Pavement Quality Survey Study Session 2012 Pavement Quality

Pavement Quality Survey Study Session 2012 Pavement Quality Survey Results Rehabilitation Costs Recent Public Input/Activity Comparison of County R&B Expenditures to Other Counties • Current Challenges • Options/Direction • •

County Road System • State Highways

County Road System • State Highways • Municipal System

County Road System • State Highways • Municipal System • County Connections

County Road System Types of Roads (Classifications) • Arterial Network

County Road System Types of Roads (Classifications) • Arterial Network • Collector Roads (gravel & paved)

County Road System Types of Roads (Classifications) • Arterial Network • Collector Roads (gravel & paved) • Local Roads (and sub-divisions)

Centerline Miles of County Maintained Roads (Source: 2008 HUTF Report) Paved Centerline Miles Gravel % of Paved Centerline Miles Total % of Gravel Centerline Miles % of Total Primary 240 62% 202 80% 442 69% Subdivision 150 38% 51 20% 201 31% Total 390 100% 253 100% 643 100% % Of All Maintained Roads Total 61% 39% 100%

Centerline Miles of County Maintained Roads Paved Centerline Miles Gravel % of Paved Centerline Miles Total % of Gravel Centerline Miles % of Total Primary 240 62% 202 80% 442 69% Subdivision 150 38% 51 20% 201 31% Total 390 100% 253 100% 643 100% % Of All Maintained Roads Total 61% 39% 100%

How is the Condition of a Paved Road Measured? • A special van drives every paved road in the county and measures pavement distress (ie cracking/potholes, etc) with laser measuring device. • Based on the number and depths of cracks, each section of road is rated is given a Pavement Quality Index number, or PQI, from 1 (Bad) to 10 (perfectly paved). • Surveys are conducted every three years • The most recent survey cost $45, 000 4 high-speed lasers measure cracking across the width of the lane. How lasers see a crack

PQI 8. 3

PQI 5. 5

PQI 3. 8

PQI 2. 1

Summary of Primary Road Pavement Condition 2009 - 2012 Year Pavement Quality Poor (<4. 9 PQI) Fair (5 – 7 PQI) Good (>7 PQI) Year 2009 Miles 78 147 276 % 32 36 32 2012 Miles % 58 11 98 20 344 69 Change 2009 -12 Miles % Change -20 -21 -49 -16 +69 +37 Average PQI 2009 -12 2009 2012 Change 2009 -12 6. 7 PQI 7. 2 PQI +. 5 PQI + 7. 5%

2009 Primary County Roads

2012 Primary County Roads

Summary of Subdivision Pavement Condition 2009 -12 Year Pavement Quality 2009 Miles % 2012 Miles % Change 2009 -12 Miles % Change Fair (5 – 7 PQI) 96 107 32 36 128 130 42 43 32 23 +10% +7% Good (>7 PQI) 95 32 44 15 -51 -17% Poor (<4. 9 PQI) 1. 3% difference in mileage between 2009 and 2012 due to survey variability Year Average PQI 2009 -12 2009 2012 Change 2009 -12 5. 9 PQI 5. 4 PQI -. 5 PQI -8%

2009 Subdivision Roads

2012 Subdivision Roads

Current Challenges • Time = $ – Inflation – Continued Deterioration – Increased Maintenance Costs • Optimal Improvement Strategy – Worst first – Long term cost effectiveness – Broad distribution of improvements • Challenge with current policy – – Inefficiency/Admin. Complexity Bonding Costs Divisive Support only when roads are bad and expensive

Average Cost of Hot Mix Asphalt 2001 -2012 HMA Unit Cost Trend $60. 00 $50. 00 $40. 00 $30. 00 HMA Unit Cost Trend $20. 00 $10. 00 Average annual increase in HMA = 4. 7% between 2001 and 2012. HMA is 50% -60% of average project costs $0. 00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Summary of Subdivision Pavement 5 Year Rehab. Program Cost Comparison 2009 - 2012 Year Average PQI 2009 -12 2009 2012 Change 2009 -12 5. 9 PQI 5. 4 PQI -. 5 PQI -8% 5 Year Rehab. Program Cost Comparison 2009 -12 $22. 3 $26. 9 +$4. 7 +21% COST COMPARISON IS PRESENTED ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE THE MAGNITUDE OF COST CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH 4 YEAR DELAY IN REHABILITATION AND SHOULD NOT TO BE USED AS AN ESTIMATE OF ACTUAL COSTS OF ANY PROPOSED STRATEGY SINCE ANY STRATEGY FOR REHAB. WOULD NOT LIKELY OCCUR WITHIN 5 YEAR TIME FRAME, INCORPORATE THE SAME STRATEGIES OR GOALS, NOR REFLECT ADDITIONAL DETERIORATION OR INFLATION THAT OCCURS WITH A LONGER REHABILITATION PROGRAM.

Optimal Improvement Strategy

Challenge With Current Policy – Inefficiency/Admin. Complexity • > 100 subdivisions with paved roads • Many with no functioning HOA – Divisive • Difficult for neighbors to advocate on divisive issue – Bonding Costs • Costs of bonding/interest large % of total cost • Relatively more expensive for small subdivisions – Support only when roads are bad and expensive • Local support when roads are very bad • Most expensive to fix

Status of Recent Subdivision Resident Input • Subdivision Paving Working Group – Multiple Meetings and Outreach – Website/Petition • 287 Signatures supporting creation of countywide subdivision LID for rehabilitation of sub. roads • 6 HOA Representatives signed petitions

Status of Recent Subdivision Resident Input • Niwot Public Improvement District – Survey of support for placing question on ballot – 2, 549 survey postcards sent – 894 returned (35% response) – 65% of eligible voters did not respond – Of those who responded: • 607 (68%) support/287 (32%) opposed • 24% of eligible voters support placing on ballot • 11% of eligible voters oppose placing on ballot Cost to average home in Niwot – $422/yr. for years 1 - 6 – $223/yr. from year 7 out

Status of Recent Subdivision Discussions • • • Pinebrook Hills – Unsuccessful LID Crestview Estates – Unsuccessful LID Reserve - Potential Rehab. With HOA fees Gunbarrel Estates – Petition Process Initiated Gunbarrel Green - Discussion Homestead - Discussion South Meadow - Discussion Shannon Estates - Discussion Lake Valley – Discussion

Recent Subdivision Resident Input • Already pay sufficient/too much taxes. • Roads should be rehabilitated from existing sources. • It is County responsibility to maintain public roads/County should live up to responsibility. • County violated commitment to maintain roads when they were accepted for maintenance. • County should re-arrange budget priorities/divert funds from other uses. • Many who support creation of LID, share sentiments, but believe situation is critical, and need to create LID ASAP.

8 County Comparison of 2011 R&B Budgets

Options/Direction • Maintain Current Policy – Individual Subdivision Initiatives/Improvement Districts – County Contribution • Create Countywide Subdivision Public Improvement District w/ Vote • Create Countywide Subdivision Local Improvement District w/current authority

Issues For Consideration : – Include Niwot PID /Reserve in LID? – Balance between revenue constrained and need? – Time period for an improvement program? – Appropriate inflation factor? – Appropriate contingency factor? – County contribution?

QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION?