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) PavedGravelTotal Centerline Miles % of Paved Centerline Miles % of Gravel Centerline Miles % of Total Primary24062%20280%44269% Subdivision15038%5120%20131% Total390100%253100%643100% % Of All Maintained Roads Total61%39%100%

Centerline Miles of County Maintained Roads PavedGravelTotal Centerline Miles % of Paved Centerline Miles % of Gravel Centerline Miles % of Total Primary24062%20280%44269% Subdivision15038%5120%20131% Total390100%253100%643100% % Of All Maintained Roads Total61%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 Year Change Pavement QualityMiles% % % Change Poor (<4.9 PQI) Fair (5 – 7 PQI) Good (>7 PQI) Average PQI Year Change PQI7.2 PQI+.5 PQI+ 7.5%

2009 Primary County Roads

2012 Primary County Roads

Summary of Subdivision Pavement Condition Year Change Pavement Quality Miles% % % Change Poor (<4.9 PQI) % Fair (5 – 7 PQI) % Good (>7 PQI) % 1.3% difference in mileage between 2009 and 2012 due to survey variability Average PQI Year Change PQI5.4 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

Summary of Subdivision Pavement 5 Year Rehab. Program Cost Comparison Average PQI Year Change PQI5.4 PQI-.5 PQI-8% 5 Year Rehab. Program Cost Comparison $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?