HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/20/2008 - STAFF REPORTS - 5.C. ALM Sp4
i2
V N
LLY r Y
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
February 20, 2008 NEW BUSINESS
Subject: FISCAL YEAR 2007/2008 PROPOSITION 1B LOCAL. STREETS AND
ROADS FUNDING PROPOSAL
From: David H. Ready, City Manager
Initiated by: Public Works and Engineering Department
SUMMARY
Proposition 1 B, The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, And Port Security
Bond Act of 2006, (Proposition 113), passed by voters in November 2006, provides
$19.925 billion in bond funds for a variety of transportation priorities, including $2 billion
for cities and counties to fund the maintenance and improvement of local transportation
facilities, with $550 million allocated to cities in 2007/2008. In order to receive these
funds cities must first submit a plan to the California Department of Finance (DOF),
approved by the legislative body, for use of the city's share of the funds.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Approve the Proposition 1 B Local Streets and Roads Funding Proposal for fiscal
year 2007/2008, authorizing use of funds for street rehabilitation and
maintenance (overlay) of arterial streets prioritized based on condition of
pavement as recommended by staff; authorize submittal of the approved Funding
Proposal to the California Department of Finance; and pre-authorize continuance
of a street rehabilitation and maintenance (overlay) program of arterial streets as
the Proposition 1B Local Streets and Roads Funding Proposal for fiscal year
2008/2009,
STAFF ANALYSIS:
California spends about $20 billion a year from a combination of state, federal, and local
funds to maintain, operate, and improve its highways, streets and roads, passenger rail,
and transit systems. These expenditures are primarily funded on a pay-as-you-go basis
from taxes and user fees. There are two primary state tax sources that fund state
transportation programs. First, the state's 18 cent per gallon excise tax on gasoline and
Item No. 5. C .
Proposition 15 Local Streets and Roads Funding Proposal
February 20, 2008
Page 2
diesel fuel (generally referred to as the gas tax) generates about $3.4 billion annually.
Second, revenues from the state sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel currently provide
about $2 billion a year.
Additionally, the state imposes weight fees on commercial vehicles (trucks), which
generate roughly $900 million a year. Generally, these revenues must be used for
specific transportation purposes, including improvements to highways, streets and
roads, passenger rail, and transit systems. These funds may also be used to mitigate
the environmental impacts of various transportation projects. Under specified
conditions, these revenues may be loaned or used for non-transportation uses.
Since 1990, California voters have approved $5 billion in state general obligation bonds
to fund transportation. These bond proceeds have been dedicated primarily to
passenger rail and transit improvements, as well as to retrofit highways and bridges for
earthquake safety. As of June 2006, all but about $355 million of the authorized bonds
have been spent on projects.
In addition to state funds, California's transportation system receives federal and local
money. The state receives about $4.5 billion a year in federal gasoline and diesel fuel
tax revenues for various transportation purposes. Collectively, local governments invest
roughly $9.5 billion annually into California's highways, streets and roads, passenger
rail, and transit systems. This funding comes mainly from a mix of local sales and
property taxes, as well as transit fares. Local governments have also issued bonds
backed mainly by local sales tax revenues to fund transportation projects.
Based on the back-log of construction and maintenance projects on the state's
transportation system, the Legislature placed Proposition 1 B on the November 2006
ballot, providing for almost $20 billion in funds for investment in the transportation
system, including $11.3 billion for capital improvements to reduce congestion and
increase capacity on state highways, local roads, and public transit for grants available
to locally funded transportation projects, as well as for projects to rehabilitate state
highways and local roads.
Proposition 1 B was passed by a vote of 61% to 39%, and the state DOF has been
developing the process to distribute funds to local agencies. On January 15, 2008, the
state DOF finally issued instructions to local agencies, as well as made public the
Proposition 1 B allocations to cities. Based on formulas established by the size of the
city, in 2007/2008 Palm Springs will receive $753,673.03 for our use in local
transportation projects.
This infusion of funds is a much needed financial resource, given the limited fiscal ability
of the City to invest in public infrastructure. In the 2007/2008 fiscal year, the City will
receive $855,000 in local Gas Tax revenue (derived from our share of the state's 18
cent excise tax on gasoline); and $1,989,000 from the Riverside County Transportation
Commission (RCTC) as our share of Local Measure A (Riverside County Yz cent sales
tax) revenue. Taken together, the total revenue available for use this fiscal year on City
Proposition 1 B Local Streets and Roads Funding Proposal
February 20, 2008
Page 3
transportation projects is $2,844,000; however, annually the City transfers $600,000 of
the local Gas Tax revenue from the Gas Tax Fund to the General Fund, thereby
reducing the budget for transportation projects by about 20% to $2,244,000.
Historically, limited general fund revenues prevents the City from funding transportation
projects with anything other than approximately $255,000 annually with local Gas Tax
revenue, and our share from RCTC of Local Measure A revenue. The City has also
aggressively pursued and obtained a variety of federal grants for construction of
transportation projects, but these federal grants require around 12% in matching funds,
which comes from a combination of the City's Local Measure A revenue, and Regional
Measure A revenue from CVAG. Therefore, a majority of the City's Local Measure A
revenue is already earmarked towards our required local match of federally funded or
Regional Measure A funded projects.
