HomeMy WebLinkAbout*Other - Public WorksGrant County
Department of Public Works
124 Enterprise St. S.E.
Ephrata, WA 98823
Serial No. 22.095
Memo
To: Honorable Grant County Board of County Commissioners
From: Dave Bren, PE, MSCE
County Road Engineer
Date: September 29, 2022
Re: 6 -Year Gravel -to -Oil Road Building Program ($500,000 Annually)
Request to Approve Annual REET-1 Funding for 6 -Year TIP
Legislative History: Financial Impact:
• First Presentation: September 27, 2022 • Annual Gravel to Oil Program $ 500,000
• Second Presentation: October 4, 2022 • Annual REET-1 funding requested $ 500,000
• Action Requested: Motion to Abprove •. - (hl Year C`,`�mmifimenl Ren»P tPr _�0(i_f)00,
Gravel to Oil Program (Road Building): Road building by updating gravel roads to Bituminous Surface Treatment
(B ST) Roads is a clear use for REET-1 funds and an excellent long-term investment for the County. There are several
elements that should be considered when making this decision to fund this program including:
• Annual Construction Program: This work is considered New Road Building by County forces. New
construction qualifies for BEET -1. We must be careful with the total amount of new construction by County
forces annually, as we have a $1,307,000 annual maximum (Attachment A).
• Annual Costs: The estimated $500,000/year provides (2 - 3) miles of gravel roads to be converted to paved
BST surfaces by County Forces. (2 - 3) miles per year will really add up over time.
• Long -Term Maintenance is Cheaper: Amer the cost of the initial BST surface construction, it is cheaper long-
term to maintain a B ST road than a gravel road. Chip seal roads have 9 -year maintenance cycle, which is cheaper
than grooming maintenance of gravel roads 3-6 times per year. A BST road has minor maintenance between
chips seals and there are no grooming costs.
• Maintenance Limitations for REET: REET-2 monies can be used for the maintenance of REET-1 funded
improvements. So, we can use REET monies to crack seal and chip seal a previously REET-1 funded BST road
construction (Attachment B).
• Updated Road Scoring: The selection order of roads to be constructed is determined by scoring. Road
conditions have changed since the last scoring was conducted (Attachment B). Scoring will be presented to the
Board for approval, prior to proceeding, with each year of REET-1 road building.
"To rneetcurrent and'future nra d;3; tering ogee61w I Ru��rrx end pri��� +�n�i�i�e�, ��r�il� ��� s-n� � r~��pa!�- of end' suGcrvsul
ay
workenvironment
I`nfrrrti ry,....:...W.:.:.....M...�.............. ,
_ ..•-- t 754-808� t� W6 arena PEj Ca u nth{ F��a� E n�i nor � ....._....__ .�E _ ���� Ed Lo ry s pervi r -D ist.'Noo 1-...........:.......��..:.:..EXt: 3540
� ......,..,....�.,.., ._. 164-6087 aob Berra n ti � st
FAX. -I.,; ....,...:... _.., ......,�_... r n4 r ti n f�1.r0 r , UTrol!or Su p�rtiri���-Dist.
E-maublimorl 8. ra tcoun -a. Loc M
F� & n rlt Lira ....., ..... ....................�..;E t. 555 J'a,l rr Brrssey�r supvvisoir-t st ,1,1. .3......,..............�..E t a5 .
nII f
s am Via. tri . P�u b li�c �� r Director ............. 3
. Sat R Follett., Fore -m a,n i.�n 1 _..:,.M....._.:...........:E tt ► Dhrt Spiess, supervisor�4.ntr i,I it ,pk:..:.v..... +408+
anrural Dark �ista�nt c irectar:�............. ...E M
r t Jason a n liin -r, r�li '� aStL. Andy at t t Br•"i f rs u� r _.... .-Ei t 3535
• District Staff Levels: It is important that district staff levels stay high enough to complete annual Chip Seal
maintenance work, this new Gravel to Oil program construction, and small city TIB maintenance work.
o Annual Chip Sealing
o Annual New Construction with Gravel to Oil Program
o Annual New Construction with Occasional Capital Projects BST Surface Work
o Annual TIB Small City Maintenance Projects Work
This Program is Not for Primitive Roads: Adams County is removing BST roads to return them to primitive
roads, as the primitive roads have a zero -maintenance cost. Therefore, primitive roads cost even less to maintain
then a Chip Seal surface, as you do not have to maintenance them at all. Therefore, well used roads, greater than
100 ADT, should be oiled with a BST surface, and are cheaper to maintain with Chip Sealing in the long run.
Please keep in mind that Grant County is growing fast, and Adams County is not growing as fast, so Adams
County had to make the cost choice to return unused oiled roads to primitive roads.
