1 of 5
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
City Attorney Approval: ______ Resolution No. ____________ RESOLUTION NO. ____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, CALLING ON FRESNO COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND FRESNO COUNCIL
OF GOVERNMENTS TO ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY IN
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MEASURE C RENEWAL EFFORT
FOR PLACEMENT ON THE BALLOT IN 2024
WHEREAS, Fresno County taxpayers have contributed more than $3 billion to Measure C, a half-cent transportation sales tax; and
WHEREAS, the Measure C Renewal Executive Committee is presently recommending nearly $7 billion more in tax revenues through the year 2057; and WHEREAS, Measure C is not set to expire until 2027; and WHEREAS, Fresno County residents deserve a transportation sales tax measure that invests in people, supports healthy and thriving nei ghborhoods, and connects households – especially low-income households across urban and rural communities – to opportunity; and
WHEREAS, taxpayer spending plans should be identified, led, and driven by community members; and
WHEREAS, too many communities – particularly low-income and communities of color – have historically been left out of the decision -making process and their expertise overlooked; and
WHEREAS, Fresno County’s current population exceeds 1 million people, but features more than 600,000 residents who are unable to drive or do not have access to a motor vehicle due to lack of affordability; and
WHEREAS, such residents are mostly senior cit izens, young people, and those
2 of 5
with physical limitations; and
WHEREAS, these communities are reliant to public transit infrastructure; and WHEREAS, nearly 400,000 Fresno County workers commute each day, but our existing public transportation system meets the needs of only 1%; and WHEREAS, the American Lung Association has ranked the City of Fresno as fourth in the nation for worst air pollution for ozone and PM 2.5; and WHEREAS, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment CalEnviroScreen tool ra nks the City of Fresno in the 90th percentile and above for PM
2.5 pollution and 80th percentile and above for the ozone pollution; and WHEREAS, CalEnviroScreen ranks census tracts in the southern portion of the City of Fresno and along its highways at or above the 90th percentile and at or above the 80th percentile for diesel particulate matter; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fresno is the hub of commerce, government, and social services relied upon by Fresno County and its residents and is home to the majority of Fresno County residents; and
WHEREAS, a third iteration of Measure C has the potential to simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve our air, increase mobility through transit, strengthen pre-existing road infrastructure, create jobs and e conomic opportunity, and improve telecommunication facilities along transportation corridors; and WHEREAS, the 2006 renewal effort clearly demonstrated that for a transportation measure to meet the two -thirds majority vote required by enabling legislation, all stakeholders must be represented in the formation of the new measure; and WHEREAS, the proposed Measure C renewal allocation plan reduces future public
3 of 5
transit investments by 50% and active infrastructure investments by more than 83% compared to the current expenditure plan; focuses on capacity -increasing projects; and fails to consider pollution levels and impacts of climate change; and WHEREAS, the proposed Measure C renewal allocation plan directs future investments to the City of Fresno fringe and leaves existing City of Fresno neighborhood streets without repair, underfunds the development of complete neighborhood streets with proper bicycle and pedestrian trails, sidewalks, lighting, and curbs and gutters; and WHEREAS, the current Measure C proposal fails to address the needs of the City of Fresno’s current $4.5 billion road network, reduces future public transit resources, and does not prioritize strategic regional growth which threatens the fiscal health of our City by increasing the City of Fr esno’s unfunded street maintenance burden by $500 million over the next decade; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fresno 2021 Pavement Management Report finds that all current failed streets are located in south Fresno; and WHEREAS, City of Fresno 2021 Pavement Ma nagement Report concluded continuation of the current funding formula into 2031 would result in 60% of streets within the City of Fresno’s road network as being graded POOR or FAILING condition; and WHEREAS, the Senate Bill 1 tax (the 2017 gas excise tax), our primary source of state revenue for existing roads, is a declining revenue source.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Fresno as follows:
1. Calls on the Fresno County Transportation Authority (FCTA) and the Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) to engage in a robust and equitable public participation
4 of 5
process to discuss how best to invest in transportation projects and programs.
