King County Road Services - Capital Improvement Program introduction, program goals, and key issues

Structural funding problem

The King County Road Services Division (RSD) maintains, preserves, and operates roads, bridges and related infrastructure in unincorporated King County. The county's many bridges are an integral part of the road system, as are other components such as sidewalks and pathways, bike lanes, guardrails, drainage and water quality facilities, traffic control equipment, and traffic cameras.

The unincorporated-area road system owned and managed by RSD includes the following inventory:

• 1,483 miles of paved roads and 51 miles of unpaved roads
• 181 bridges, including several that are jointly owned with cities
• 39,000 traffic control signs and 102 traffic signals
• 110 miles of protective guardrail
• 72 traffic cameras

The unincorporated King County road system is critically important to people who live and travel in the county. As is the case across much of the country, the King County road system infrastructure is aged and deteriorating. Substantial investments are needed to restore roads and bridges, maintain them in good condition, and meet new transportation demands and regulatory requirements. RSD is primarily funded through the unincorporated area property tax levy and an allocation of the state-wide gas tax.

In recent years, the division has developed a significant structural funding gap. The unincorporated area property tax levy is limited to one percent growth each year plus new construction until a maximum rate of $2.25 per $1,000 assessed valuation is reached. Due to continuing economic weakness, assessed valuations have experienced steep declines, resulting in a significant drop in property tax revenues available to RSD. New construction valuation is also down, which further exacerbates the fund's financial challenges. Gas taxes have also declined due to gas prices, economic pressures, and reduced unincorporated area road miles. Revenue growth has not kept pace with rising operating costs. In addition, annexations have led to a loss of revenue but not a commensurate reduction in costs. RSD's available funding falls short of existing needs by $20 million to $30 million per year, despite efforts in recent years to gain further efficiencies, streamline the division's organizational structure, adjust business practices, and achieve countywide labor savings.

The severity of the funding gap is compounded by the obligation of rural taxpayers to pay debt service on projects that have or will be annexed by cities in the next few years. Currently, approximately one-third of the debt service paid by the RSD capital program is associated with completed projects currently in incorporated areas. Potential future annexations could result in debt payments for projects in incorporated areas increasing to more than half of the total debt service.

The division's main revenue sources are not sufficient to maintain current operations and service levels, and RSD has identified a growing backlog of infrastructure preservation needs. Winter storms have grown in frequency and severity, resulting in increased expenditures on emergency response and storm repair costs. Because deferred maintenance over time results in more costly major maintenance in future years, the funding gap makes it difficult to pursue optimal lifecycle management strategies for County roads.

In 2010, the division completed the Strategic Plan for Road Services (SPRS), which sets clear priorities to guide the division as it manages the road system. County Council's Motion 13393 required Road Services to develop an implementation plan to deliver its programs and services within the policy framework of SPRS and within currently forecast revenue. SPRS implementation work, facilitated by meetings of an interbranch workgroup, has included the development of a tiered/risk management-based approach to resource allocation and development of new financial policies, which have in turn informed the development of the 2012 / 2013 Executive proposed capital improvement plan. The tiered system, combined with a risk management approach, will focus resources on providing the most functionally effective road network possible given limited resources. This will be accomplished by first meeting regulatory requirements and core safety needs throughout the road network, and then by allocating remaining resources to maintain and preserve the most vital components of the road network. Using a system of five tiers, RSD has assigned each road segment to a service level tier using criteria such as traffic volume, projected length of detours or whether the road is considered sole-access, a lifeline route or important in maintaining transit mobility. Each tier is then assigned a service level consistent with its use. The highest tier road segments receive the highest level of maintenance, storm response and snow and ice removal, while the lowest-priority roads could be downgraded to gravel.

The tiered/risk management-based resource allocation approach as well as the new financial policies relating to capital are discussed in more detail in sections below.

Significant project highlights: 2012/2013

The proposed 2012-2017 RSD CIP totals approximately $242 million, including appropriation in 2012 and 2013 of $92 million. The difference between the 2010 - 2015 adopted budget and the current 2012 - 2017 proposed budget is $172M. Below is a table of significant projects requesting appropriation in the 2012 /2013 biennium or requiring resources within the six year CIP. Details about all of the RSD 2012 / 2013 budget requests can be found in the division's project detail pages that follow.

