association of idaho public works professionals...s:\public works\divisions\administration\admin...

$: Association of Idaho Public Works Professionals...S:\Public Works\DIVISIONS\Administration\Admin Information\AI PWP\Fall 2011 Meeting\Minutes 11-3-11 FINAL.doc Page 1 of 3 Association$
S:\Public Works\DIVISIONS\Administration\Admin Information\AIPWP\Fall 2011 Meeting\Minutes 11-3-11 FINAL.doc Page 1 of 3

Association of Idaho Public Works Professionals Fall Conference Meeting Minutes

November 3, 2011

President Michael Fuss brought the meeting to order. A plaque of appreciation was presented to John Tensen, P.E., City of Boise for his dedicated service to AIPWP as former president. Ken Harward of the Association of Idaho Cities (AIC) thanked all the attendees for their contribution to building their communities. Three events are coming soon:

November 18, 2011, 10 AM-12 Noon, meeting (he will send an email invitation) December 9, 2011 – AIC Legislative Committee Meeting at the Capitol in the large

auditorium – water rights issues, airport zoning issues (to repeal ITD’s zoning right and give them to the city), stormwater issues and how to pay for them, transportation funding (unlikely to have increased revenue for 2012-13),

June 20-22, 2012 - AIC Annual Conference at Boise Center on the Grove – would like to collect ideas for workshops

Secretary/Treasurer Tom Barry presented the Treasurer’s Report. (See Attachment A) As of November 3, 2011, the balance of the AIPWP checking account is $4,956.58. No dues collections were made for 2011. Dues notices will be sent out in January 2012. Dues are determined by the number of employees in the PW departments. In 2010, 64 cities had AIPWP membership. All information is on the AIPWP website for those members not able to attend the meetings. The following topics were presented (See Attachment B): ACEC Report Card (see Atttachment C) Presented by Tim Haener, P.E., J-U-B

ACEC represents about 60 companies in Idaho and has eight legislative liaisons Presented an update on the issues they have been dealing with over the past year. Presented a brief update on issues they are currently dealing with and those slated for

the future Question on Changes in ITD selection process (mini solicitation). They may use a

selection committee for certain term agreement projects ($150,000-$500,000). Cities should voice their opinion by contacting Jerry Flatz at LHTAC and Leo Hickman and Holly McClure at ITD. The committee will have an ITD representative, LHTAC representative and a local representative. ACEC will be working on this issue

Transportation Safety and Bridge Rehabilitation Presented by Donn Carnahan, P.E., Keller & Associates

Safety PowerPoint presentation (See attachment D)


o Highway Safety Manual (HSM) available – new edition, 3 volumes o Bruce Drewes of LHTAC will be doing HSM Lite training soon in Idaho o FHWA Road Safety Audits (RSA) o ITD – Road Safety Audit Manual –The North Overland Road, Burley project

was provided as a practical example of safety improvements advocated by the manual

Bridge Rehabilitation PowerPoint Presentation (see Attachment E) o Bridge Rehabilitation

Can be cost-effective solution Recommend going with higher contingency Bridge will still need to be replaced

o Four examples of bridge projects were discussed Idaho T2 Center Road Scholar & Master Program Presented by Bruce Drewes, Idaho T2 Center Manager, LHTAC

Local Highway Efficiency Summit PowerPoint Presentation (see Attachment F) o Personnel costs are largest expense – most have various education/training

needs o Idaho T2 – Federal and local funding to provide training and technical

assistance to all local highway jurisdictions in Idaho 2010 LTAP/TTAP Program Assessment Report (see Attachment G)

o Training opportunities: Road Scholar/Road Master Program (see Attachment H) Safety Fest – very beneficial training for employees at no charge in

several cities around Idaho o Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – established minimum retro-

reflective requirements in the 2009 MUTCD – is proposing to change/remove compliance dates. Regulations are still in place so minimums are still required. There will be a MUTCD course this spring.

o ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act – sidewalks are an issue but facilities must also be compliant. There will be ADA compliance training this spring. Organizations with 50+ employees must have an inventory and compliance plan for facilities.

o New FHWA program called Every Day Counts (EDC) – initiatives that will reduce construction time/costs on projects and explore new technologies (from 5 to 16). December 15, 1st national training event (7 locations) for an EDC

training activity to include web-conferencing and a discussion period with ITD, LHTAC and engineering organization subject matter experts.