2. Calls on the FCTA and FCOG to reject November 2022 as suitable for placement of a Measure C extension ballot measure before voters.
3. Calls on the FCTA and FCOG to obtain direct feedback from each participating community in the County and the City of Fresno Council Committee to develop a plan for a 2024 measure.
4. Calls for City Council to advocate for a Measure C renewal expenditure plan that directs more dollars to established City of Fresno existing neighborhoods streets that rely on the general fund, safe routes to schools paths, restores active and public transit resources in neighbor hoods that lack proper transportation infrastructure, starting with neighborhoods that need it most via specific metrics, guidelines, and measurable outcomes.
5. Encourages the City of Fresno to identify $300,000 in the 2022-2023 budget to be used to inform and educate City of Fresno residents on the Measure C renewal process, expenditure plan, measure language and any other tax and/or revenue measure within the City of Fresno.
6. This resolution shall be effective upon final approval. * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
5 of 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF FRESNO ) ss.
CITY OF FRESNO )
I, TODD STERMER, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held on the day of 2022.
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
TODD STERMER, CMC
City Clerk
By:
Deputy Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DOUGLAS T. SLOAN
City Attorney
By:
Raj Singh Badhesha Date
Assistant City Attorney
2021 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM UPDATE
Purpose of Presentation
1. Overview for Council on results of the Pavement Management Program Update
2. Help answer the following questions:
• What is a pavement management system?
• How big is Fresno’s street network?
• What is the value of this publicly owned asset?
• What condition is it in?
• How much we do need to fix all streets? Do we have enough funding? If not, how much do we need?
What is a Pavement Management Program?
• Used to make cost-effective decisions
• Answers 4 main questions
1. What streets does the City
own/maintain?
2. What condition are they in?
3. What repairs are needed & when?
4. How much funding is needed to
maintain or improve streets?
• StreetSaver software
3 What Does the City Own/Maintain?
Asset value = $4.5 billion
4 Arterials 340.7 20.9%
Collectors 209.6 15.8%
Residentials 1217.3 63.3%
Total 1767.6 100%
Centerline
Miles
% of the Entire Network
(by Pavement Area)Functional Class
What Condition Are Streets In?
0 100
70 50
25 Very Poor/Failed
Poor
Good/Very Good
Fair
Condition Category
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
60 5
Arterials PCI = 62
Collectors PCI = 64
Residentials PCI = 60
Network PCI = 60
6 PCI = 90
Ex. Treatment: Do Nothing
PCI = 75
Ex. Treatment: Crack & Slurry Seal
7 8
PCI = 60
Ex. Treatment: Base Repairs & Overlay
This is what an average PCI of 60 looks like
9 PCI = 40
Ex. Treatment: Mill and Overlay
10 PCI < 20
Ex. Treatment: Surface Reconstruction
Shaw Ave is dividing line
How Does Fresno Compare With Other Cities?
