From: Tim E Strinden
To: City Council; x-City Clerk"s Office
Cc: Afshin Oskoui; Peter Brown; Nawel Voelker; Nima Mazhari; Jon Mays; Curtis Driscoll; [email protected]; Grace Castaneda
Subject: Current and Past Belmont 5-Year Pavement Plans Grossly Inaccurate and Useless for Planning - Agenda Item 9.B Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 3:29:50 PM
Attachments: Belmont Pavement Funding and Spending.pdf
Dear Belmont City Council Members,
My comments pertain to Agenda item 9.B for your meeting tonight, to discuss the latest Pavement Management Report (PMR) and its five-year projections. This report, like the three before it, is seriously flawed and should not be considered useful guidance regarding future spending on pavement. Please see my comments on prior reports, included in this email string. The last report in 2020 predicted the PCI (Pavement Condition Index) would remain the same in 2022 at 63 if then current spending of $1.7 million per year was maintained. Instead, the PCI increased to 68 at that level of spending. The prior report in 2018 predicted the PCI would stay at 59 from 2017 to 2019 (at levels of spending that included Measure I and SB-1), when it actually increased to 63. The prior report in 2015 predicted the PCI would decline from 56 to 53, when it actually rose to 59. All these prior reports were useless and misleading for planning purposes, and this latest report should be given no more credence.
It seems the purpose of all these past reports was more political than factual, to support claims by city officials that our PCI would keep falling if we didn't raise taxes to pay for infrastructure. Raising taxes for infrastructure was one of the council's top priorities when all these reports were prepared, and remains so today, even after the passage of Measure I. Money spent on these consultants was wasted and a disservice to Belmont residents because it provided a distorted and overly negative view of reality. Residents deserve a more independent and factual pavement analysis in the future to allow for good decision-making.
There is a disconnect between the Staff Report and the PMR and slideshow presentations regarding future funding available for pavement. The PMR and slideshow presentations are based on future funding of $1.7M/yr, while the Staff Report says that future funding of $2.9M/yr is available ($14.5M total). The Staff Report level of funding is more than the $2.1M/yr the PMR says is needed to maintain our current PCI of 68, so it seems that funding is adequate to keep increasing our PCI without new sources of revenue. In fact, if projection errors in the current PMR are similar to those in past PMRs, our PCI will probably increase much more than the latest PMR projections.
The PMR, Staff Report, and slideshow all overstate the effect of Measure I in increasing the PCI. The PMR falsely states on page 7 that Measure I "has been the key funding source to enable the construction of capital and roadway improvements within Belmont since its inception." While Measure I was passed in 2016 and fund collection began in April 2017, significant spending from Measure I did not begin until fiscal year 2019. Please see the attachment. The chart on page 7 of the PMR shows spending on pavement of $1.7M/yr in 2017 and 2018, but the chart is misleading both because the amounts are incorrect and the spending was not from Measure I.
The PMR also falsely states that "(t)he City was spending an average of approximately $360,000/year on pavement maintenance and rehabilitation before the passage of Measure I and State's Senate Bill 1...." In actuality, the City was spending about $1.4 million/year on pavement in the four years before significant Measure I spending began in FY 2019. Please see the attachment. While spending on pavement from Measure I and SB1 may have averaged about $1.7M/yr starting in FY 2019, it would have been much more if previous levels of spending from the general fund hadn't been cut way back once spending from Measure I began.
The Staff Report, PMR, and slideshow seem to give primary credit to Measure I for increases in the PCI, when other factors seem just as important. Significant spending from Measure I didn't even start until FY 2019, so increases in the PCI until then had nothing to do with Measure I. Joe Ririe, President of PEI, said in 2017 that crack sealing was the most important maintenance that could be done to preserve pavement. Crack sealing and pothole filling are performed by city workers and not paid for by Measure I. 165K feet of cracks were sealed in FY 2020/21, which is far more than any previous year. So, that may have contributed as much or more to recent increases in the PCI than Measure I.
Projected spending amounts for pavement are for capital spending from Measure I and SB1, and do not consider other sources like Measure A, grants, the gas tax, and the general fund. Critical spending for maintenance is not included, including crack sealing and pothole filling by city workers that is reflected in Fund 231. But, since city workers are not required to track their time by type of activity, the exact costs of their time spent on pavement can only be roughly estimated, as I have done on the attachment. For a more accurate picture of spending on pavement, city workers should start tracking their time.
The Staff Report states that "the City Council has allocated $1.4M in Infrastructure funds" for pavement. I believe that is reference to the $2M the Council allocated from the general fund for pavement in FY 2018. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe any of that money has yet been spent. Please ask staff about the discrepancy of $600K, and why the money has not yet been spent.