Fiscal and Policy Implications: The initial cost to construct a new BST oiled road is high. However,
after the initial investment, the long-term maintenance costs thereafter are much less then gravel roads.
Therefore, if BEET -1 funds can be annually invested to pay for the initial costs to construct BST
oiled roads by County Forces, the annualized maintenance costs thereafter actually go down for
those roads. In addition, the public gets to enjoy an oiled road thereafter.
Commission Packet Attachment
A.
2023 Annual Construction Program (Including Gravel -to -Oil Road Building Program)
B.
BEET 1 & 2 —Public Works as a Primary Use
C.
Scoring Narrative for the Gravel -to -Oil Road Building Program
Action Requested
Public Works Staff requests a formal motion to direct the use of $500,000/year in BEET -1 funding to a Gravel -
to -Oil Construction Program, providing (2-3) miles of BST Surface Roads each year, for the Six Year (2023-28)
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) period. This would total $3,000,000, for new Road Construction, over
the proposed (6) year program period.
"To meet currentcurrertt and futture needs,. r3, serving + g 1 er with pu.Mir, and, pr�� 'e entities, � hil ��� rine. r���p�G'u( amd sr:rqGessful
'work envircmmens,
[nforh atiara........_......7-04-8082, Dave Brert,FSE, 0a u;nt ........_E;. t, 3502 E� L � ��r at�`� r- i
r I�
[l� st. t t . .. ..._......._._�......E�t����0
FAX...-;- ......... I..........,...,...� ....................,._, - ► Bobs ee.r�an t' nstrtrctln Err ) r�r �r•.�...._. �..�........E�t 3503 ; `
r
t4� l e
E na,tl...._.....� ....._ P.0 b licw brl@ r.antcorrn w ;car, Lo c ohl ADcau�ntant18a ............. ........ r :
John. ar i'ssey� Su p rr rrlsor• f ist I';, a 3...... .. _ _ _.. t 3541.
E
Sam v -a:stro, Public Works Director 3504 Food Fol Ie�tt Foreman: �r n:Sho ...._..._._..
f p- ....., .._._.E t.3 Min.. Spl s, srrper°�`isor4Daritr�.I Shop...._..__. (5 ) 754;-6086
S-aMU l Dartr,listant..........Jason ralli'nsr.Belid WlaSte ............... .
n:y ott>
9/21/22, 10:11 AM
about:blank
Grant County
2023
Annual Construction Program
WAC 136-16
(A) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION DONE (total sum of column 13 + column 14): $8,968,339.00
Date of Environmental Assessment:
(B)
COMPUTED COUNTY FORCES LIMIT: $1,307,338.75
Date of Final Adoption:
(C) TOTAL COUNTY FORCES CONSTRUCTION (total sum of column 14):
$997,000.00
Ordinance/Resolution Number:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(n
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
05)
Annual
6 Year
Road Segment Information
Project
Project Type
Environmental
Sources of Funds
Estimated Expenditures
Dollars
Program
Item Na
Road Program
Item Na
Project Name
Road # Road Name
BMI' EMP
FFC
Len mi.
