While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.
------------------------------------------------------------
 |
| Jeff Wan |
- We received a report on the mid year budget. There were a few increases in spending that were authorized by Council (painting/carpeting at City Hall, and a new riding lawnmower), but other than that the results at mid year were in line with expectations. There were various puts and takes, the most significant being increases in contractor spend that was offset by lower compensation expense due to staff vacancies.
Excluding the general fund appropriation ($230K) that was approved with the adoption of the budget, overall the City is projecting a deficit of approximately $110K at year end.
- We discussed a potential pilot program for sidewalk repairs. Sidewalks in front of residents property are the responsibility of the property owner, however the sidewalk if primarily on City property. As a result, if sidewalks create a hazardous situation, the City is potentially liable along with the homeowner. Combine this with the fact that sidewalk repair is often very expensive, the City is seeking ways to mitigate risk and assist homeowners in fulfilling their responsibility.
There was general consensus that the City was not interested in subsidizing the cost of sidewalk repairs directly. We considered a few different options that included the City facilitating the repair and billing the homeowner, as well as exploring joining other neighboring cities' sidewalk repair program that utilizes a network of qualified professionals. A larger program may provide benefits of scale. Ultimately the Council gave direction to staff to seek more information and report back.
- Most of the discussion was around the pavement assessment report we received. Overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of the City is approximately 73. The scale is out of 100, and is divided into four general condition categories. Pavements in “Good” condition have a PCI above 70, pavements in “Fair” condition have a PCI between 50 and 69, pavements in “Poor” condition have a PCI between 25 and 49, and finally pavements in “Failed” condition have a PCI below 25. Here are examples roads with different PCI values:
While a score of 73 is considered "good", it also reflects consistent and steady declines over the last 10 years.
The table above shows the current score of 73, with a score of 85 in 2016. This table also illustrates the work that has been done on City streets. We typically do work every two years in order to get slightly lower costs with larger scale. The work scheduled in 2020 was postponed due to COVID.
Picking the streets to work on is a bit counterintuitive. At first it may seem logical to pick the streets that are in the worst condition. However, rehabilitating these streets is also the most costly. With limited funds, the entire pool could be consumed with 1 or 2 streets, leaving the rest of the streets in the city to continue to deteriorate through normal wear and tear. As a result, it is often more cost efficient to do maintenance on a streets in better condition, as maintaining current conditions is less expensive in the long run, and more areas of the city could be improved.
The City uses a program called StreetSaver. This program is designed to maximize PCI overall in the City based on the amount of funds available. Because it costs more to rehabilitate streets in poor condition often StreetSaver will not select the streets in the worst condition for maintenance and rehabilitation work.
Given the steady decline in PCI overall, it is important to determine what level of funding is necessary to maintain the current road conditions. Each year we receive approximately $1M in our share of gas tax, and other state and local funding. We accumulate these funds and every other year pick streets to do maintenance on in order to improve the road condition and the overall PCI.
Based on analysis, in order for the City to simply maintain a PCI of 73 that it currently has overall, the City would need to spend approximately $13M over 5 years, or $2.6M/year. Our funding is approximately $1M/year.
Unless the City is able to spend a significantly greater amount on street maintenance and rehabilitation, the conditions of roads in the City will continue to decline. At our current rate of spending, this is the projected outcomes on overall road conditions:
Total general fund revenues for the entire year are projected to be just under $6M. As we enter the budget planning process, we will need to begin a discussion with the community regarding what level of overall services, quality of streets, and maintenance of the City is desired, and what we are willing to pay for.
A link to the detail by street PCI for both the 2025, and 2023 years can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sUUWREdNL1FC1iccvXJghYzsAv5IhBd4/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103891531140515892067&rtpof=true&sd=true
- The Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Board also met and adopted a resolution declaring the intent to increase the overall assessments in the District in accordance with Prop 218. Ballots will be mailed to properties in the district no later than 4/18. There will be a public hearing on 6.3.25 to determine the results of ballots received. More to come on what this means for the GHAD.