My comments and suggestions in this email string regarding previous PMRs still apply, and I ask you again to consider them. I hope in the future we can have a more professional PMR report and informed discussion of pavement condition and best steps going forward, without political spin.
City Clerk, please retain this entire email string with the official records for the meeting, and in accordance with your filing system for correspondence from residents.
Sincerely,
Timothy E. Strinden
Belmont resident
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Re: Belmont 5-Year Pavement Plan Flawed Again
Date:Wed, 27 May 2020 11:56:11 -0700
From:Tim E Strinden < t>
To:[email protected], Terri Cook <[email protected]> CC:Afshin Oskoui <[email protected]>, Leticia Alvarez <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Dave Warden < >, Perry Kennan < >,
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Dear Belmont City Council Members,
I performed further research this morning and found more than $4 million in additional funds available for spending on pavement that I didn't identify in my comment 1 below. This money is allocated to pavement and available for spending today. It includes $2 million in Fund 310 allocated by the Council for pavement from the general fund in FY 2018. None of this money has yet been spent. In addition, there should be an excess of more than $3 million in the Measure I fund as of the end of FY 2020. The City decided in the past to spend 71% of Measure I revenue on pavement ($1 million out of an expected $1.3 million per year), which is more than $2.3 million of the current excess ($3 million X 0.71). This total of more than $4.3 million is almost enough by itself to make up the shortfall identified in the Report to ensure the PCI does not decline over the next five years, without even considering the other usual sources of funding I identified in my comment 1.
The 2018 PMP Report assumed spending of $2.1 million per year on pavement, which included $400K per year of the $2 million allocated by the Council. The 2020 PMP Report assumes spending of only $1.7 million per year on pavement, and does not include any part of the $2 million. Why is that?
Of this $2 million in Fund 310 (Division 760, Project 3220), the FY 2020 Budget proposed to spend $1 million on pavement in FY 2020, $500K in FY 2021, and $500K in FY 2022. However, the proposed Budget for FY 2021 shows that nothing was spent in FY 2020, $1 million is proposed for FY 2021, and nothing is proposed for later years. Since you voted to spend this money on pavement, I would follow-up with the Public Works and Finance Departments to ask why none of it has yet been spent, and when it will be spent.
The estimates of current spending in both the 2018 and 2020 PMP Reports assumed annual revenues of $1.3 million from Measure I ($1 million of it for pavement) and $700K from SB-1. However, actual collections from Measure I have been significantly higher, totaling almost $1.9 million in FY 2019. While Measure I collections in FY 2020 will undoubtedly be lower than in FY 2019 due to sheltering in place the last 3 1/2 months of the year, they will probably still be higher than the $1.3 million estimated in the Report. Even if we assumed no collections during the 3 1/2 months of lockdown, the revenue for FY 2020 would still probably be higher than $1.3 million [$1.9 million X (8.5/12) = $1.346 million]. For years after FY 2020, Measure I revenues will probably be higher than in FY 2020, and higher estimates should be used in the PMP Report for those years.
By adding the $6.85 million from usual funding sources, as identified in my comment 1, to the $4.3 million identified above, I estimate the City actually has more than $11 million in additional funding available for pavement over the next five years than identified in the latest PMP Report. That should allow the City to make substantial progress in improving its PCI from current levels without new sources of funding.
Because the PMP Report is so flawed in its analysis and conclusions, even more so than I thought yesterday, and gives the erroneous impression that more funding is needed for pavement, I request that it be seriously revised or completely withdrawn from consideration.
City Clerk Cook, please file this email with the one I sent to the Council yesterday, and retain it with the official records for yesterday's Council meeting. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Timothy E. Strinden
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Belmont 5-Year Pavement Plan Flawed Again
Date:Tue, 26 May 2020 13:57:54 -0700
From:Tim E Strinden < >
To:[email protected], Afshin Oskoui <[email protected]>, Leticia Alvarez <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Terri Cook <[email protected]>, Dave Warden < >, Perry Kennan <p >, [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Belmont City Council Members,
This pertains to Agenda item 9.A for your city council meeting tonight. https://belmont-ca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php? view_id=2&event_id=728
I reviewed the Pavement Management Program (PMP) Update Report dated March 2020 and found it to be seriously flawed for many of the same reasons as the last report dated March 2018. My comments on the last report are included in this email string. My comments on the new report are as follows:
1. As in the last report, the new report grossly underestimates funding available for spending on street pavement. It estimates spending of just $1.7 million per year on pavement, which consists only of funding from Measure I and Senate Bill 1 (SB-1). It doesn't include any of the other usual sources of funds in prior years; including Measure A, grants, the gas tax, and the general fund. By spending only $1.7 million per year, the report projects that funding will fall $4.5 million short of the amount needed to maintain the streets at their current Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 63 for the next five years.