�( )
Code
Assessment
Other Funds
PE & CE Right of Way Construction
Grand Total
County Road Funds
Amount
Program Source (595.10)
(595.20)
Contract
County Forces
(All 595)
Road Name: Cochran Rd
41500 From: Airway Drive
0.10
0.25
17
To: Ottmar Rd
Road Name: Ottmar Rd
$808,022.00
STP(US)
1
1
Cochran & Ottmar
41500 From: OttmarRd
025
0.89
17
0.92
RC
E
$145,800
$0
$0
$1,080,000
$0
$1,080,000
To: Valley Rd
$126,178.00
HIP(US)
Road Name: Ottmar Rd
41600 From: Cochran Rd
0.00
0.13
17
To: Dick Rd
SR 28 & White Trail
Road Name: U -NW
2
2
Road Roundabout (PE
93010 From: U -NW
22.85
22.91
07
0.06
IS
E,
$115,150
$0
$0
$115,150
$0
$115,150
& CN by WSDOT)
To: SR 28
3
3
ADA Ramp / Sidewalk
Upgrades - Year 2023
N/A
Other
E
$150,000
$30,000
$0
$120,000
$0
$150,000
Road Name: Grape Drive
42350 From: Begin Termini
0.03
0.27
18
4
4
Grape & Maple Drive
To: End Termini
Road Name: Maple Drive
0.99
RC
E
$205,875
$1,319,125.00
STP([JS)
$125,000
$0
$1,400,000
$0
$1,525,000
42600 From: Begin Termini
0.00
0.75
18
To: End Termini
Road Name: 9 NW
5
5
9NW
93020 From: SR283
5.84
10.06
08
4.22
RC
E
$15,100
$132,900.00
RAP
$148,000
$0
$0
$0
$148,000
To: Dodson
6
6
Small Miscellaneous
Projects (Local Funded
N/A
Other
E
$300,000
$50,000
$0
$0
$250,000
$300,000
only)
Road Name: Stratford Road
7
7
Stratford Road Phase
94025 From: 16 NE
1324
17.24
07
4.00
2R
E
$100,000
$100,000
$0
$0
$0
$100,000
To: 20 NE
Road Name: B SE
8
8
B SE Culverts
20550 From: 25 south of Crab Creek Road 024
0.44
09
020
Br
1
$200,000
$200,000
$0
$0
$0
$200,000
To: .25 south of Crib Creek Road
Road Name: Stratford Road
9
9
Stratford Road Phase 3
94025 From: 20 NE
1724
20.28
07
3.04
2R
E
$172,000
$678,000.00
RAP
$0
$0
$678,000
$172,000
$850,000
To: BNSF Crossing
10
10
Road 23 NW Bridge
Road Name: 23 NW g
93048 From: 300 ft east of bride
9.32
9.64
09
0.32
Br
E
$290,000
$40,000
$0
$150,000
$100,000
$290,000
Replacement
To: Sagebrush Flats
11
11
ROAD 3 -NE (PHASE
Road Name: 3 -NE
94000 From: S -NE
8.91
10.90
05
1.99
3R
E
$702,126
$865,000.00
STP(R)
$0
$0
$1,567,126
$0
$1,567,126
3)
To. U -NE
Road Name: DODSON
91030 From: 14 -NW
28.99
29.68
05
To: SR282
DODSON ROAD
Road Name: DODSON
$274,797.00
City
12
19/20/21
OVERLAY (PHASES
91030 From: 12.8 NW
27.99
28.99
05
10.88
2R
E
$362,246
$65;000
$0
$2,861,063
$2,926,063
2/3/4)
To: 14 -NW
$2,289,020.00
STP(R)
Road Name: DODSON
91030 From: 4 -NW
18.80
27.99
05
To: 12.8 NW
GRAVEL TO OIL
13
25
PFROGRA (BEET
AR
N/A
Other
E
$0
$500,000.00
County
$25,000
$0
$0
$475,000
$500,000
2023
$2,758,297
$6,993,042
$783,000
$0
$7,971,339 5997,000
$9,751,339
about:blank 1/1
y"
ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (DRAFT) 2023 �w �TzBN
r :«. ,.ti
'r��. ry ' z .8d18881r P58
"^?iaar chtri;, �a w w 14
N N N 067 j\
{1 K C 1 55 ►
M58 � 7.
•��..��� 55 5��`\ 55
73 T 28 N / I � T28N
T27 N
Project oadname iRoadleg bmp. 'em T27N �' 53
1,Cachrarr - 41500..- - 4'1 _._ 0,25 53
1.Ottmar _. 415aff, 0 2a Q,89 52 �......!....,.i 52
1Ottrnar - 0 0.13 1. I ..... 51
2 U NW 93010 2285 22 91 51 i I
_ . _.