Other 2012 training dates include Feb 16, Apr 19, Jun 21, Aug 16 Notices for these classes will come out this week ITD will adopt 12 of these technologies

Transportation Funding


Presented by Mark Bowen, P.E., CH2M Hill

PowerPoint presentation (See Attachment I) o Discussed the Transportation Funding Task Force Study mandated by the

governor UPRR Proposal Regarding STOP/YIELD Signs Presented by Michael Fuss, P.E., AIPWP President

Change in MUTCD – UPRR has approached ITD and local agencies (Bill Intz) that if local agencies will provide the signs, UPRR will install and maintain the signs. According to Idaho Code, railroad crossings are required to have stop signs.

Open Forum

ASCE Infrastructure Report Robyn Mattison of Forsgren Associates - PowerPoint Presentation (see Attachment J)

o ASCE has a national Report Card o Undertaking an ASCE Idaho Report Card o Survey has been sent out with 46 responses so far o Questions, responses and grades were discussed

Idaho Overall Composite Scores: Drinking Water C+, Wastewater B- o Fact Sheet will be written and released in February/March 2012 o Open discussion suggested that a higher weight be assigned to

Repaired/Replaced Annually and Condition categories

McCall Public Works Director o LHTAC can provide free pavement management software to communities of

less than 5,000. o Proposed Amendment to Idaho Code (see Attachment K)

Water rights issues regarding land application – proposal to add #8 Rapid infiltration credits may be beneficial Suggestion offered to delete remaining language after “disposal of

effluent” in first sentence. Idaho Water Users may have concerns about that.

Discussion on who really owns the water once it reaches treatment Meeting adjourned at 12:25 PM Respectfully Submitted, Thomas H. Barry, P.E.G. Secretary/Treasurer

S:\Public Works\DIVISIONS\Administration\Admin Information\AIPWP\Fall 2011 Meeting\Treasurer's Report 11-03-11.doc

Association of Idaho Public Works Professionals Fall Conference, November 3, 2011

Secretary/Treasurer’s Report Checking Account: Beginning balance as of June 22, 2011 $5,034.32 Receipts $0.00 Expenditures $145.95

Net balance as of November 3, 2011 $4,956.58

Expenditure Summary: Date Amount To Purpose 10/21/11 $3.00 Wells Fargo Fee for sheet of checks (3 per sheet) 10/25/11 $42.95 Bulldog Shirt

Shop Plaque for John Tensen

10/25/11 $100.00 IRS Reduced User Fee TOTAL $145.95 Type of Checks:

3 per page sheets @ $3.00 each

OR 150 checks @ $29.36

Dues Collection: Letters out first part of January, 2012 Membership dues collected during February, 2012 Dues per city are determined by the number of Public Works employees:

o > 20 employees $40.00 o 6-20 employees $20.00 o ≤ 5 employees $10.00 o Dues are collected from only one active member per city. Additional

membership is at no charge. Dues Statistics

o In 2010, 64 cities with AIPWP membership o Total collected for 2010 $1,240.00 o No dues collected in 2011

Respectfully Submitted, Thomas H. Barry, P.E.G. Secretary/Treasurer

sdeardorff

Typewritten Text

Attachment A

sdeardorff

Typewritten Text

AIPWP FALL CONFERENCE November 3, 2011

City of Nampa Fire Training Facility 300 West Railroad Street

TOPIC

8:00 am 8:30 am Sign In

8:30 am 8:45 am Welcome and Introductions Michael Fuss, P.E., AIPWP President

8:45 am 8:50 am Treasurer’s Report Tom Barry, P.E.G., AIPWP Secretary

8:50 am 9:15 am ACEC Report Card Tim Haener, P.E., J-U-B

9:15 am 10:00 am Transportation Safety and Bridge Rehabilitation Donn Carnahan, P.E., Keller & Associates