In addition to the projects noted below, Road Services is currently constructing the largest road and bridge projects in its history. The South Park Bridge and Novelty Hill Road have a combined project cost of nearly $230 million and both are on track for completion in 2013.

Road and bridge preservation projects

As discussed in more detail below in the Project Prioritization section and consistent with the SPRS priorities and implementation plan, the majority of the capital projects are preservation projects on high priority / high tier road segments.

Alvord 'T' Bridge: $867,000 in biennium, $890,000 in the six-year plan
In 2008 the county applied for grant funding for the replacement of the aged bridge. However, the grant application was denied and the county was directed by WSDOT to examine the feasibility of closing the bridge due to the high cost of replacement weighed against the low traffic volumes and two nearby alternate river crossings (SR 167 and Central Avenue South). This bridge has been posted as Load Limited since the early 1990s. It continues to deteriorate and is approaching the end of its useful life. This CIP project scope involves closure and then removal of this Tier 5 bridge in 2013.

Issaquah-Hobart Road S.E.: $0 in biennium, $11.5 million in the six-year plan
The Issaquah-Hobart Road S.E. project will remove and replace the existing 15 Mile Bridge, replace culvert, and reconstruct the roadway. The existing bridge and roadway, which are identified as Tier 1 road segments, have reached the design life expectancy. This project ranks #1 on the rehabilitation/reconstruction priority array. The project is programmed to start in 2014, with most of the construction taking place in 2016. The preliminary project estimate will be refines as the project scope is further developed in the 2012 / 2013 biennium.

Miller River Bridge replacement: $10,000,000 in biennium
This project will remove and replace the existing bridge with a new structure that conforms to current design standards, preserving the existing road network function. The existing Tier 3 Miller River Bridge has exceeded its useful life. This project will be primarily funded through grants and other partner sources that are not yet secured. This project is programmed to start in 2012 and be completed in 2013.

West Snoqualmie Valley Road: $7,474,000 in biennium
The West Snoqualmie Valley Road N.E. project will reconstruct the roadway and upgrade the drainage system. This project is on a Tier 2 road segment and ranks #5 on the Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Priority Array. The existing pavement exhibits many areas of severe fatigue cracking in both wheel paths. The project is expected to be completed in 2013 and is funded in large part by grants.

County-wide projects

Pavement Overlay: $14,664,000 in biennium, $48.8 million in the six-year plan
In the past several years, RSD has been able to optimize the lifecycle of the pavement on the County's approximately 570 miles of arterial roadways with a sustainable pavement overlay program. The overlay program has now been retooled to match the tiered system. Roadways in Tier 1 and Tier 2 will receive a regular 12 year cycle of hot mix asphalt overlay while Tier 3 roadways will receive either chip seal or hot mix asphalt based upon the need of the roadway. This could result in a lowering of the County's national accounting standard scores (GASB 34) that track pavement condition as an indicator of the overall health of the county's assets. This issue will be studied in 2012. Tier 4 and 5 roadways will receive neither overlay nor chip seal.

Drainage program: $7,448,000 in biennium, $21.7 million in the six-year plan
This CIP proposes a comprehensive drainage program of repair and replacement of small drainage facilities throughout the road network. The tier framework and a risk analysis will help determine the proposed projects. This is work that has been previously performed within the operating budget by the maintenance section and is being moved into the capital budget as a preservation program.

Project prioritization methodology

The roadway and bridge projects reflected in this program are consistent with the principles and policies of the King County Strategic Plan, Strategic Plan for Road Services, and the adopted King County Comprehensive Plan (KCCP). There are several key issues that influence the 2012 -2017 proposed program.