3 ADS r3rKi�1S aaassTsotz.zzaat44 72 errrzrrdazran4a4aaxazzva zaaaMxes=aasrn�:rrsaaasari 50 �:_....� .....�............. so
_._.. . ...__. _._.------------------------- - L
' 4 Grape 42350; 0 03' 0.27 4a t {............. { i I T27N
_ _.
4.(Ulaple 42600 Q 0,7.h� 17 T27 i .. 4e
_ _..
5 9 NW 93020: 584 10.0$ T26 K48 ! " I..,'. T26
._.. .....____ 47 47
6 Misc 155 ....;......
T Stratford Ph.?.. _ _ ...__.. _ 94025. 13 24 _ _ 17.24
__._.. 11
48 .,.,..,�....,. j......l 4w i i 48
8 B SE Culverts 20550 0 24 044 J I j I z w i
_ j
.. .. 45
9 Stratford Ph 3 94025 1724 20,28 45 �... ; ( 1 z �......
10 Road 23: NW BRIT 93048• - 9.32: 9.64 I .....1.............1...1.......1`...........x....1...,..1.....,.1 44
11 3 NE Ph 3 . ._. 94000 8 91 10:_9 � � �... 1 I i....... ......1 43
son Ph 2 _ 28,99: 29.68 43 { . ,. D 1......1
I
12_I,►odson Ph 3 91030 zsN �............_>......... ........i...........................+.._...........;....,.I 42 T26N
son Ph 4 91030 27 99 28.99 25 N 42 i ) �� T 25 N
18 8 27 99 i I i 4,
_. _.___. .. ... ... .-. _. ._ .__..�_ �._...._._... _ _ ___,._-- H, w I ..y ••,•,•,,•• ) � ( dt!,'�34Nt4}IiN8t8Ca^
13 Gravel to Oil z
38 J iw j Z j t ............ ........E 38
1,
F G i,g Z ± ! ! 37 NE
NW NE 3T � , . i..l , a! c ...................... � Iz 37
Legend ( I 1 25N
>+`2�r�aae:eaeasanc ''`"' ..I E I .....,�.. [.,.,,.I 35 T
..... L......l..............�....................,.
T24N �3e i I i ....,......i..... .. T24
.II. ACP2023draft Events35 � �..,.,, .,,,,, ! .. I......! 35
El
...'-"'•'-"' County Maintained Roads 4� =. py N w 34
1'� �j A .........."l.. I I ..................._...._....... 34
~~ State & Federal Routes a�' J t„• 33
,•.....,...I
......� ...... �..... •
32 32
Lakes and Streams i
3
m1 ( i
31 .{� }l j 31
B r I T....,. 30 T24
EE Clt)/ T 24 N 30 1
'....... .....I ....... ,
T23N I I I T23
29 I ' 7 �....... '...... ! ;Z t.... J .......I ......... ,,29 NE. 29
R
28
4 (�, ' W i
:
O �27NE�. xi
O J- �
27 �.......�......., 1 G / ..,._ r ! 27
w w w w w w QQ' Y' O I ............... � ...... � }
t
N N N N N N 25 .............:a ... ,.........i...........,.. .,.., : r' ., ''\ 28
B: z K� w le I j (• � 26 N E �-
R 0 P 0 N M L K J I H G F E D 25 i••••••• i •••.................
......,,.111 I,,,• f 25
0 it
T23N �y .... i ` ( 24 T23N
24 ....., ............. 17 ! l 33 t
T 22 N `4i l 1 �\ �. i i •a i *b•. ea I 23 22 N
N
S33 ' � .�L i \. ��•�a.d'`^ r�r>• ��aaraaaa
LLIJ 1f 22 NE
! J r� i ......L......E...... 22
...10�� i �. 1
T22 j I \.. `.. �... .... ..'I.... .�.............. � �4,.,, 1 2i
W w s, i j OVERENFt S/vh;,.; 3 ;'aY\. _, 4:' 21
�J .• j ( 7
N
N N 20 _.(.,.� ..,. t...... ...G�'N... [... .. .1........ , `�.+'� 2U
J
\............
18
X W w ( Z1....... I .............1.., T22 N
O' l
T21 N B i • r... 28 I I� T21°N
...I_........, Zy ........ Z n
v eJQFi� EF11RD SPRINGS RD
15 gP�f� r, ... •- i,....._. _. .... �, ,... .,�, ..� .....s- ..........)...... .......1 .1B NE.. t.... ,5
..
