9.04.010]
Noxious Growth
No owner or person in charge of property shall permit
weeds or other noxious vegetation to grow upon such
property. It shall be the duty of an owner or person in
charge of the property to cut down or to destroy grass,
shrubbery, brush, bushes, weeds, or other noxious
vegetation as often as needed to prevent them from
becoming unsightly, from becoming a fire hazard, or, in the
case of weeds or other noxious vegetation, from maturing,
or from going to seed. [9.08.100]
Parking Strips
It shall be the duty of the owner or person in charge of
abutting property to grade the area between the sidewalk
and the curb to the level of the sidewalk and curb and to
maintain the area as a grass plot; provided, however, that
the area may be used also for ornamental plants and
shrubbery in a manner not in conflict with this chapter or
any ordinances. [9.08.130]
~4.
r_~