The PowerPoint slide said that the city’s street PCI (Pavement Condition Index) was “nearing danger level.” City Manager Pinkerton did not shirk from that description, saying that the pavement index was “reaching crisis level.”
Neither did interim Public Works Director Bob Clarke minimize the situation, calling it “a significant challenge” and saying we need to find a “reasonable balance of pavement maintenance that we have a reasonable chance of funding.”
But if Tuesday night’s council meeting taught us anything at all, it was that the council was not going to shy away from these challenges. Whereas past councils were content to hide bad news into amorphous and nebulous unmet needs categories, this one is going to take on the problem head on and if the city staff is not ready to face it square on, the council will call them out.
This is exactly what councilmember Brett Lee did on Tuesday night.
He called the report very thoughtful and well conceived, but quickly added in, as politely as possible, “My complaint is that you’ve tried to soften the blow for us…”
“Rather than giving us the cold hard facts, you sort of tried to make it a little gentler to us,” he continued. “While I appreciate the sentiment, I don’t think we need that right now. I think it’s a necessary that we kind of have the ugly reality of the situation and let us come to you for help in terms of how we rationale the issue and make it more manageable.”
Councilmember Lee went on to point out that for the fiscal year 2011-12, we especially spent nothing on roads. And in 2012-13, we essentially spent nothing on roads.
“So then we get this recommendation which basically says for FY 13-14, we continue to sort of punt the ball,” Councilmember Lee continued, after Bob Clarke acknowledged there were no large contracts for any of the previous two fiscal years. “So now we sort of have a string of three years in a row where we’re essentially spending almost no money.”
“In all our scenarios before us, except for scenario 1 which basically has our streets turn into gravel in about twenty years from now, the yearly expenditure is sort of on the low end, $3 million to $8 million a year,” he continued to press. “There’s the added problem that under the sort of ‘more responsible’ pavement programs… they are in the neighborhood of $16 million year one and $20 million during the first two years.”
He pointed out that all scenarios, including staff’s preferred alternative of scenario 3, called for at least $20 million for the first two years. “I guess I’m really troubled by this idea that for basically over the course of three years, even though we’re very aware of this issue, we’re going to essentially spend $2.5 million spread across three years.”
The staff report shows that in 2009, Bob Clarke recommended the council spend $3 million per year and “if council had heeded your advice, we would be in a much better position today,” Councilmember Lee added.
Bob Clarke responded, “I wouldn’t view the different numbers that I have shared with you tonight as opposed to February 5 as trying to soften it so much as I’m trying to make the point that there are many variables in how you estimate the long term pavement index.”
“I think what you see with these different scenarios, I would consider them all acceptable options,” he continued. “They’re different expectations… Some people think we’re trying to paint the streets in gold when we show them the $7 or $8 million number.”
City Manager Steve Pinkerton added that this is the point, that the council needs to have a serious discussion because even the most conservative approach has an initial huge cash investment. The budget, he said, is going to take some pain, but the staff needs to know what the pain threshold is so that we can start planning for it.
Bob Clarke argued that, while the alternatives represent acceptable options, “the only option that is unacceptable is the status quo.”
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs moved the staff recommendation that called for: “1. Approve Resolution Establishing Guiding Principles for Pavement Management; 2. Approve the use of the current fiscal year’s contract pavement maintenance budget to provide necessary local funds for our existing grant funded road projects. 3. Prioritize any remaining FY 12/13 contract pavement maintenance funds for a Path Maintenance project this calendar year. 4. Direct staff to return to Council no later than October with the list of “higher priority” streets and paths after public discussion with appropriate Commissions. 5. Direct staff to return to Council with specific proposals to increase the pavement maintenance budget with identified revenue sources before the end of the calendar year.”
Within that are the guiding priciples that Bob Clarke laid out as:
- Change goal PCI from 70 to the low 60s – city wide average
- Place a higher priority on key streets and paths that provide greater value to the city
- Have a lower PCI goal for local streets and employ more preventative treatments
- Prioritize keeping streets and paths currently in good condition from degrading to a poor condition
- Maintain paths to a comparable, or higher standard than streets
- Defer investments in bike path pavement that is impacted by trees until root issues have been dealt with
- Where path maintenance will not result in a 20-year service life, consider limiting maintenance to safety improvements only
- Ensure new roads do not have improvements that create future higher maintenance costs
Council would add, as a friendly amendment, to include a $25 to $30 million funding option to accommodate the concerns expressed by Councilmember Brett Lee.
Davis is not alone in facing this crisis. The city council of Los Angeles this week called for $3 billion to rebuild their decaying roadways.
One of the critical points that Professor Harvey from UC Davis made is that, once cracks begin to form, water is able to seep to the road bed which will ultimately lead to the collapse of the roadway and the need to completely rebuild at a much higher cost.
Davis may not face a problem the size of Los Angeles, but it faces a $444 million crisis. Given the size differential, this is not insignificant.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Softening the blow serves the beast. It is a form of political propaganda meant to protect the beast and all that directly benefit from it. Good to see our city council directly address the beast and reject the ongoing state of denial.
I appreciated the discussion last night and the helpful information on the different indicators that make up the PC Index. Teasing out the different elements of the index should help staff bring a more refined recommendation to the CC. It will also help those of us who will be reviewing the the bike path conditions to discern what factors are most critical on our prioritization work. I look forward to engaging these conversations.