13 Good Roads Cost Less to Maintain
14 Good
Fair
Poor
Failed
40%
75%
90%
Slurry Seal
$4.50/SY
Thin Mill & Overlay
$22.00/SY
Mill & Overlay with Base Repairs
$47.00/SY
Surface Reonstruction
$60.00/SY
Percent of Pavement Life
Pavement Condition
Importance of Preventive Maintenance
Good
Fair
Poor
Failed
Pavement Condition Index
% of Pavement Life
100
75 50
25 20%0% 40% 60% 80% 100%
$4.50
Residents
experience a
higher level of
service & City
saves money
Reconstruction Is Not As Cost-Effective
Pavement Condition Index
% of Pavement Life
100
75 50
25 20%0% 40% 60% 80% 100%
$60
Good
Fair
Poor
Failed
Waiting until the end
to reconstruct is more
expensive and
residents experience a
lower level of service
for 10+ years
Funding Scenarios
• Scenario 1: City’s Existing Funding ($12 M/year)
• Scenario 2: Maintain PCI at 60
• Scenario 3: Improve PCI by Functional Class
• Arterials/Collectors PCI → 70
• Residential PCI → 65
17 505 463
525
596
677
824
896
987
1,072
1,155
60 61 59 57 55 53
51 49 47 45 43
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
PCI
Deferred Maintenance ($M)
Deferred Maintenance ($M) Treated PCI
Scenario 1: City’s Existing Funding
$120 M/10 years
18 505 460 504 547 591 612 634 650 682 701 710
60 61 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
PCI
Deferred Maintenance ($M)
Deferred Maintenance ($M) Treated PCI
Scenario 2: Maintain PCI at 60
19 $475 M/10 years
505
447 478 505 528 527 522 505 499 492 473
60 6763 65 65 66 66 67 67 67 68 69 70
60 60 60 60 60 61 62 63 63 64 65
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
PCI
Deferred Maintenance ($M)
Deferred Maintenance ($M) Treated PCI - Network
Treated PCI - Art & Col Treated PCI - Residential
Scenario 3: Improve PCI by Functional Class
20 $633 M/10 years
Network Condition Breakdown
21 21.6%
30.0%
36.4%
2.3%
33.8%
6.3%
5.5%
17.5%
29.8%
72.0%
62.9%
25.7%
34.1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
S3: Improve PCI by
Functional Class (Projected
2031 Condition)
S2: Maintain PCI at 60
(Projected 2031 Condition)
S1: Existing Funding
(Projected 2031 Condition)
Current Condition
Percent of Network
Failed Poor Fair Good
21.6%
30.0%
36.4%
2.3%
20.4%
33.8%
6.3%
5.5%
17.5%
29.8%
72.0%
62.9%
25.7%
34.1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
S3: Improve PCI by
Functional Class (Projected
2031 Condition)
S2: Maintain PCI at 60
(Projected 2031 Condition)
S1: Existing Funding
(Projected 2031 Condition)
Current Condition
Percent of Network
Failed Poor Fair Good
21.6%
30.0%
36.4%
2.3%
1.6%
20.4%
33.8%
6.3%
5.5%
17.5%
29.8%
72.0%
62.9%
25.7%
34.1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
S3: Improve PCI by
Functional Class (Projected
2031 Condition)
S2: Maintain PCI at 60
(Projected 2031 Condition)
S1: Existing Funding
(Projected 2031 Condition)
Current Condition
Percent of Network
Failed Poor Fair Good
21.6%
30.0%
36.4%
2.3%
0.1%
1.6%
20.4%
33.8%
6.3%
5.5%
17.5%
29.8%
72.0%
62.9%
25.7%
34.1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
S3: Improve PCI by
Functional Class (Projected
2031 Condition)
S2: Maintain PCI at 60
(Projected 2031 Condition)
S1: Existing Funding
(Projected 2031 Condition)
Current Condition
Percent of Network
Failed Poor Fair Good
Future
2031
Projections
Today
(2021)
City
Funding,
$120.0M
Funding
Shortfall,
$513.0M
City
Funding,
$120.0M
Funding
Shortfall,
$355.0M
10-Year Funding Shortfall
Scenario 2:
Maintain PCI at 60
Scenario 3:
Improve PCI by Functional Class
22 Conclusions
• City has a substantial investment in the street
network ($4.5 Billion)
• Network is in “Fair” condition with a PCI of 60
• Existing budget ($12 M/year) is insufficient
• PCI will deteriorate to 43
• Deferred maintenance will double to $1,155 Million
• 56.8% of network will be in “Poor” or “Failed”
condition by 2031
23 Other Considerations
• Pursue Additional Funding Sources
• Local sales measure, grants, general funds, etc.
• Maintain streets in good condition
• Preventive maintenance
• Perform Regular Inspections
• Employ Cost Saving Treatments
• Cold-in-Place Recycling, Full Depth Reclamation
• Community Facility Districts (new subdivisions only)
24 Margot Yapp, P ,E,
President
[email protected]
510.215.3620
25