..............1
s GS. Z
14
14 82
13
13
12.5 NW (tC-.moi' i j
21 N (-'.......... �p,{TIN FZD j ...,..... 1 �... 1 _.,. I ,2 T 21 N
12 .• ..,„..,.,.... ..
f - ..�....��....,... Mi 3 I...............�. (.. T20
' 1
NW 11,..
T20N J !izr►NRDI ! i lNv�f111.5Nw' . I..
' i...... .... �...... adtxs steavadslJt% aBBNi o�; ...... J r ) ..,. Ti -NE „
„ .7 �. i 10 NE j. i �. 1 0
4FPiiinl8x.�.„ dS : , 1 ,.,.�. ,...'� ..,�...... j i,......
awm i+a¢aixaa, 28 1...... 1 ry \ \ J ............... }
�1 �................. z
;......... I , ..,...
t
�.. 1. z �'AG E..,17 `ia ........: Z s
1 :..., d ...,.,., \ L ..............
8 .......; .....
r
t '.
y , ; t �... L.., i . �......�.... ....�.... ...t.......,. "�r �� ...a ,, 1, i„:y 1 ............. j,,.. i.....,,.....,.,..�......._ ... L..... T
;.......t........ j.... ' J J
7 i t I i � ! f � ! I ' 'y i �,•-'... `j ;. �'j i i i j...... E.......1
T 20 N s i ; I I ,..�........... ......I i .... <. «? .... I......,.....w� ' .,...L .............1 j .... e T 20 N
J
l.. 83 i� :J ��'. 1......,
.. ! 1..... v �...� .., ., 1 ,'' '� T 19 N
T19N i I J
i
t 1 •......,., I ... �,... .,. � ..I... � ......,- L .. ........ �t .,�Ql � t .t "^ J 'f' L, �.. Z,� i ,.,.....,.,.........-.,.. .. 5
�....... �.............I .. I..... �:.. I 0,11
�... i
f111 I
i L.....,t...................... .......
., ..I... ..J... ...�...... t �'�.-. ...�.. i ..l.....,.... t.......
1
r• '
4 �...... ..........I........ I I I I• i ..... ..i ,'' ,'.J......I.' i 1...
�...... ............ I. .................,
Z y1 t 1 4 t v •. .. 3
3 ....... ..................... ...1.. .. �............... 1 .. .........
I[ !.. I I i. 7.............I ..,.1......... I l... ,.�
......
....,..I I ...........1......! >;....... 2
2 I NORTH FRONTAGE RD
I I I I i... 1_
' ,4RPa'AKfiHX' da j R 88a1's8'Fsbd � i ro„„as•� Ss,s,. is +ri"9 :fss w.4'r r W01414 v.A.24. , }k' C.+774itE94 ''h s • •# 1
bUTI I FFf C�NTAGE R�
1......_......:..............�..... .. gena'
NW C I I sa
T 19 N 1 f' 4 i g j 1 �L 8R8Rt
& : I ..... ...........:......:........... 'f Y - ' .....� ..!.1!?hM:X4i01 t7222282CJ3fi'.1•.V`tt8a8t9"�.4.'NFf3M,Ty°''�
...... �� I° NE
T 18 N i �• kms. i ...j..... 1 .. i ! !! ; 18 Naesea^ea ..
SW S D i 1....... SE
(j
�.
N c1'E
w......i..._ ...� ...�....... 2
....1
4 i i ..............�.....•.....,.. .. ................. j ...,.......�.......t.. ,.,.....`
4SW
l I �... i I
y u 5 SW : �...........:... : , ( L• 5
....... .........: `
�.........�....,, I I i l.. I Z ; t) �.- � . T 18 N
T 18 N 0 ...• i ,.... \. L....... O U.....: i.......j C.'.. 17 N
T17N � .! ..'. ..�, 0 t l.. J ..I � i T
7 � ...... ......... �',.,� 'f 1 ... ,t.. � i0'$9M.9d`QAct6tlA'^N•f�:Wp�tFBs•PoN2tFC74l, ( t � ..� T
5 f J i l t ..i.... i ,•�44rddaw ..., ,«4.� 43x ..;.y....�
!