SPRS priorities

The County has reached the critical point where a decade of voter initiatives and legislative actions combined with a drop in property values and gas tax revenues due to the Great Recession have reduced the funding available to the CIP. Reduced grant funding available for rural roads, and increases in the costs of delivering road projects have meant the County can no longer adequately fund all of its highest roadway preservation projects to stave off the overall decline in the condition or preserve the structural integrity of its road system. Over the next six years, this situation will worsen as revenues are projected to continue to decline as annexations are completed. This will result in further erosion of the tax base without a proportional reduction in the remaining road asset inventory. The County will retain responsibility for preserving and maintaining bridges, roads, and drainage systems in the most remote and flood prone areas of the county. Many of these remaining assets have or will reach the end of their projected useful life in the next six years and require significant investment to restore their condition to serviceable levels.

To assist in the allocation of scarce resources, the SPRS established priorities, which are indicated below in rank order. Because of fundig constraints, there are no capacity projects (Goal 5 in SPRS) in the six-year CIP.

• Fulfill ongoing local, state, and federal regulatory mandates and work with regulatory agencies to comply with regulations in ways that strike a reasonable and prudent balance with the cost-effective and efficient provision of infrastructure and related public services.

• Address immediate operational safety needs first in all Road Services program areas and deliverables.
• Reduce the harm that could result from collisions.

• Direct efforts at keeping the most vital components of the road system open and operational for customers in the priority order established in the Tiered Service Level Framework (see below).

• Preserve existing mobility by keeping the most critical components of the road system in a state of good repair to minimize service disruptions resulting from structural degradation and safety-related road or bridge closures.
• Maximize the efficient use of existing roads through intelligent transportation system (ITS) projects funded by highly leveraged grants.

As part of SPRS implementation, RSD has developed a tiered service level/risk management-based allocation method that incorporates the SPRS priorities. This allocation method is described below.

Tiered service levels

In 2012, the County will transition to a tiered system of prioritizing its roadways based upon their function and importance to the rural and regional roadway network. The hierarchical tiered system, combined with a risk management approach, will focus resources on providing the most functionally effective road network possible given limited resources. This will be accomplished by first meeting regulatory requirements and core safety needs throughout the road network and then by allocating remaining resource to maintaining and preserving the most vital components of the road network. Using a system of five tiers, the RSD has assigned each road segment to a service level tier using criteria such as traffic volume, projected length of detours or whether the road is considered sole-access, a lifeline route or important in maintaining transit mobility. The tiered service levels are as follows:

• Tier 1 (7% of County roads and 50% of daily trips in the system) – The spine of the county road system, with heavily traveled arterials connecting large communities, major services, and critical infrastructure. Tier 1 roads should provide consistently reliable access and receive the highest level of storm response, including the first roads to receive snow and ice removal. Users of Tier 1 roads should expect good road and bridge conditions and well-maintained drainage. These roads will receive the highest level of maintenance and preservation.


• Tier 2 (11% of County roads and 20% of daily trips in the system) – Heavily traveled roads serving less populated areas and that provide alternate routes to Tier 1 roads. Tier 2 roads should provide generally reliable access; however, users of Tier 2 roads can expect to see a lower level of storm response and snow removal. These roads will receive maintenance to keep them in good condition, with preservation efforts to be reactive and prioritized based on the level of risk and availability of funding.


• Tier 3 (15% of County roads and 15% of daily trips in the system) - Highly used local roads that serve local communities and large residential areas. Tier 3 roads should provide somewhat reliable access with little to no storm and snow response, especially during significant storms. Maintenance and preservation are provided to slow deterioration, but users of Tier 3 roads should expect to see wear-and-tear to roadways, possible load limits, lower posted speed limits, and long-term partial closures.


• Tier 4 (32% of County roads and 5% of daily trips in the system) – Local residential dead-end roads that have no other outlet. Tier 4 roads will provide less reliable access with virtually no storm and snow response. Maintenance is limited to work that preserves access. Users of Tier 4 roadways may see a number of one-lane roads, with some downgraded to a gravel surface, depending on the level of deterioration and availability of funding.


• Tier 5 (35% of County roads and 10% of daily trips in the system) – Local roads that have alternate routes available for travel in case of road closures. Tier 5 roads will provide the least reliable access with virtually no storm or snow response. Limited maintenance will lead to more road deterioration. Due to poor conditions, users of Tier 5 roads can expect to see some closures, which may result in longer detours and difficulty accessing property. These roads may be downgraded to a gravel surface, restricted to one lane, and have load limits and lower speed limits.