10:00 am 10:15 am BREAK Sponsored by Keller & Associates

10:15 am 10:45 am Idaho T2 Center Road Scholar & Master Program Bruce Drewes, Idaho T2 Center Manager, LHTAC

10:45 am 11:30 am Transportation Funding Mark Bowen, P.E., CH2M Hill

11:30 am 11:45 am UPRR Proposal Regarding STOP/YIELD Signs Michael Fuss, P.E., AIPWP President

11:45 am 12:00 pm Open Discussion

12:00 pm Adjourn

sdeardorff

Typewritten Text

Attachment B

sdeardorff

Typewritten Text

Attachment C

AIPWP FALL CONFERENCE

Transportation Safety

November 3, 2011

Presenter:Donn Carnahan, P.E. ‐ Keller Associates

sdeardorff

Typewritten Text

Attachment D

sdeardorff

Typewritten Text

““NewNew”” Transportation Transportation Safety InformationSafety Information

Highway Safety Manual (HSM)

1st Edition, 3 Volumes

AASHTO Publication

Resource to provide safety knowledge

Provide tools in a useful form

Facilitate improved decision making

Quantitative information

HSM assembles current information and methodologies

Convey safety knowledge for use by a broad spectrum of users

2

HSM Overview and OrganizationHSM Overview and Organization

Part A - Introduction

Part B - Safety Management Process

Part C - Predictive Methods

Part D - Crash Modification Factors

3

FHWA Road Safety Audits (RSA)FHWA Road Safety Audits (RSA) Excerpts from 2010 Highway Safety Summit April 28, 2010 by Lance Johnson, FHWA

Definition: An RSA is a formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary team. The team considers the safety of all road users.

Benefits Reduces the number and severity of crashes

Promotes awareness of safe practices

Process to identify and address problems

Considers human factors and multimodal issues

Low cost & time investment

Concerns & Barriers New process

Expectation of immediate results

Results in additional project costs

Liability exposure

4

RSA National ActivityRSA National Activity

5

Excerpts from 2010 Highway Safety Summit April 28, 2010 by Lance Johnson FHWA

RSA ProcessRSA Process

6


Resources and ReferencesResources and References

7


RSA ResourcesRSA Resources

Website updates http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa

RSA Quarterly Newsletter

RSA Toolkit CD

RSA Guidelines

RSA Pedestrian Guidelines

RSA Case Studies

RSA Tribal Case Studies

RSA Software

RSA NHI Course (#380069)

RSA Peer-to-Peer Program

8


ITD ITD –– Road Safety Audit ManualRoad Safety Audit Manual Executive Summary

Road Safety Audits (RSAs) have become a proven countermeasure for improving safety on roadways. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) plans to utilize this countermeasure to reduce the number of crashes and the severity of crashes on Idaho’s roads.

The RSA process is a formal, independent safety evaluation on planned or existing roadways by an experienced and multidisciplinary team of specialists. The team looks for existing and/or potential safety hazards that may affect any type of roadusers and identifies possible countermeasures to address those safety issues. The RSA team is composed of transportation professionals and individuals with special safety knowledge from federal, state and local agencies and may include engineers, law enforcement, first responders, maintenance and other disciplines that may provide valuable input for a section of road.

9

The following guidelines formalize ITD’s procedures on RSA’s. It contains the steps for conducting an RSA on an existing road or project. The principal purpose of the RSA is to identify potential safety issues that may be caused by the design, or some operational aspect of the facility and is meant to be proactive. It should consider all road users such as drivers, pedestrian, motorcyclists and bicyclists. The RSA is not meant to rank projects or to determine compliance with standards.

