Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Streets And Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oroville staff say repairing roads will cost millions; council hears funding and program options
Summary
City staff presented a pavement‑condition report showing a current network PCI of about 52 and a five‑year needs gap that ranges from about $31 million per year (unconstrained) to $10.5 million per year to maintain current condition. Councilors and staff discussed fees, assessment districts and a dedicated pavement team.
Marissa, a city pavement program presenter, told the Oroville City Council that the city’s current network Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is roughly 52 and that pavement condition varies widely across the city, with about 2 miles rated “excellent” and other streets in “very poor” condition.
The presentation used the StreetSaver analysis to map treatment options to PCI ranges. Marissa said early, low‑cost preventive maintenance (crack sealing, slurry seals, microsurfacing) can prolong pavement life. She told the council that rehabilitation and reconstruction costs rise steeply once pavement falls into the “poor” (PCI 25–49) or “very poor” (0–24) categories.
The report included a five‑year, best‑case “needs” calculation assuming unlimited funding and a set of real‑world funding scenarios. Marissa said the model shows that under current practice the network PCI could fall to 39 in five years if no funds are spent. She summarized the five funding scenarios presented: - No funds: network PCI falls from ~52 to ~39 in five years. - Expected annual budget: roughly $2,000,000 per year (city’s current expectation); model shows PCI falling to about 42 in five years. - Maintain current PCI (52): requires about $10,500,000 per year. - Raise PCI by 5 points in five years: requires about $14,000,000 per year. - Unconstrained best‑practice program: roughly $31,000,000 per year based on the study’s five‑year needs estimate.
The five‑year needs table in the presentation separated preventative maintenance (about $5,000,000 over five years) from rehabilitation (about $150,000,000 over five years), for a total network need the presenter listed as about $155,000,000.
Council members pressed staff on what the model includes. When Councilmember Goodson asked whether ADA curb ramps and curb/gutter work were included, Marissa said the analysis only covers pavement; ADA or curb work can be added later at the project level and are not included in the unit‑cost network model.
Council members and staff discussed revenue options. City staff and consultants listed possible revenue sources and program changes that could help close the funding gap, including raising or creating: - truck route or transportation permit fees (current fees described as low, e.g., roughly $17–$19 per truck), - residential waste collection fees (collected through the franchise agreement with Recology), - impact fees on new development and utility‑cut impact fees, and - local transportation sales tax measures, business improvement districts, or assessment districts.
Several council members urged exploring creative financing and partnerships. Vice Mayor Smith suggested engaging lobbyists and state partners; Councilman Weber proposed creating an in‑house dedicated pavement management team that would use existing city equipment and new trailers (hot‑patch and crack sealer) to perform year‑round maintenance, hot patch potholes, crack seal and pursue thin overlays and targeted mill/overlays to stretch limited dollars.
Staff recommended programmatic actions to improve outcomes: inspect arterials and collectors every two years and residential streets every four years, keep the pavement database current, and document maintenance and repairs so the StreetSaver model remains up to date.
Why it matters: Oroville’s pavement program analysis shows a widening funding gap and the cost tradeoffs between early preventive maintenance and later, more expensive rehabilitation or reconstruction. The council discussed both near‑term operational steps and longer‑term revenue options; staff said follow‑up work will explore specific program changes and budget implications.
A number of council members asked staff to return with refined options and costs — for example, a staff plan to evaluate a dedicated pavement crew and to identify which funding tools (fees, assessments or tax measures) are practicable for Oroville.
Provenance: City pavement consultant presentation and council Q&A; presentation slides and spoken figures were the basis for the cost and scenario numbers reported here.