Risk management considerations

As detailed above, RSD will establish a hierarchy of roadways that, combined with a risk management approach, will focus resource allocation on thepreservation and maintenance of the most vital components of the existing roadway network. Within this framework, RSD will expand the use of risk management, claims analysis, and tort liability for planning, engineering, and implementation. To support this function, RSD will focus resources on collection and analysis of division-wide risk and claims data.

Risk Management is a technical undertaking, requiring significant research and qualified staff. Reorganizations in the operating budget will consolidate on-going efforts and repurpose resources to address the risk management needs. Improvement of RSD's risk management will include pre-emptive and post-evaluation work. The preemptive analysis will address potential safety and liability issues and the post-evaluation analysis will attempt to learn from incidents that occur and provide data for pre-emptive work.

CIP implications

This proposed six-year plan reflects the tiered/risk management-based resource allocation method by focusing on roadways within the higher tiers of the system and prioritizing the work programmed upon those roadways using risk analysis and the priorities within the approved Strategic Plan for Road Services (SPRS). The majority of the projects in the CIP relate to maintenance and preservation of assets located on high tier road segments. With regard to regulatory compliance, the CIP provides ongoing funding for projects that bring the road system into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as projects to meet permit requirements. Core safety is narrowly defined in the CIP and safety needs prioritization is supported by information collected as part of the Annual Bridge Report and the Transportation Needs Report:

• The Bridge Priority Process published in the Annual Bridge Report is developed to meet state and federal requirements and details the results of RSD bridge inspections and analysis of data regarding the condition of the County's bridges. The report includes the prioritized list of county bridges in need of replacement or rehabilitation. The criteria used to evaluate these priorities are based on federal standards and include: sufficiency rating, seismic rating, geometrics, hydraulics, load limits, traffic safety, serviceability, importance, useful life and structural concern. This report is updated annually and submitted to the King County Council for review.

• The TNR includes the RSD's safety related priority arrays, including High Accident Location, High Accident Road Segment, Pedestrian Safety and Mobility, Guardrail Priority, Road Reconstruction and Signal Priority. It also contains a prioritized list of capacity projects. The TNR process screens out cost prohibitive projects, projects with prohibitive environmental restrictions, or projects incompatible with the policies of the King County Comprehensive Plan. The TNR was last updated in 2010. The projects within the proposed CIP are consistent with the TNR.

Enhancing mobility is primarily accomplished with intelligent transportation system projects that leverage federal grant funding. The need for pedestrian pathways is also important for nonmotorized mobility in the urban area. There are seven projects that address either safe routes to schools or improvements in neighborhoods that meet the equity and social justice criteria. All seven are programmed in the out years and are assumed to be fully backed by grant funds. There are no capacity projects contained within the proposed six-year plan and investments in those areas scheduled for annexation are limited.

Consistent with the tiered/risk management-based policy framework, there are projects within the 2010 / 2011 adopted budget that no longer meet the priorities and will be put on hold. Some are fully designed, like project number 200106 Lake Alice Road. This culvert is anticipated to fail at some point; however the roadway is on the lowest tier, so the project is on hold and the construction funds are being transferred to a project on a higher tiered roadway. RSD will monitor the condition of this culvert to protect public safety. Project number 200209 Preston Fall City Road at High Point Way is another example. This project is also fully designed, but is a mobility project backed solely by county funds. Mobility improvements are fourth in the priorities established by SPRS. These construction funds are being diverted to higher priority preservation projects and this project is being put on hold.

The tiered service level will also have an impact on the engineering solutions to projects on the lower tiers. RSD will review design criteria on every project to ensure that it is appropriate for the project and the roadway. RSD may adjust the design standards or choose engineering alternatives with minimal added risk that offer the opportunity to significantly reduce the cost of the project. For example, in replacing a bridge on a Tier 4 road with very low traffic, design standards would ordinarily require a two lane bridge. However, it is possible that a one lane bridge will meet all the current and future capacity needs for this road. In that case, the County Road Engineer could issue a variance and RSD would construct the one lane bridge at much lower cost.

