City staff outline success of Norman's 2021 street maintenance bond and propose 2026 renewal

City public works staff told the Community Planning and Transportation Committee on Sept. 25 that Norman's voter-approved street maintenance bond program has raised the citywide pavement condition and that staff plan to propose a 2026 renewal structured as a no-new-tax continuation.

Scott Suresh, director of public works, and Joe Hill, streets program manager, gave a history of the bond program and results from the current cycle. The program, staff said, began in 2005, is structured as five-year bond cycles, and focuses on maintaining existing streets through a combination of urban and rural asphalt treatments, concrete panel replacement, reconstruction where necessary and preventive maintenance such as crack sealing.

Staff said the city's pavement condition index (PCI) now averages about 77, a figure they described as strong compared with national averages (typically 60—65) and traceable in part to consistent bond funding plus other transportation bond work. The program currently manages roughly 800 miles of city streets; staff said the backlog of streets rated poor or very poor is about 2.2% of the network, well below national peer averages of 8% to 12%.

Staff reported they expect roughly $4 million in savings to emerge as construction contracts finish this year; they said those savings may be used to supplement remaining projects such as the multi-phase Alameda Street project, which previously sought federal funding that has not been awarded.

Joe Hill described how the program targets work by pavement type and need and said staff drive every mile of the system to confirm consultant-recommended strategies before finalizing bond program lists. The proposed 2026 bond package presented in the meeting materials would allocate approximately 25% to urban asphalt, 25% to urban concrete, 15% to rural roads, 20% to reconstruction and 15% to preventative maintenance; staff said allocations are estimates and subject to final analysis.

Staff emphasized coordination with other city departments to avoid situations in which a road is overlaid and then soon excavated for a utility project. They also noted the voter approval rate for previous bond cycles increased from roughly 50% when first presented to about 67% in recent cycles.

On timing, staff presented two scheduling alternatives. One option would place the renewal on an April election ballot; another would place it in February to coincide with a city election that could increase turnout because six council seats will be on the ballot. Staff said either schedule is logistically feasible but that a February target would require a compressed public outreach schedule and additional coordination with the city clerk's office to meet statutory notice requirements.

Committee members discussed whether the bond should shift some emphasis toward higher-volume arterials, citing examples such as Robinson Street and Interstate Drive, and staff acknowledged that as residential backlog decreases some allocation toward arterials may be appropriate. Staff recommended returning to a full council study session in October with a map and proposed project list so the council can decide whether to seek a February or April ballot placement.

The committee had no formal roll-call votes recorded on the bond item in the transcript; staff requested direction on timing and said they would return with a fuller presentation and recommended program in October.