The key to a successful RSA is capturing essential safety and operational issues. The prioritized recommendations are low cost suggestions that generally pertain to traffic signs, striping, rumble strips, bike and pedestrian safety enhancements, sight distance and other safety issues.

The guidelines presented in this manual utilize information from the NCHRP SYNTHESIS 36 & 321, FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines 2006 and from Nevada’s Department of Transportation’s RSA Procedures and Guidelines 2009.

RecommendationsRecommendations Short term (within six months) Medium term (within six months to three years) Long term (three years or more)

10

North Overland Road, Burley North Overland Road, Burley Example of safety improvements, more access - less conflict Project Goals: Improve existing pavement condition and eliminate congestion points

11

After

Before

Three Alternatives were Developed for EvaluationThree Alternatives were Developed for Evaluation

Traditional TWLT lane with combined access where possible

“Limited Access” Alternative Hybrid using parts of frontage roads and off-system improvements

“Median” Alternative Right-in / right-out driveways only, with opportunities for U-turns.

12

13

Excerpt from Concept Report, January 2007“Median Alternative”

Conflict AnalysisConflict Analysis

14

Conflict SummaryConflict Summary

15

After

Before

After

Before

ConclusionConclusion

“New” Highway Safety Manual (HSM)

FHWA Road Safety Audits (RSA)

ITD – Road Safety Audit Manual

Practical example of safety improvements – North Overland Road, Burley

Questions?Questions?

16

East Parkway Corridor Plan

Bridge RehabilitationAIPWP Conference November 3, 2011

Presented by: Donn Carnahan, P.E.

sdeardorff

Typewritten Text

Attachment E


Bridge Rehabilitation Can be a cost‐effective solution – especially with current economic and funding situation

Budget a higher contingency than for new construction

Don’t forget replacement will eventually be needed

Today – Four Bridge Rehabilitation Examples 16th Avenue Overpass, Nampa

Igo Overpass, Power County

Custer Street Bridge, Pocatello

Snake River Bridge, Blackfoot


1616THTH Avenue Overpass, NampaAvenue Overpass, Nampa

History / Facts 766 feet long

58 feet wide

11 spans

Built in 1969

69.9 sufficiency, structurally deficient

8” cast‐in‐place Portland cement deck

Open steel girder system

Concrete piers and pier caps

Overpass crosses the UPRR tracks

4‐lane, 2‐way structure

Vehicular and pedestrian traffic

Substructure (sacrificial anodes) rehabilitation in 2003


Problems / Investigation Joints leaking

Chain drag method ‐ 17% deck delamination

Upper 0.75 – 1.25 inches of deck had chloride ion concentration; exceeds American Concrete Institute's allowable content of 0.85 pounds chloride per cubic yard

Reinforcing steel corroding



Options / Solution Replace Deck

Deck Overlay

Rehabilitate Deck


Annual Cost for Rehabilitation Alternatives

Action Considered Service

Life (Yr) Capital Cost

Salvage Value

Annual Cost

Alternative No. 1, Rehabilitate Deck 25 $1,914,000 0 $149,732 Alternative No. 2, Replace Deck 50 $3,121,000 $1,560,500 $215,708 Alternative No. 3, Deck Overlay 40 $2,599,000 $974,620 $185,552


Igo Overpass – Power County


30 feet wide

Built in 1935

Concrete girders and deck

Concrete piers and caps

45° skew

3 span, center span over railroad tracks



Problems / Investigation Power County Highway District decided to replace

Igo Overpass

The rate at which the Districty was accumulating money was only keeping up with increase in construction costs

Likelihood of receiving full funding to replace the structure was low

Keller was asked for other ideas; goal to complete adequate rehabilitation to extend the life of the bridge until a new bridge is constructed in 15 years