Lastly, the SPRS implementation also includes process/program improvements aimed at increasing the efficiency and transparency of Roads programs. This six-year program completes the process of moving the remaining preservation programs of drainage and overlay road preparation work into the capital program and moves the mitigation monitoring project, which is a maintenance function, into the roads operating budget.

The overarching goal of the CIP continues to be making sound capital investment decisions on existing roadways to provide safe, efficient and environmentally sound transportation facilities for the movement of people, goods and services. The CIP is developed to provide safe roads and bridges, to be consistent with federal, state, and county land use policies and plans, and to meet identified transportation needs within the current financial constraints.

Equity and Social Justice impact

Road Services' overall approach to integrating Equity and Social Justice (ESJ) considerations with agency business operations and budgeting is fully discussed in the division's business plan document. Several components of the division's approach are particularly relevant to the capital program. These include:

• Evaluate division projects and programs using census data and other relevant demographic and community data in the planning phase as well as at a more detailed level during implementation.

• Proactively provide road-related capital improvements that serve the needs of communities whose residents are low-income, racially/ethnically diverse, or have limited English proficiency.

• Utilize partnerships with other King County or external agencies, community groups, and non-profit organizations to better understand community needs and obtain community input and involvement.

ESJ evaluation

The division is currently building staff expertise and organizational capacity to analyze and evaluate socio-economic impacts of projects and programs. In the past, Roads analyzed such impacts primarily during the SEPA/NEPA process and in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements for major projects (such as the South Park Bridge and Novelty Hill Road projects). In the coming years, the division will routinely use census and other data and tools to analyze the impacts on, and benefits to, diverse communities of a wide variety of road-related projects and programs. The 2012-2017 Roads CIP represents the division's ongoing effort to build ESJ considerations into the development of the division's capital program. In addition, individual capital projects will also receive screening for equity related factors, such as location within communities with limited-English proficiency, that will help guide how Roads communicate with and include the community as each project moves forward.

Capital improvements with an ESJ impact

The 2012-2017 Roads CIP includes infrastructure improvements that will provide benefits to several low-income communities and communities of color, including the urban unincorporated neighborhoods of South Park, Georgetown, White Center and West Hill, and the rural unincorporated community in the vicinity of the Town of Skykomish. The unprecedented investment in the South Park Bridge replacement project will restore a lifeline to the culturally diverse communities of South Park and Georgetown. Four new sidewalk projects will provide safety and nonmotorized mobility benefits to residents of White Center and West Hill. The new Miller Bridge replacement project near Skykomish will provide access and mobility benefits to one of the lowest income communities in rural unincorporated King County. These projects are significantly supported through grants or other partner funding.

Partnerships

Construction of the new South Park Bridge provides an excellent example of a successful partnership between King County and the community on a Capital Improvement Project. Two keys to this partnership were RSD's application of the county's translation policy to communications with the community (including translation of written materials and signs, use of language interpreters at public meetings, and a dedicated construction hotline staffed with interpreters) and a view of the community as a partner. Road Services intends to use what it has learned about dealing with diverse communities as Roads moves forward with its capital program over the next six years.

Financial planning and policy overview

The Roads Six-Year CIP is primarily financed by the contribution from the County Road Fund (Fund 103), various State and Federal transportation grants, and developer mitigation payments. CIP projects are initially programmed in constant dollars which are then inflated by 3.5% per year.

The county is losing ground in its battle to preserve aged infrastructure and to modernize and provide for safe use of its heavily traveled road system. The backlog is symptomatic of deferral of scheduled maintenance and repair. This will lead to an increase in the cost to repair these roads in the future. According to AASHTO, every $1 spent to keep a road in good condition avoids $6-$14 needed later to rebuild the same road once it has deteriorated slightly.

In conjunction with SPRS implementation, RSD has developed several new financial policies that impact capital financial planning. These include the following:

• Debt Policy: Following the annexation or incorporation of 90% of the remaining potential annexation areas, the RSD revenue contribution to the Road Capital fund will be considered a stable revenue source suitable for a 1.25 debt service coverage ratio. The numerator of this debt ratio is the Road Fund contribution projected for each post-annexation year less the capital expenditures that are considered "pay as you go." Pay as you go expenditures are projects that have a life span less than a typical bond term (20 to 30 years) and include most of the road preservation activities such as road overlay, Americans with Disability Act compliance, and drainage projects. Any debt service payments made from other sources, including other county funds or regional sources, will not be considered in the debt ratio calculation.