The associated Staff Report from Leticia Alvarez states that the City was spending an average of only $360,000 per year on pavement before Measure I and SB-1, but that is a gross understatement. Even if that was the case, why wasn't this amount added to the $1.7 million from Measure I and SB-1 per year to yield an estimate of $2.06 million per year for future spending?
I estimate that during fiscal years 2015 through 2018, the City actually spent an average of about $1.37 million per year on pavement. Please see the attachment.
Projected over the next five years, that is $6.85 million in additional funding that would eliminate the supposed $4.5 million shortfall, and provide an extra $2.35 million to ensure that our streets improve in condition.
By failing to include any amounts from the general fund in their projections, the City seems to be saying it's a fait accompli that the general fund will no longer be used for spending on pavement. This seems supported by the fact that Project 3112 for Overlay (pavement resurfacing) in Fund 234 was eliminated in the FY 2020 Budget.
Considering the strong new revenue sources in the City, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to decrease spending on pavement from the general fund, except to give the finance director more money without strings to make his job easier. This seems to be the type of shell game that opponents of Measure I foresaw; that the City would substitute some or all of the new money from Measure I for the old spending from the general fund, for a reduced net gain.
That is why I previously asked the Council to expand the scope of the Measure I Committee to look at overall spending on street pavement over time, to ensure that Measure I results in a significant net increase in spending on street pavement. I repeat that request today because it is clear that greater transparency is needed on this issue.
2. Projections in both the last 5-Year Plan and the one before it were overly negative and said the PCI would decline at current levels of spending, when it actually rose significantly. That raises strong doubts whether the projections in this new report may be trusted. The 2015 PMP Report predicted the PCI would decline from 56 in 2014 to 53 in 2017, when it actually rose from 56 to 59, an increase of 6 points over what was projected. The 2018 PMP Report predicted the PCI would stay at 59 from 2017 to 2019 (at levels of spending that included Measure I and SB-1), when it actually increased to 63. So, these Reports have not provided useful guidance for the City on actions to take.
3. One of the key reasons the PCI has increased so much is that city workers have done much more sealing of cracks and filling of potholes since 2016. This is shown on the chart on page 7 of the new Report. At the Measure I Workshop on 9/13/17, Joe Ririe, President of PEI that wrote the last PMP Report, said that crack sealing was the most important maintenance that could be done to preserve the pavement. However, the cost of this work is not even included in the budget projections. One reason is that it is included in Fund 231, Street Maintenance, but city workers are not required to track their time by type of activity, so it is impossible to know how much of their time is spent on pavement. In the attachment, I used a rough estimate of 50% of the time in the two divisions that work on pavement, but I again request that city workers start tracking their time so we will have better cost estimates for the future.
4. The Report estimates future costs assuming current construction costs and an annual inflation rate of 3.5%. But, construction costs and inflation will probably be much lower the next few years, as the economy recovers from the damage done by the novel coronavirus.
Future cost estimates should probably be revised downward as a result.
5. Another major flaw in this Report is that it does not give details about how future costs were calculated, unlike the prior Reports. The prior two Reports listed the cost per square yard of each type of maintenance. In the last report, the fully loaded cost was added in; including 20% "for potential PCC (concrete) repairs," 20-25% for "soft costs," and a "10% contingency." In questioning former Public Works Director Oskoui about these fully loaded costs, he said the numbers were just provided by the consultant based on past experience, but without any documentary support. Because the fully loaded costs were so much higher than the basic costs, I requested from Mr. Oskoui and believe the City should require hard data for these numbers to determine whether the assumptions are reasonable.
In conclusion, there are so many serious flaws in this latest PMP Report that it is virtually useless for planning. I request that the PMP Report be revised using my comments.
City Clerk Cook, please make this email available to the public at the Council meeting tonight, and retain it with the official records for that meeting, and in accordance with your filing system for correspondence from residents. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Timothy E. Strinden
Belmont resident
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Re: Belmont 5-Year Paving Plan Flawed
Date:Sat, 19 May 2018 08:55:59 -0700
From:timstr11 < t>
To:[email protected]
CC:[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Dave Warden < >, < >,
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Belmont City Council Members,
I was disappointed, as I have been so many times in the past, that you did not seriously address the substance of my email in your Special Meeting on May 8th. My main point was that the 5-Year Paving Plan is seriously flawed because it does not include funding sources for street pavement that have been used in the past.