11 core samples, 28 chloride tests

Only one sample exceeded recommended maximum

Microscopic analysis showed only mild to moderate ASR, has not weakened concrete significantly

Difficult to determine amount of deck delamination

Used ground penetrating radar to penetrate asphalt and map delaminated areas of deck



Options / Solution Construct New Bridge

Rehabilitate Bridge‐ Repair deck surface‐ Repair beam cracks‐ Improve drainage‐ Replace wing walls

Cost EffectivenessAnnual Cost for Rehabilitation

Action Considered Service

Life (Yr) Capital Cost

Salvage Value

Annual Cost

Rehabilitate the old bridge 15 $546,000 0 $56,182 Construct a new bridge 50 $1,150,000 0 $60,283




58 feet wide

Over the Portneuf River

7” cast‐in‐place deck with 2” asphalt overlay wearing surface

Built in 1953



Problems/ Investigation Deck in poor condition

Exposed reinforcing steel

Sidewalk and curbing deteriorated

Deck is 77% delaminated

High concentration of soluble chlorides

Chloride concentration accelerated corrosion of reinforcing steel

Concrete has alkali silica reaction (ASR) and is weakening the strength of concrete

Bearing plates corroded

Concrete was incompetent through core sample

Delamination at ½” to 1” below the surface


Options / Solution Reconstruct superstructure

Repair deck only

Replace deck and repair girders‐ Replace deck (Fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP))

considered‐ Repair girders‐ Replace bearing plates


ANNUAL COSTS FOR REHABILITATION ALTERNATIVES

Alternative Service Life

(Yr) Capital

Cost Salvage Value

Annual Cost

Alt 1 – Repair Deck Only 10 $234,000 $92,000 $24,803 Alt 2 – Replace Deck and Repair Girders 30 $259,000 0 $18,803 Alt 3 – Reconstruct Superstructure 50 $306,000 0 $19,412




24 feet wide roadway, 4 feet sidewalk

Built in 1936

4 spans

7 ½ inch concrete deck over steel floor beams

4 spans

Over the Snake River

47.5 sufficiency, structurally deficient

Structure has more freeboard than upstream Highway 26 bridge

Regionally unique truss type bridge, Warren Camelback Truss



Problems / Investigation Deck in poor condition

Piers in poor condition, large cracks

Parapet in poor condition (historic)

Alkali‐silica reaction (ASR) detected in all samples

High chloride content found

Approach slabs have vigorous ASR

Approach slabs less than adequate compaction

Concrete parapet in advanced stage of deterioration

Vehicle damage to lateral brace



Solutions Extended rehabilitation ($4 million)

Replace bridge ($10 million)

Extended rehabilitation and new 2‐lane parallel bridge ($12 million)

Basic rehabilitation ($700,000)

Limited budget

Replace approach slabs

Bridge deck rehabilitation


Take Aways Bridge rehabilitation can be a cost‐effective solution

Budget a higher contingency than for new construction

Replacement will eventually be needed

Questions?

Bruce DrewesManager

LHTAC/Idaho T2 Center

Training to Improve Administrative and Operational Efficiency

sdeardorff

Typewritten Text

Attachment F

Demographic of Idaho Transportation Idaho Transportation Department

Maintains 5,400 miles State Highway System Local Highway Jurisdictions

Maintains 34,000 miles of Local highway system

Definition Idaho Law, Title 40 defines “Highway” as mean roads, streets, alleys

and bridges laid out or established for the public or dedicated or abandoned to the public. Highways shall include necessary culverts, sluices, drains, ditches, waterways, embankments, retaining walls, bridges, tunnels, grade separation structures, roadside improvements, adjacent lands or interests lawfully acquired, pedestrian facilities, and any other structures, works or fixtures incidental to the preservation or improvement of the highways. Roads laid out and recorded as highways, by order of a board of commissioners, and all roads used as such for a period of five (5) years, provided they shall have been worked and kept up at the expense of the public, or located and recorded by order of a board of commissioners, are highways.