After funding budgeted for current and future federally funded or Regional Measure A
projects, often what remains is around $1 Million for street maintenance, as was
budgeted in the 2007/2008 fiscal year budget. In order to ensure adequate street
maintenance is achieved throughout the City, the Department schedules a crackfill with
slurry seal of local residential streets, cycling throughout the City in one-square mile
increments. This allows us to provide the most maintenance that can be achieved with
the least cost; a crackfill with slurry seal is the most economical maintenance program
that helps prevent the City's streets from failing — but is not a cure-all.
Materials used in transportation projects, namely asphalt concrete pavement and slurry
seals, contain petroleum products. Unfortunately, the cost of petroleum products has
significantly increased over the years. The Department typically budgets $500,000
each year for an annual slurry seal. Whereas the City paid 5.6 cents per square foot for
slurry seal in 1997, just ten years later the City recently paid 16.4 cents per square foot
in 2007, or an increase of nearly 300% in cost. Whereas $500,000 provided slurry seal
on nearly 9 Million square feet of local streets in 1997, by 2007 $500,000 only provides
slurry seal on 3 Million square feet; a reduction of one-third. As a result, the limited
financial resources for street maintenance have been stretched thin.
The Proposition I funds could not come at a better time. A back-log of required
maintenance of the City's arterial street network (major arterials and secondary
thoroughfares) has developed. The City's arterial street network is the most critical
element of the City, and therefore, it is staffs recommendation that the Proposition 1B
funds be used on the arterial street network. Staff acknowledges that some local
residential streets in older neighborhoods have a pavement condition that has
deteriorated beyond the ability of a crackfill and slurry seal to repair; however, given the
much higher volumes of traffic that use the City's arterial street network, maintenance of
the arterial street network carries a higher priority.
The Department uses computer software by MicroPaver to track the condition of the
pavement of our streets; this Pavement Management System (PMS) is used by many
other agencies, was provided by CVAG to all Coachella Valley cities as part of the 2005
0000153
Proposition 1 B Local Streets and Roads Funding Proposal
February 20, 2008
Page 4
Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) update, and is used to determine
those streets requiring preventative maintenance (i.e. crackfill and slurry seal), those
that require additional improvement (Le. asphalt pavement overlay), or those that
require complete rehabilitation. The PMS uses a factor called the Overall Condition
Index (OCI) which ranges from 100 (new street) to 0 (completely failed street) to track
the condition of streets. The Department is currently re-evaluating the OCI of the City's
streets to keep the PMS up to date, however, staff has reviewed the arterial street
network and developed a list of streets deserving of additional improvement (an asphalt
overlay), ranked by worst condition. The ranking was established in part by the City's
PMS, but also by a field review of the current pavement condition of the street. See
attachment 1.
It is staffs recommendation that the Proposition I Local Streets and Roads Funding
Proposal for the City of Palm Springs for fiscal year 2007/2008 comprise a maintenance
project to construct an asphalt concrete overlay on the following streets:
1. Indian Canyon Drive, from Tramview Road to San Rafael Drive (west half)
2. Farrell Drive, from Tahquitz Cyn Way to Baristo Road
3. Farrell Drive, from Baristo Road to Ramon Road
4. Baristo Road, from Sunrise Way to Farrell Drive
It is staffs recommendation that the maintenance of these streets will use the
$753,673.03 allocation to its best use.
The Department expects to receive a similar allocation for fiscal year 2008/2009, and
requests pre-authorization from City Council to use Proposition I funds allocated in
2008/2009 for continuing maintenance of the City's arterial street network by scheduling
an asphalt concrete overlay of the remaining streets included on the list of prioritized
arterial streets.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of the Proposition 1 B Local Streets and Roads Funding Proposal for the City
of Palm Springs for fiscal year 2007/2008 will allow the California Department of
Finance to disburse the City's allocation of $753,673.03 for our use.
David J. Barakian Thomas J.W'Ison
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Assistant Ci{ Manager
David H. Ready, 'rt ager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposition 1 B Program, ARHM Overlay (Prioritization List)
fidQQ�iy4
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PROPOSITION 1B PROGRAM
ARHM Overlay
Roadway From To AADT' OCl2
1, Indian Canyon Drive3 Tramview Road San Rafael 22,700 55
2. Farrell Drive Tahquitz Cyn Way Baristo Road 16,000 60
3. Farrell Drive Baristo Road Ramon Road 16,000 60
4. Baristo Road Sunrise Way Farrell Drive 8,100 60
5. Indian Canyon Drive Racquet Club Road Vista Chino 17,200 65
6. Indian Canyon Drive San Rafael Dr. Racquet Club Road 16,600 65
7. Racquet Club Road Indian Canyon Dr. Sunrise Way 9,300 65
8. Racquet Club Road Palm Canyon Dr. Indian Canyon Dr. 8,200 65
9. Avenida Caballeros Tachevah Drive Tamarisk Road 6,400 65
10,Calle El Segund04 Ramon Road Saturnino Road 2,500 65
11.Avenida Caballeros Vista Chino Paseo El Mirador 6,400 70
12.Paseo El Mirador Avenida Caballeros Sunrise Way 1,000 605
AADT = Annual Average Daily Traffic (volume of vehicles)
2 OCI = Overall Condition Index (1 to 100, 1 = worst, 100 = new)
3 Southbound direction only (west of median)
4 Excluding new pavement on east side.
5 Paseo El Mirador is a collector street serving primarily residential traffic with very low traffic
volumes, and is not recommended to be given a higher priority than other more heavily
traveled arterials.
0000375