Laserfiche WebLink
261 <br />Returning to the current spending level presentation, Mr. Schwartz reviewed <br />262 <br />scenarios that would eliminate sealcoating and crack sealing efforts; and <br />263 <br />estimated that, without basic preventative maintenance developed from index <br />264 <br />data, condition ratings for those streets would fall to 44. Under that scenario, Mr. <br />265 <br />Schwartz noted that it showed if the City were to put all maintenance dollars <br />266 <br />toward reconstruction with no maintenance, the average ratings were reduced to <br />267 <br />36 after 20 years. <br />268 <br />269 <br />Discussion included small town versus some streets in Roseville currently <br />270 <br />bituminous and resident expectations that even under a worst case scenario, they <br />271 <br />would not support those roadways not revert to gravel, in addition to the expense <br />272 <br />of removing and resurfacing to that material and ongoing maintenance as well; <br />273 <br />providing support for elected officials needing to make sometimes unpopular <br />274 <br />spending decisions to maintain an effective and cost - effective PMP, as well as <br />275 <br />helping residents understand the seriousness of this funding situation. <br />276 <br />277 <br />Members observed that these types of infrastructure issues, including <br />278 <br />underground utilities, were invisible and unknow taxpayers until they failed. <br />279 <br />280 <br />Next Steps — Additional Information Neede <br />281 <br />Member DeBenedet opined that the information rovided by Mr. Schwartz was <br />282 <br />sufficient. Member DeBenedet noted that over past years and occasional street <br />283 <br />reconstruction projects in Roseville, residents were not supportive of paying <br />284 <br />assessments for curb & gutter installation. However, he opined that such an <br />285 <br />attitude wasn't fair to the broader community if a neighborhood was able to <br />286 <br />dictate projects specific to their neighborhoods, without giving fair consideration <br />287 <br />to the benefit for the entire City. Member DeBenedet spoke in support of the City <br />288 <br />Council's policy decision to not assess for street maintenance programs that might <br />289 <br />create additional difficulty in getting projects done; with all taxpayers paying <br />290 <br />versus individual assessments, as supported by the PMP. <br />291 <br />292 <br />e request of Member dingen, Mr. Schwartz responded to potential cost <br />293 <br />sa if street widths were reduced when reconstructed, at a minimum for <br />294 <br />resi al streets that were low volume; advising that obviously while less <br />295 <br />pavement equaled fewer dollars, the Roseville street width policy came at a time <br />296 <br />before current water volume concerns and green space concerns, and cost <br />297 <br />ramifications. Mr. Schwartz opined that, if Roseville had developed at a different <br />298 <br />time, it may have had narrower streets. However, Mr. Schwartz noted that the <br />299 <br />City of Roseville is not scheduled to be reconstructing a lot of streets in the next <br />300 <br />twenty years, and while there may be occasional opportunities to follow this trend <br />301 <br />being used by some other cities (called "road diets); when possible the City could <br />302 <br />consider this option to narrow the vehicular portion of the roadway to make room <br />303 <br />for pedestrian and /or rainwater facilities. Mr. Schwartz noted that some of those <br />304 <br />options had already been used (e.g. County Road B and Victoria Street) where <br />305 <br />roadways appear to be overbuilt for current and projected traffic volumes. Mr. <br />306 <br />Schwartz opined that this may be a valid consideration going forward. <br />Page 7 of 12 <br />