Local Highway Jurisdictions 44 Counties 55 Highway Districts 180 Cities

We don’t know what we don’t know

Education of employees and administration occur through a number of methods: On the job training Conferences and events (Associations and member sponsored events)

Other outside organization (Vocational Technical Schools, Colleges and University)

Idaho Technology Transfer Center (Idaho T2)

On the Job Training The least costly type of training. Effective in maintaining the current process or practice.

Specific job related training Both the good practices as well as the bad are taught. Standard often will be modified through each training

Conferences and events All four Associations have conferences and provide education opportunities to those in attendance (City, County, Highway District and County Engineers and Road Superintendents).

Web conferences (American Public Works Association (APWA), National Association of County Engineers (NACE), Federal Highway Administration and Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP).

Other conferences (Idaho Asphalt Conference, Roads and Streets Conference and the Association of Idaho Cities Conference)

Other outside organizations Vocational Technical Schools:

Provide some general maintenance and management education on an individual need.

Colleges and University:Specific advanced educational opportunities for the professional level staff as identified by the individual.

Idaho T2 Federally and Local Agency Funded Located at Local Highway Technical Assistance Council Charged with providing Training and Technical Assistance to all of the Local Highway Jurisdiction in Idaho.

In 2010 the Center provided 136 courses to 2,538 students. The Safety Fest of the Northwest is held in Pocatello and Lewiston.

3.5 FTEs

Other programs within the T2 Program

Video/DVD lending library (1000 titles) Road Scholars Program(basic level)

Nine Core Courses Two Electives

Road Master Program (upper level) Eight Core Courses Two Elective

Road ScholarCity of Nampa

City of Hayden

Gem County

Lakes Highway District

City of Emmett

Road MastersNez Perce County

Gem County

Bingham CountyCity of Chubbuck

City of Hailey

Pay for Performance City of Nampa

Complete the Road Scholar= 3% pay increase(98%) Complete the Road Master = 4% pay increase(98%)

Value Better understanding of Seal Coating principles. Purchase newer and more efficient equipment. Reduction of waste, improved efficiency and reduction of complaints and claims= $$$ Saved.

Don’t get left holding the bag!

Questions?

sdeardorff

Typewritten Text

Attachment G

sdeardorff

Typewritten Text

Attachment H

Mark BowenMark BowenJune 23, 2011June 23, 2011

Transportation Funding In Idaho

Mark Bowen

Nov. 3, 2011

sdeardorff

Typewritten Text

Attachment I

Idaho has 36,870 lane miles of local paved roads

4

Local Paved Roads

People Per Lane Mile

75

61

71

17

56

18

13

Governor’s Task Force on Modernizing Transportation Funding

December 2, 2009

Thomas R. Warne, PETom Warne and Associates

Situation: Transportation Faces Historic Policy Issues

Financing the System

Climate Change

Situation: Capacity Improvements Don’t Meet Demands• Idaho‐from 1990 to 2007Population grew 48.6%Vehicle miles travelled grew by 55%Roadway capacity grew by 3.3%

Situation: The System is Over 50 Years Old and Wearing Out

Situation: The Purchasing Power of the 18.4¢ Federal Tax Lags

Situation: EPA Finds GHGs as a Significant Public ThreatEPA finding that greenhouse gas emissions pose a significant threat to public health and safetyIncludes CO2

Rulemaking would allow them to regulate CO2emissionsUnknown but significant impacts on transportation projects‐particularly capacity projects

Situation: TIGER Discretionary Grants Are Over SubscribedTeam created to expedite $1.5 Billion in Discretionary Grants

Grants will range from $20 Million to $300 Million

Competitive application acceptance process1,361 applications receivedTotal value of the applications‐$57 billion (38 times available funding)

• (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery‐TIGER)

Financing the System: National Initiatives

National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission

National Transportation Infrastructure Finance Commission

Financing the System‐National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission

Reduce funding categories from over 108 to 10Increase the motor fuels taxTransition to a vehicle‐mileage taxStreamline environmental processesLeverage Public‐Private‐Partnerships

Financing the System – National Transportation Infrastructure Finance CommissionConsider implementation of multiple financing optionsTransition to a vehicle mileage tax10¢ gas tax and 15¢ on dieselTolling provisions

Situation: Late Authorizations Create Programming Problems

States have no idea about future funding levels and are unable to plan ahead

States cannot embark on large projects due to uncertainty of funding levels

Capacity demands continue to increase. Funds are diverted from maintenance to capacity projects

Situation: Probable Outcomes of the New Transportation BillNo significant increase in Federal funding

More regulation and oversight

Climate change impacts

EPA with a greater role in transportation

Less flexibility on how money is spent

May not be a six‐year bill

Summary: Federal Funding Implications for Idaho Idaho cannot solely rely on the federal

government or programs to solve their

funding problems

Idaho should be engaged in the climate change debate

ITD will have to respond to more federal regulation

Summary

Federal Aid will not substantially increase and will be fraught with more regulationStates are taking the initiative in solving their own transportation funding challengesCitizens are willing to pay for transportation if there is a plan that includes projects, a schedule and a limit on the tax increase

Task Force Recommendations

• Funding Need


• Funding Need• Highway Cost Allocation Study


• Funding Need• Highway Cost Allocation Study• Prioritized Additional Revenue Sources (The Matrix)1. Fuel Tax (1 cent = $8.9M net to HDA)2. Wholesale Fuel Sales Tax ( 1% = $22.5M to HDA)3. Index Fuel Tax (CPI – 1996 to 2010 = $73.8M)4. Rental Car Ex Tax (3% = $1M to HDA)5. Registration Fees (10% increase = $5M PV only)


• Funding Need• Highway Cost Allocation Study• Prioritized Additional Revenue Sources (The Matrix)

• Allow Local Jurisdictions to Fund Public Transportation1. User Fees and Fares2. Local Option Sales Tax

Additional Task Force Recommendations

• Legislative Germaine Committees to examine the HDA Distribution Formula– Encourage Increased Efficiencies

Where Are We Today 2011?

• Federal Level–Divided Congress (Uncertainty is Certain)–Continuing Resolutions –American Jobs Act (Ongoing Debate)

• Senate’s Version = – $50B for Transportation– $10B Infrastructure Bank– 0.7% surtax on incomes over $1M– Little chance of passage

Where Are We Today 2011?

• Federal Level• State Level

– 2012• Redistricting has much attention• No significant Transportation Legislation

– Tough Economy• LHTAC structure reviews• Ballot Initiative on Local Option Tax (Idaho Voters for Local Control PAC has been established)

– 2013• Expect a comprehensive legislative package in concert with Task Force recommendations

– Gas Tax– Registration Fee– Bridge Safety

Idaho Transportation Funding

• Barriers to New Funding– Economy– Political Environment (no new taxes!)– Lack of Public Perception that there is a Problem– Lack of Trust at the Legislature (Efficiencies)

• ITD (Improved since 2008)• Locals

Transportation Funding In Idaho

Mark Bowen

Nov. 3, 2011

Questions?

Local Transportation FundingSurrounding State Comparison

Water & Wastewater Infrastructure

Robyn Mattison, P.E.Vice‐President, ASCE‐SIS

sdeardorff

Typewritten Text

Attachment J

RoadmapReport Card Introduction

Survey

Survey Questions, Responses, & Grades

Summary

and

Overa

ll Grad

es

Your Thoughts

What’s Next?

ASCE Report Card

ASCE Idaho Report Card Goal

Assess the condition of our infrastructure and provide this information to the public and policy makers in an understandable way.

Subcommittees assigned for categories Transportation Water Resources

Dams, Levees Municipal Environment

Water, Wastewater Energy

Production, Transmission Public Facilities

Public Parks and Recreation, Schools

Survey Emailed or mailed to:

AIPWPs list Tim Wendland (DEQ) contacts

Idaho Rural Water Association

Responses received via email, mail, or on‐line.