I..........
X I 1 I t.. i ............... aarsar IJra,dvm 62 x �.. 70� 8
:
.,
to
'Nei,�4... . � �'x4szxo4xwvi4nyx�'3'g.4ea,+afi'°�'` '... : 1 i i ! •- ice• ,...! j:''�Q �$\N j ,.7 5 SE ,.r...� � � � ..�
:
I 1 4 �.... I ' I T17N
T17 N I i �. .l .....1 1....... ' J...I......€..: [.. t�..:`... ...........I,.. ......................................�.... ,x
..
,2 ..... 1...... h ,,. _ ,�........
!
T16N 1 f
t I I I 1 .... G
13iPtsrd888s.*xDfP149iAdAiTiCD'iDt88t'eNYMc,xn t?a8aad8?BdEat"aro77a ,, .; .J.,. .... ••••il..� ......... �.......� 13 H I J K L M N 0 P 0 R S T U V W X
2j6 1 T.... I.......
J ..
14 .. ,....
a )a
21
BEVERLY BURICI~ RD ........... �....,.. Rl ;n, 1... ...... ,5 N N N o w
i5 SW ` m rc z z le
10 I j....,. ,s
R g
T16N is N
,s ...., i to
T15N •• T15N
■ �..
,a .. '.. 2r�yt4xnrraymrsr4saaaraeaaxmaea-
V '..... 4a. xdasstaad44aaa
i���p'4�'='98Ms^fASta1:3.F7R?a84FiR,,TiRNa44aRFkYriWs:
w w 20 20
N N V
K 21 21
W
22 4 I I 22 17
243 i ... � ....... :...........:
r; I ! 23
,.
T15N 5N
'................... ' J i E ............� trxta�azara'` tsat.4
J
.... .....,......r. , 9Ja;tib,dH8SA4MYi.�98E19i'P39i%:S%R88888ata44i4?4�iN74D'P.Sitf888d8dHa7a7/1::t2!'e�i48�{�!X'8�83�%P8'MTt244%'YtldAd'T84
2a - ... v ,
T14N T14N
25 "i "j ... � ... ............................ �...! 24 25
I 2s sw 2s sw !
25 .... .............`......................:..............�( ,cN' 25
W J , ....� A pV
27 'i l5t .......................... ..i.....................j... 2T 2T 27
i r. i 1
B
28 y....................i..........................-J 28 25 28
.h •••I I I 'B C 0 E F
7 !eYY89MM.tL,8a84F82dB8 rj0 ipel
29 I ............ ...... J 29 w w
....!.......j ! I.. ,y N N
T 14 N V30 ; "aK 30C z K w w
T 13 Nty'�& 1 Tn o N.0
31 "ON,aadfaddddiS41, fA1«T`'$ 31 K 2'
32 32L J I H G F E SW SE b
T 5 R 0 P O N M J .7 ��
REET 1 — The First Quarter Percenl
Any city, town, or county may impose a 0.25% real estate excise tax — known as REST
I or the "first quarter percent" (RCW 82.46-010). If a county imposes this tax, it is
applied within the unincorporated areas only. This tax may be imposed by the legislative
body and does not require voter approval. Almost all cities, towns, and counties in the
state have imposed REST 1, with the exception of a few very small jurisdictions.
REST 1 revenues are restricted and may only be used for certain purposes. However,
the exact purposes depend on the jurisdiction's population and whether or not it is fully
planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA).
Population > 5,000 and Fully Planning Under GMA
Cities and counties that are fully planning under GMA and have a population of more
than 5,000 must spend their BEET 1 revenues on "capital projects" that are listed in the
capital facilities plan (CFP) element of their comprehensive plan. RCW 82.46.010(6)(b)
defines "capital projects' as:
[T]hose public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction,
reconstruction., repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets; roads;
highways; sidewalks; street and road lighting systems; traffic signals; bridges; domestic
water systems; storm and sanitary sewer systems; parks; recreational facilities; law
enforcement facilities; fire protection facilities; trails; libraries; administrative facilities,
judicial facilities, river flood control projects and technology infrastructure that is
integral to the capital project.
