Discussion and possible direction regarding Public/Private Partnerships in the Highways and Floodplain Division.

Ms. Karen Riggs, Director of the Highway & Floodplain Department, explained that the proposed amendments to the Public Private Partnership (PPP) program have resulted from budget constraints over the past several years.  For the past four years, the department has only had one road go the entire way through the application process.  That is Apache Point Road and the project will be started as soon as the weather conditions make work possible.  Ms. Riggs also noted that the application for Webb Road was for two miles, putting the cost over the statutory cap. 

Ms. Riggs went on to say that non-maintained roads cost more to do because they then have to be taken into the county road system.  Maintained roads cost less to do as the County already owns some level of responsibility for those roads.  She went on to explain how costs were determined using the current program guidelines.  On non-maintained roads, if the traffic count is 250 or more, the County pays for half.  If the daily traffic count is less than that, the applicants pay the entire amount.  On maintained roads, the applicant pays only for oil and chips while the Highway Department picks up the base material (AB) costs, drainage, plus labor and equipment. 

Ms. Riggs also indicated that the new proposal for maintained roads is for the applicant to pay for all costs of the materials, including chips, oil, AB, and drainage plus one half of the labor costs.  She indicated that decisions need to be made on how to move forward with the PPP program and urged the Supervisors to look at the program as a whole rather than having the Board make a decision each time an application is submitted.  In answer to a question about how costs have changed over the years, Ms. Riggs stated that the percentages paid by the partners have not changed since 2006, but that prices have gone up. 
Vice-Chairman English questioned why we offered the PPP program for non-maintained roads.  Ms. Riggs explained that the program is written to allow this, but reminded the Supervisors that they had the power to amend the program. 
Chairman Call added that property values will go up over time on a paved road, benefiting the entire County. 

Ms. Riggs reminded the Supervisors about earlier budget meetings and the very real possibility that the County will have to face decisions in the next ten years to let chip sealed roads go back to dirt roads. 

Mr. Ortega, following her line of reasoning, stated that current highway needs are far outweighing current resources.  It is difficult to afford the program the way it is, using hard dollars out of Highway Users Revenue Funds (HURF).  Perhaps the department could offer in-kind resources, like engineering, or suspend the program for a few years and reevaluate at that time. 
Supervisor Searle disagreed, saying that he does not want the program to go away and that he did not know if he would support the increased cost recommendations.  He specified that he was only talking about maintained roads and that if a base needed work; it is the County’s responsibility.  He asked that it be brought to the Board for their decision and maybe even other funding options. 

Ms. Riggs referred  the Board to the proposed changes on page six.  “Applications for the PPP projects will be accepted and processed through the Brief Initial Analysis (BIA).  If the applicant wishes to move on to the Engineering Design phase, the County Engineer will provide analysis to the Board of Supervisors at a Work Session, to include probable cost to the County for its share of the construction, ongoing maintenance costs, and recommendation as to whether to proceed.  If the recommendation is to proceed, the County Engineer will also recommend which other scheduled and budgeted projects should be canceled or postponed in order to allow funding for the recommended PPP.  The Board could, at its sole discretion, consider other funding options for the proposed PPP project.”

Chairman Call questioned the difference between the $3,000 engineering study and the $100 study. 

Ms. Riggs stated that she believed that the $100 study would be accurate to 15% of the $3,000 study.  There was some discussion about why both studies are necessary. 

Chairman Call asked for clarification regarding the types of roads that are eligible for the PPP program.  He listed non-maintained roads, truck traffic roads and residential roads, noting that they all have different costs. 

Ms. Riggs agreed with him and also agreed that the costs were different for truck traffic roads and residential roads. 
Chairman Call asked if the County should charge applicants for truck traffic roads differently than residential roads.  He also questioned continuing to support non-maintained roads through the PPP program.  He agreed with Supervisor Searle that he would not like to see the program discontinued.  He then asked how many applications are received per year.