Comments made at your meeting only reinforced that point.
Despite the City's Code of Conduct, Public Works Director Oskoui and Council Member Stone derided me in the meeting for using "fuzzy math" for adding "current funding" of $1.7 million to new spending of $2.1 million to get total spending of $3.8 million [41:10 on video]. According to Oskoui, the "current funding" of $1.7 million is actually the new funding from Measure I and SB-1 that is included in the total new spending amount of $2.1 million. Page 8 of the Pavement Management Program (PMP) Report cites the "current funding amount (averaging $1.7M/Yr.)." I naturally assumed that meant funding has averaged $1.7 million per year in recent years, and believe my mistake was due more to "fuzzy wording" in the Report than any "fuzzy math" on my part.
The fact that none of the five spending scenarios on page 8 of the PMP Report includes past spending on pavement shows that the Report is more seriously flawed than I thought. To be meaningful, at least one of the scenarios should have shown a continuation of spending from recent years, combined with the new funding.
Spending on street pavement probably has averaged $1.7 million or more in recent years, but records are not available to show the actual totals for each year. Spending on pavement in Fund 234, Street Improvements, averaged $1 million per year in fiscal years (FYs) 2015 and 2016, and about $600K per year in FYs 2010 - 2014 (according to Budget estimates for Projects 3100, 3112 and 3205). Spending on pavement in Fund 310, Emergency Repairs, averaged $200,000 per year in FYs 2015 and 2016.
Unfortunately, the amount of spending on pavement in Fund 231, Street Maintenance, is just a guess because Public Works (PW) employees do not track their time by type of activity. In a recent email to you, I recommended that PW workers start tracking their time, as they do in about half of neighboring cities.
Spending on pavement is included in both Divisions 750 (hard costs) and 701 (soft costs like pavement evaluation, planning, and management). It is important to include this spending because it includes the costs for PW employees to fill potholes and seal cracks, which was a significant factor in raising the City's PCI since the last PMP report three years ago. Total spending in Fund 231 averaged over $1.75 million per year in FYs 2015 and 2016, and a reasonable guess might be that half of that amount, or about $0.9 million per year, was for pavement.
Therefore, a reasonable guess might be that total spending on pavement averaged $2.1 million per year in FYs 2015 and 2016 ($1 million in Fund 234 + $200,000 in Fund 310 + $0.9 million in Fund 231). Therefore, for the PMP Report to be meaningful and not misleading, it should include a scenario that combines past and new spending totaling about $4 million per year ($2.1M past + $2.1M new), which is close to what I suggested in my original email. This should result in a PCI in the low 60s after five years, according to the Projection graph in the PMP Report.
Stone and Oskoui again derided me for my suggestion that grant money be included in the Plan because, as Oskoui said, "We don't program money that we don't have" [43:05 on video]. That completely ignored the following statement in my email:
At the Measure I Committee meeting on April 3rd, Public Works Director Afshin Oskoui said the City had received some big new grants for street improvement in Fund 234, so this should be reflected in the Plan.
Why didn't any of you ask Oskoui about that? Plus, while grant amounts may vary widely by year, they do come in every year and have averaged about $600,000 per year in Fund 234 from FYs 2010 to 2016. While much of this money is not for pavement, it would seem reasonable to break out past grants for pavement by year, and use an average of these grants for planning purposes, especially when estimating over a five-year period. By omitting grants from the plan altogether, the projected PCI numbers are understated and misleading.
Stone's focus only on grants was also a red herring because it ignored the other sources of funding for pavement that I mentioned; including Measure A, the gas tax, and the general fund. By omitting all past sources of funding for pavement, which may equal the new sources in total, the 5-Year Paving Plan is very misleading and useless for estimating future PCI scores.
Council Member Mates asked an important question: why did the "fully loaded unit costs" on page 6 of the new PMP Report increase so much from the "construction only" unit costs in the prior PMP Report, causing a huge increase of $24 million in total estimated costs of pavement repair (an increase of 64% from $38.1 million to $62.5 million) [45:34 on video]? Oskoui responded that it was because soft costs and other costs associated with pavement repair were included for the first time. Because this increase was so large, I would ask to see how these soft and associated costs were calculated, to see if the methodology is reasonable. If any of these associated costs include regular salaries of City employees, they should be added as funding sources for pavement.
