Tualatin public works proposes $1.2 million, two‑year plan to repair sidewalk backlog and replace trees

Public Works staff told the Tualatin City Council they want to spend about $1.2 million over two years to repair the city's backlog of sidewalk defects caused by street trees and to replace affected trees, using a mix of existing program funds, remaining ARPA dollars and other municipal funds.

Lindsay Marshall, management analyst in Public Works, summarized a 2024 citywide sidewalk assessment that cataloged about 2,000 recorded defects across the network and identified 327 defects that qualify for the city's sidewalk maintenance program because they are caused by street trees and meet ADA‑threshold criteria. "We found roughly 2,000 recorded defects in the sidewalk system," Marshall said, adding that "the majority of defects are not caused by the street trees" but that 327 met the program's eligibility.

Jackson Porterfield, who co‑presented the proposal, said the onetime catch‑up would repair the 327 qualifying defects and replace roughly 337 street trees — about 3% of the city's inventory — and that staff had budgeted a roughly 24 percent contingency. "That all adds up to $1,200,000," Porterfield said. He told councilors recent bid prices (from the Las Casitas CDBG project) informed the estimate and that the proposal includes root barriers, contractor management, and low‑emission concrete.

Why it matters: sidewalks and street trees are adjacent‑property owner responsibilities in Tualatin; many residents report trip hazards and want clearer programs and vendor lists. Staff told council the current program budget of $150,000 a year addresses roughly 10–15 percent of qualifying defects and that the repair cycle had expanded from about three years to roughly nine years as the city grew.

Funding and timeline: staff proposed combining two years of current program funding (~$300,000), remaining ARPA funds, the road utility fund and, if needed, general‑fund contributions. The work would roll out in phases: final approval and contractor procurement, the first round of repairs and replanting the next summer/fall, a mid‑project evaluation, and a second construction season the following year, with the goal of returning the program to a roughly three‑year maintenance cycle.

Design and program tweaks: the proposal includes several policy adjustments to reduce future tree‑driven damage: revising the approved street‑tree list to remove species that cause frequent lifts; removing grinds from the program and focusing only on hazardous defects per council guidance; using low‑emissions concrete; and testing newer techniques such as foam lifts as a potentially cost‑effective alternative to full panel replacement.

Concerns and tradeoffs: councilors asked about canopy loss, tree species, and long‑term costs. Porterfield acknowledged canopy reduction: the 337 trees to be replaced are mature and could represent a disproportionate share of canopy cover. Councilors asked staff to provide data on canopy impact, how quickly new plantings would restore cover, and whether a more cost‑sharing program with homeowners should be folded in to extend program funds.

Action requested: staff asked for council approval to move forward with the two‑year catch‑up using the funding sources described and for direction on program criteria; councilors asked for follow‑up information on tree species, canopy impacts and vendor lists. No formal budget appropriation vote was taken at the work session.