Ms. Riggs estimated that she has received four in the last 18 months.  That number does not include Apache Point Road.

Mr. Ortega, thinking through Supervisor Call’s suggestion, remarked that if the Board establishes a percentage they are comfortable with for residential road, then they might want to charge a higher percentage for truck traffic roads.  He also suggested that the County could cap its contribution for any one project.

Supervisor Searle cautioned against changing the percentages too much as he feels it could damage the program and make it unaffordable to the residents.  He suggested making it part of the budget process and advised making a change to the Resolution so that doing the work would depend upon the County’s ability to afford it.  He stated his opinion that the Board could weigh in on each application.

Vice-Chairman English commented that she did not think about the PPP program as being available to industry.  In her opinion, the PPP program should be for citizens, not industry, and for roads already in the maintenance system.  She also expressed concern about the cost of the PPP program as the County does not have sufficient money to keep up with the maintenance on the roads currently in the system. 

Chairman Call added that as new subdivisions come into the county, their roads, built to our standards will add an additional burden to our ongoing maintenance problems.  He also added that he, personally, did not have any problem with charging a higher percentage for roads that we know will bear more truck traffic or have a higher commercial use. 

Supervisor Searle commented that in rural areas, the same road may support two to three commercial farmers but you also have a fair share of residential users and a school bus.  He also added that he would like to see a way of helping our commercial users in rural areas as well. 

Mr. Ortega interjected that the question is not so much what type of roads to include in the PPP program as is the reality that we cannot afford the program as we have in the past.  He suggested that perhaps the department should just bring all of the applications to the Board for decision. 

Chairman Call asked what the criteria would be and cautioned that it would have to be consistent.  He stated that he was satisfied with the way the program work before and wondered why we were adding an extra layer to the process.  He added the if Highways did not have the money to do the project, then the Board would decide where to find the money for the project, but based on what? 

Vice-Chairman English suggested that each year, in its program of work, the Highway Department could bring forth a list of roads that needed to be upgraded.

Supervisor Searle asked why we would refuse to do a road if the residents were willing to put up the money.  There was some discussion about balancing roads that were necessary to upgrade and upgrading roads that residents wanted to have upgraded. 

Chairman Call stated that the Board would not be able to give clear direction with the present information.  He suggested that the Highway Department come back to the Board with something more useful to them than the present suggestions.  The Board members were in agreement that they liked the PPP program and believed that it brings value to the residents of the County. 

Vice-Chairman English asked where the money to accomplish the PPP program would come from.  There was back and forth conversation from the Board members about capping the PPP contributions or capping the number of projects each year, and the amount of extra money that may be available for the program. 

Mr. Ortega said that the issue was not the money per se but the priority the Board wants to give this issue.  If you read the Resolution the way it is today and meet the requirements, you are on the list for your PPP project.  He promised to come back to the Board with some criteria to assist in the dialogued. There needs to be a process for the approval of each project. 

Mr. Hanson suggested adding criteria about the importance of addressing road improvement.

Mr. Ortega also suggested that a certain amount of money be allocated to PPP projects on an annual budget so that when the money is spent, you can do no more PPP projects in that year. 

Ms. Riggs agreed that this was how the PPP projects were handled in the past except the Board was not involved. 

Vice-Chairman English noted that everyone wanted to be involved in the process.  She also asked for a moratorium on non-maintained roads, saying that if the residents had the money for the project, they could hire an outside contractor. 

Chairman Call and Supervisor Searle agreed that they had no problem taking non-maintained roads out of the program but Supervisor Searle did ask for a future discussion on how to bring non-maintained roads into the system.

Vice-Chairman English pointed out that the County needs a better way to decide how to upgrade the roads that are in our system, noting that the County has been unable to upgrade roads for a long time.  She also expressed a need to set up a pot of money just for PPP projects.  She wants the money to be spent on roads that are already in our system and wants road usage to be a decision factor in choosing the roads. 

Ms. Riggs agreed that the discussion could take place at budget time.