No. of responses so far: 46 entities

Survey Questions and ResponsesQuestion:What is your service population?

Drinking Water441,000 people

Approximately 28% of Idaho’s population

(2010 Census)

Wastewater740,000 people

Approximately 47% of Idaho’s population

(2010 Census)

Survey Questions and ResponsesQuestion:Total length of distribution or collection lines (approximately)

Drinking Water Distribution

Total (miles) 2,578 3,176

Length of distribution or collection lines repaired/replaced annually

Total replaced/ 9.4 14.0Repaired annually (miles)

100 year pipe life 25.8 (36%) 31.7 (44%)D+ C‐

Wastewater Collection

Survey Questions and ResponsesQuestion:Condition ‐What is the general condition of your drinking water or wastewater system?

2.68

C+

Response Options

Grade

Excellent A – 4.0

Good B – 3.0

Fair C – 2.0

Poor D – 1.0

Failed F – 0.0

Drinking Water Wastewater

Weighted Result

Weighted Grade

2.81

B‐

Survey Questions and ResponsesQuestion:Capacity – Drinking water or wastewater system can support…

3.00

B

Response Options Grade

100% + long‐term growth

A – 4.0

100% + short‐term growth

B – 3.0

90% to 100% C – 2.0

80% to 90% D – 1.0

70% to 80% F – 0.0


Weighted Result

Weighted Grade

3.32

B+

Survey Questions and ResponsesQuestion:Operations Budget – The current budget is adequate for facility

maintenance, operations costs, and planned upgrades required for increasing capacity or meeting regulatory requirements.

3.36

B+

Response Options

Grade

I agree A – 4.0

I somewhat agree B – 3.0

I somewhat disagree

C – 2.0

I disagree D – 1.0

I strongly disagree F – 0.0


Weighted Result

Weighted Grade

2.99

B‐

Survey Questions and ResponsesQuestion:Drinking Water System – Source water…

2.61

C+

Response Options Grade

is extremely well protected and has no significant pollution sources. A – 4.0

is protected by significant and active source water protection program, but some pollution sources may exist

B – 3.0

has some protections but no significant and active source protection program.

C – 2.0

is not well protected, and there is clear evidence of substantial source water pollution.

D – 1.0

is largely unprotected and has serious contamination problems. F – 0.0

Weighted Result

Weighted Grade

Survey Questions and ResponsesQuestion:Collection System – In the last 10 years, what percent of your

sewer collection lines have you inspected using CCTV techniques?

2.86

B‐

Response Options

Grade

>80% A – 4.0

60% to 80% B – 3.0

40% to 60% C – 2.0

20% ‐ 40% D – 1.0

<20% F – 0.0

Weighted Result

Weighted Grade

Results SummaryWeighted Results


Repaired/Replaced Annually

Condition

CCTV

Capacity

Operations Budget

Source Water

Average (4.0 scale)

Grade

1.53/D+2.68/C+

3.36/B+2.61/C+

3.00/B

2.63C+

1.77/C‐2.81/B‐

2.99/B‐

2.86/B‐3.32/B+

2.75B‐

Your Thoughts? Should the 5 questions be weighted equally?

Is one more or less important in Idaho than another?

Is it fair to weigh the grades based on population? Large cities had a big impact on the grades

Are the grades given fairly? Should a “C” response actually be a “D” or “F”?

Our next step Develop Grades & Category Write‐up

Explain how the grades were developed Not as much detail as provided today

ASCE National Report Card Committee Review Goal to send to ASCE National by December 9, 2011

Release late February/early March Bound copies & online Media Event/Press Release IEF Legislative Gala

sdeardorff

Typewritten Text

Attachment K

association of idaho public works professionals...s:\public works\divisions\administration\admin...

Documents