|
Roger Rousse, Director, Department of Public Services (DPS), provided a brief |
|
introduction regarding Rehmann Robson Consultants that were hired for developing |
|
funding strategies for the Local Road Reconstruction and Maintenance Program. |
|
Dalene Sprick, a Rehmann Robson Consultant, explained the goals of the report |
|
attached to this file dated January 22, 2004, which included: |
|
* Evaluate road condition data |
|
* Evaluate the City's funding and operations |
|
* Determine specifics of recommended funding options |
|
Ms. Sprick provided a brief clarification of terms and formulas used in the report that |
|
included: |
|
* Asphalt Pavement versus Concrete Pavement |
|
* Good, fair and poor conditions |
|
* Rewritten formulas that reflect the new data grades for Asphalt and Concrete |
|
* When concrete is deemed fair, one-quarter (1/4) of the road will have to be replaced |
|
* When concrete is deemed poor, the entire road will have to be replaced |
|
Ms. Sprick provided an overview of the report regarding the condition of the City's |
|
current road system which included: |
|
* 217 miles of local roads were evaluated |
|
* 62% or 135 miles are in good condition |
|
* 5.75% or 13 miles are in fair condition, which includes only Asphalt roads |
|
* 20.63% or 45 miles are in poor condition |
|
* 11.5% of 25 miles are gravel roads |
|
* To reconstruct both asphalt and concrete roads in poor condition would cost |
|
approximately $50,822,000 |
|
* To overlay the roads in fair condition would cost about $1,500,000 |
|
* 38 miles were evaluated |
|
* 56% or 21.9 miles are in good condition |
|
* 17% or 6.7 miles are in fair condition |
|
* 25.97% or 10 miles are in poor condition |
|
* Proactive maintenance approach versus completely reconstructing roads |
|
* Recognize cost difference between asphalt and concrete |
|
* Reconstruction of 12 miles of asphalt would cost about $11 million |
|
* Reconstruction of 32 miles of concrete would cost about $40 million |
|
* Repair of 12.5 miles of asphalt would cost about $12.5 million |
|
* Routine maintenance not including winter maintenance would cost about $1.7 million |
|
dollars per year |
|
* Disintegration rate increases as a road experiences cracks and exposure |
|
Historic Spending for Local Roads: |
|
* Relied heavily on Act 51 dollars |
|
* Transferred in twenty-five percent (25%) from the Major Road Fund |
|
* The Major Road Fund can no longer support Local Road costs due to committed |
|
projects which will cause a shortfall of $10 million in the Major Road Fund |
|
* Transferred in $9 million from Act 54 |
|
* Spent $957,000 in 1998 versus $1.1 million in 2003 for Local Roads |
|
* Spent $2.4 million in 1998 versus $3 million plus in 2003 for Major Roads |
|
* Conducted less than ten (10) Special Assessment Districts (SADs) in the past 10 |
|
years; SADs do not provide funding for maintenance |
|
Ms. Sprick briefly reviewed funding sources available and noted the following: |
|
* Most state funds are committed five (5) to ten (10) years in the future which does not |
|
meet current needs |
|
* The City does not meet the qualifications of many programs |
|
* The City has exhausted the funding available and has reached the maximum allowed |
|
* Funding roads with an income tax is an option and would make a millage look more |
|
appealing |
|
* Bonding perpetuates the illusion that the City has funds available, and is not a long- |
|
term fix |
|
The Committee reviewed the history of attempted millages as follows: |
|
* 1980 - voters passed a renewal of 1/2 mil for five (5) years for chloride repair |
|
* 1980 - voters failed a new 1/2 mil for five (5) years |
|
* 1982 - voters failed a new 1/2 mil for twenty (20) years by 54% |
|
* 1986 - voters passed a new 1 mil for ten (10) years by 54% |
|
* 1991 - voters failed a new 1/4 mil for ten (10) years by 50% |
|
* 1992 - voters failed a new 1/2 mil for nine (9) years by 65% |
|
* 1996 - voters failed a new 3 mils by 67% |
|
* 1998 - voters failed a new 2 mils by 66% |
|
Ms. Sprick provided information regarding an overlay versus reconstruction which |
|
included: |
|
* An overlay will extend the road to eight (8) to ten (10) years, but a road can only have |
|
a finite number of overlays before it has be reconstructed |
|
* Some local roads have received overlays but are now in fair condition and will need |
|
reconstruction |
|
* A reconstruction will extend the road to twenty (20) to thirty (30) years |
|
* The window of opportunity between an overlay and a reconstruction is two (2) to four ( |
|
4) years |
|
* Reconstruction costs rapidly increase ten (10) to one (1) |
|
* Deterioration rates depend on traffic volumes and the number of road overlays. They |
|
are accurate when determining when a road will deteriorate. |
|
The Committee reviewed the forty-three (43) responses received from letters sent to |
|
residents regarding an Ad-Hoc Committee. Approximately fifty percent (50%) were |
|
interested in serving on an Ad-Hoc Committee. |
|
The Committee discussed the following strategies important for a successful millage: |
|
* Form a sub-committee with strong advocates and strong opponents |
|
* Educate the sub-committee which then educates the public |
|
* The sub-committee would form a concise plan that can convince the residents to pass |
|
a millage |
|
* Currently 140 cities and villages have a dedicated millage |
|
* The consultant would educate and facilitate discussions at sub-committee meetings |
|
The Committee discussed the following strategies if the millage failed: |
|
* Focus on asphalt overlays and road maintenance with funds that are available |
|
* Allow roads in poor condition to fall into disrepair for visual impact to residents |
|
The Committee also discussed the road conditions of Rochester Hills when it was Avon |
|
Township: |
|
* Funding came from Oakland County for Avon Township |
|
* Funding shifted from Oakland County to the Rochester Hills when Avon Township |
|
became a City |
|
* Residents used to live in the City for three (3) to five (5) years, but now reside for eight |
|
(8) to ten (10 years. |
|
The Committee did not reach a consensus regarding an Ad-Hoc Committee. |
