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