I also appreciated the few examples we had from the consulting firm about what other cities are doing in light of pavement deterioration. Interestingly, I did not see Bob “softening” anything. The message in the staff report was as dire as ever but a more nuanced analysis of the meaning of the index numbers provided a slightly different picture of things. For those who have worked with indices in any field it is important to keep in mind that they are designed to provide an overall picture (simplification) of a complex set of interacting factors. They are useful as a first pass but often to find workable solutions to the issues they summarize we need to tease them apart. I see staff (and the various experts) engaging in that process now.
I think Brett’s point was hey don’t give us half a solution, give us a full solution and then if we have to go halfway, we can do that.
I hope the city prioritizes whatever funds we can come up with on streets first over bike paths.
why do you consider streets more important than bikes, particularly in this community? can you imagine, the bike capital of the country, and the home of the National Bicycling Hall of Fame with failed bike paths? might want to re-think that.
[i]why do you consider streets more important than bike[s]s[/s] [b]paths[/b][/i]
Because bikes can ride on streets and frequently do.
For a business guy, you seem relatively unconcerned about the city’s brand and the benefit of the National Bicycling Hall of Fame as a lure for tourists.
What? We’re going to accept disintegration of multi-million dollar investments, bike paths or other, simply because we lack the will to prioritize and/or focus on our priorities? I can’t support such a notion. I hope the city prioritizes whatever funds are necessary to protect this massive community investment that was made over many decades. I for one would be willing to make considerable short term sacrifices to do so.
-Michael Bisch
The cost of the roads is about ten times that of the bike paths, so there is no reason we can’t support both:
[quote]a. Streets: In this scenario, the City will require a total budget of $139.5 million for the next twenty years with around 5.4% allocated for preventive maintenance in order to maintain the current backlog of $21 million. The PCI will increase from 62 to 70 in twenty years.
b. Bicycle Paths: The City will need a total budget of $13.1 million to maintain the same unfunded backlog as in 2012. This scenario would help improve the PCI of the network to 69 by 2032.[/quote]
There is no need to “prioritize” one over the other. I think blog comments like that are intended to be provocative rather than substantive.
City’s brand? What exactly is the brand? Who has created it? Who is investing in it? Who is marketing it? What’s the target audience? To what end? Is the brand being utilized to attract visitors, for business attraction, to attract new residents, other? And once these people, businesses, whatever, are here, what are we doing about ensuring that they have a great experience so that they strengthen the brand instead of weaken it through bad PR? Way off topic, but since the issue was raised, I’d be curious to read what our community knows and thinks about our brand.
-Michael Bisch
I don’t know about the term ‘brand’ but we do have a community identity, and I think that if you asked a hundred people in town what that included the majority, probably overwhelming majority, would include bicycles as part of it. Davis is easy to get around in, you can actually live here without a car, and compared to other cities of its size it is very navigable. That means, among other things, we need to keep the roads and bike paths up. I have no idea how much of a draw the Bicycle Hall of Fame is, but it’s part of the image/identity/brand.
[quote]There is no need to “prioritize” one over the other. I think blog comments like that are intended to be provocative rather than substantive. [/quote]
What’s provocative about wanting our streets fixed first over bike paths especially if the funds are going to be short of what is needed. I think anyone with an ounce of sense would agree that our streets are much more important than our bike paths and as Frankly pointed out [b]bikes can ride on the streets[/b] but cars can’t ride on the bike only paths. If you ask me your reply is inteded to be provocative rather than substansive.
DT: how about:
[img]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6294:city-names-mike-webb-new-planning-director&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/img]
Trying again: [img]https://davisvanguard.org/images/stories/city-hall.jpg[/img]
[i]For a business guy, you seem relatively unconcerned about the city’s brand and the benefit of the National Bicycling Hall of Fame as a lure for tourists.[/i]
You are correct.
Note that I want the bike paths maintained too. When I ride my bike on the Davis bike paths, I like to make up lyrics to my ongoing “City Budget Blues” song that matches the beat of my tires hitting tree roots, cracks and potholes. With the numbers of these obstacles increasing, I am having to change my music genre to a bluegrass tune named “Davis is Burning (and it Ain’t from the Fires)”.
[i]I think anyone with an ounce of sense would agree that our streets are much more important than our bike paths
[/i]
I think that in a town with 50,000 bikes, that statement is incorrect.
[quote]I think that in a town with 50,000 bikes, that statement is incorrect. [/quote]
Like was already stated, those 50,000 bikes can still ride on the streets if needed.
You don’t want them all riding on the streets! You are creating a false dichotomy.
given the cost differential you should do both
[quote]You don’t want them all riding on the streets! You are creating a false dichotomy. [/quote]
Not all bike paths are unusable, in fact it’s most likely a very small percentage of paths where the bikers would actually have to ride the streets over paths because of dangerous paths.
you didn’t read the report about the fact that the money is needed to keep more than half from failing in the next 20 years?
25% or more of all trips in Davis are by bicycle (this is an estimate from multiple sources). That means that bicycling is a significant means of transportation here. We must account for all means of transportation in our planning (including the heavier buses that are apparently coming to our streets according to last evening’s meeting). I think it does not make sense to debate prioritizing one means over another. People in our city use buses, cars, bikes and they walk. All forms of transportation must be considered in our long-term planning.
Robb
You left out skateboards and in line skates, both used extensively by my son who at 21 sees no need to drive and preferentially used the green belt system.
My bad medwoman. You are absolutely correct!
If you would like to experience an extremely bad roadway nearby, go out to Barry Road (in the Binning Tract, just south of the Davis muni golf course). I am not sure, but I think that road is supposed to be maintained by Yolo County. For a street lined with mostly nice houses, it is the worst kept roadway I have ever seen in our area. It looks like it has not been repaved for 50 years, but it has been patched and repatched many times since.