As I said in my previous email, the gross omission of past pavement spending from the Plan shows why it is important that the Measure I Committee be given more authority to look at overall spending over time, to ensure that overall spending on pavement and storm drains increases significantly as a result of Measure I and SB-I.
Because the Committee is restricted to looking only at Measure I spending, Mayor Kim's statement that the Measure I committee "provides proper oversight" is far from accurate [50:00 of video].
While many of you were effusive in praising Measure I and its benefits, the presentations at your meeting indicated just the opposite - that Measure I probably wasn't needed. The PCI actually increased 3 points between 2014 and 2017, contrary to the decline of 3 points that was projected in the prior PMP Report. This was a net increase of 6 points over what was projected, without any Measure I spending.
While there were several contributing factors to the PCI increase, the consensus of experts at the meeting was that increased levels of crack sealing and filling of potholes by PW employees the past few years was one of the main reasons. This probably had a greater impact than Measure I funds would have had, but no funding for cracks and potholes is even included in the new Plan. Joe Ririe, President of PEI that wrote the PMP Report, said that Rick's PW crew has "...been out there busy, filling potholes, crack sealing, and that has a huge impact in terms of holding the streets together..." [17:05 on video]. At the Measure I Workshop on 9/13/17, Ririe said that crack sealing was the most important maintenance that could be done to preserve the pavement. Oskoui said that PW employees have received additional equipment and training that has made them more productive over the past 3-4 years, on "existing tax dollars" [43:30 on video]. In the past, the Council has had a singleminded focus on raising revenues for streets, without considering other possible solutions, like working smarter with existing dollars.
I believe the Council overlooked a huge opportunity at the Special Meeting to exercise its oversight responsibility and leverage these great PW achievements into continued future successes. If I was on the Council, I would have asked Oskoui the following questions:
1. Has the focus on filling cracks and potholes the past few years diverted resources needed for other PW activities?
2. Can the enhanced focus on cracks and potholes be maintained, or even increased in the future?
3. Are more employees or funding needed for cracks and potholes?
4. Is more equipment and training needed?
5. Would it be cost-effective for PW employees to perform more maintenance activities, like slurry sealing, instead of contracting out?
6. Please provide records showing the number of potholes and linear feet of cracks filled in prior years, to show the changes over time. [Ririe said they've already "done over 100,000 lineal feet of crack filling and 460 potholes" this year [17:05 on video], so the records appear to be available.]
Oskoui said the PMP Report was recently completed, but it is dated March 2017. Is that an error?
From information provided at your Special Meeting, it appears that existing funding, together with increased efficiencies by PW employees, are more than adequate to ensure healthy increases in the PCI in future years, without additional funding. I continue to request that the PMP Report be updated to show the combined effect of past and new funding for pavement, including the "hard" and "soft costs" of City employees and equipment. The continued efficiencies of the PW Department should also be factored in. Otherwise, the projections in the Report are meaningless.
City Clerk Cook, please retain this email in the official records for the Special Meeting, and in accordance with your filing system for correspondence from residents. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Tim Strinden
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Belmont 5-Year Paving Plan Flawed
Date:Tue, 8 May 2018 16:12:40 -0700
From:timstr11 < t>
To:[email protected]
CC:[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Dave Warden < >, >,
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Belmont City Council Members,
This pertains to Agenda item 1.A for your Special Meeting tonight. The Staff Report grossly underestimates the funding available for spending on street pavement, and I request that the 5-Year Paving Plan be amended to show the correct spending amounts and PCI projections.
next five years to maintain and repair the City's roads:
http://belmont-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?
view_id=2&event_id=555&meta_id=26296
According to the Report, this is all new money from Measure I, Senate Bill 1 (SB-1), and the one-time allocation of $2 million from the General Fund Reserve. At this level of spending, page 10 of the Five-Year Paving Report says Belmont's Pavement Condition Index (PCI) will increase from 59 today to 61 in five years:
http://belmont-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?
view_id=2&event_id=555&meta_id=26298
However, this plan does not include any amounts from current sources; including Measure A, grants, the gas tax, and the general fund. At the Measure I Committee meeting on April 3rd, Public Works Director Afshin Oskoui said the City had received some big new grants for street improvement in Fund 234, so this should be reflected in the Plan. Page 8 of the new Pavement Management Program (PMP) Report states that current funding has averaged $1.7 million per year:
http://belmont-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?
view id=2&event id=555&meta id=26297
Therefore, it seems the 5-Year Plan should show spending of at least $3.8 million per year, which would include current spending of $1.7 million plus the new spending of $2.1 million. Even this amount is understated because it does not include the cost of