• Facilities Major Maintenance: The RSD will prepare a 20-year plan to identify and prioritize needed facility infrastructure improvements at Roads-owned facilities. This plan will address the following categories: roof, HVAC, lighting, security, sidewalks, painting, flooring, and other elements as identified. Each six-year budget plan for the facility maintenance fund (3850) will be based on the 20-year plan or updates to the 20-year plan. The supporting revenue will be budgeted as a transfer from the operating fund except in instances of grants or property sales where supporting revenue is deposited directly into the capital fund.

• Annexation Financial Planning: Except for projects for which a postponement is not advisable (e.g., safety, life-cycle inefficiency), the capital budget will not include design or construction budget for projects in potential annexation areas forecast to be annexed in the next three years.

• Interfund Borrowing: The Roads Capital Improvement Fund (3860) will be permitted to have a negative fund balance due to the structural cause associated with reimbursable expenditures or postponement of the transfer from operating until the receipt of October property tax collections. This structural deficit may require Interfund borrowing only if mandated by Executive Finance Committee policies. Receipt of Bond Anticipation Notes or Permanent Bond financing will be scheduled in a manner to prevent project expenditures in excess of $1,000,000 prior to debt issuance for projects planned for debt financing.

• Real Estate Transactions: The Road Services Division will routinely identify property surplus to its needs to sell to generate one-time revenues suitable for one-time costs. To reduce risk of sale delays, the property sale revenues projected to be received in the upcoming biennium and corresponding expenditures will not be included as projected revenues/expenditures until the following biennium. The projected one-time revenue will be allocated to one-time costs such as the establishment and restoration of operating fund reserve/undesignated fund balance targets, one-time operating costs, and capital projects other than roads overlay projects or other routine high priority asset maintenance projects.

Growth Management and Comprehensive Plan issues

The county is required by the Washington State Growth Management Act and the King County Comprehensive Plan (KCCP) to specify transportation levels of service and enforce them through a concurrency management system. This is to ensure that new growth is allowed to occur only if the transportation infrastructure necessary to support the additional traffic that will be generated by new development is in place. The Transportation Concurrency Management program is a key tool used by the county to ensure that transportation facilities to serve new development are available or there is a financial commitment in place to construct the needed improvements within six years. Financial commitment is established if construction of the improvements is programmed in the adopted RSD Six-Year CIP. The KCCP also contains policies that guide the development and implementation of roads by defining rural character, non motorized priorities, urban connectors and arterial connections.

Projects included in the RSD 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Program have been evaluated for consistency with the KCCP. The SPRS is a functional plan linked to the KCCP and lays out the priorities in which RSD will program work, with the primary emphasis being on regulatory compliance, core safety and preservation. This program is also compliant with these policies.

Performance measurement

Road Services tracks more than 40 performance measures for use in internal program management, management decision support, and public communications and reporting. These include basic output measures such as number of miles of pavement overlay constructed or bridges replaced, outcome measures such as percent of structurally deficient bridges, customer service measures such as average number of days to complete requests for pothole repair, and high level community indicators (that the division has only partial influence over) such as vehicle related fatality rate on unincorporated roads. The county is moving toward a performance system that will guide the implementation of the King County Strategic Plan. This integrated system will ultimately measure implementation progress and articulate the cost, timeliness, and efficiency of the products Roads provides for the residents of King County. RSD is fully participating in this shift to performance management.

The SPRS identifies five "What we deliver" goals that articulate what the division will focus on for at least the next five years, and sets out a number of strategies that will move the division towards accomplishment of those goals. For the purposes of strategic plan implementation, Road Services will use the performance measures outlined below to measure progress towards these five goals. In addition to the other measures noted above, the division measures planned vs. actual number of CIP projects advertised and planned vs. actual number of CIP projects substantially completed. Additional performance measures may be developed in the future and a report on road system performance is planned to evaluate the functioning of the tiered roadway system.