Sub -section (2)(b) also states that REST 1 funds may be spent on housing relocation
assistance as defined within RCW 59.18.440 and 59.18.450, which in summary provide
assistance to low-income tenants under specific circumstances defined by statute and
local ordinance.
In addition, a portion of the REST 1 proceeds may be used for the maintenance of
capital facilities as described below, with additional reporting requirements.
Note that REST 1 funds may not be used for developing or updating a capital facilities'
plan (CFP) or capital improvement plan (CIP), but they can be used for design,
engineering, surveys, etc. associated with a specific qualifying project listed in a CFP or
CIP.
A
1EET 2 — The Second Quarter Percent
In addition to REET 1, any city or town that is fully planning under the Growth
Management Act (GMA) may impose an additional 0.25% real estate excise tax —
known as "BEET 2" or the "second quarter percent" (RCW 82.46.035). If a county
imposes this tax, it is applied within the unincorporated areas only. Unlike REET 1,
there are no differences based on population size.
For jurisdictions that are required to fully plan under GMA, REET 2 may be imposed by
the legislative body and does not require voter approval. However, any jurisdiction that
is voluntarily choosing to plan under GMA must submit the REET 2 proposition to
voters.
REET 2 revenues are restricted and may only be used for financing "capital projects"
specified in the capital facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive land use
plan. RCW 82.46.035(5) defines "capital project3) as:
(a) Planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation,
or improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems,
traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems;
(b) Planning, construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks;
and
(c) Until January 1, 2026, planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair,
replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of facilities for those experiencing
homelessness and affordable housing projects.
However, the use of funds for affordable housing and homelessness in subsection (5)(c)
is subject to certain limitations described below.
Note that the definition of "capital project" for REET 2 is more restrictive than it is in the
REET 1 statute. REET 2 funds are more specifically directed to infrastructure and parks
capital projects. (However, note that park lands "acquisition" is not an allowed use for
REET 2.) REET 2 omits public facilities such as law enforcement, fire protection,
libraries, administration, and courts that were listed within the REET 1 statute.
However, REET 2 funds may be used for REET 1 projects, as well as REET 2
maintenance, subject to certain limitations described below.
REET 2 funds may not be used for developing or updating a capital facilities plan (CFP)
or capital improvement plan (CIP), but they can be used for design, engineering,
surveys, etc. associated with a specific qualifying project listed in a CFP or CIP.
Appendix C
Grant County Gravel Road Upgrade Project — Phase 2
SCORING OF GRAVEL ROAD CHARACTERISTICS
Each of the selected characteristics of a gravel road has been scored on a 0 to 10 scale. This paper
describes how each of the characteristics was evaluated and scored.
1. General Traffic Volume/Commercial Traffic (trucks)
In generally accepted road maintenance practice, gravel roads become good candidates for
paving when the average annual daily traffic (AADT) count exceeds 150 to 200. At around that
point, the cost to maintain a gravel road in a good driving condition frequently exceeds the long term
cost to place and maintain a paved (BSTI) road. High levels of truck traffic are hard on gravel roads
especially as speeds increase. Truck volume and classification information is not available for the
gravel road system in Grant County. Typically, truck counts are only done in preparation for some
grant funding programs or for new road design.
Method to Determine
General traffic volume
Each of the roads in the final project list was counted in July and August using automatic traffic
counters for a minimum period of 3 days. The traffic counters now in use have the capability to
determine both car and truck counts. In some cases, each end of a road was counted. In those cases,
the highest value was used. These traffic counts are 'raw', that is they have not been seasonally
adjusted; the seasonal adjustment factors have been reviewed and have virtually no effect. In all
cases, the County has attempted to determine the best, most correct traffic count numbers. As has
been discussed several times, the absolute accuracy of any one traffic count cannot be precisely
determined without performing an actual count for an entire year. This is impractical and the shorter
count periods are adjusted where necessary to provide an estimate of the annual count figures. This
problem is further compounded by the relatively low counts for the projects on the final project list.
Low counts are subject to a much larger variation for any given time period.
Commercial Traffic (trucks)
All roads that are on final project list have been counted using special classification counters that can
determine the amount of truck traffic as part of a total traffic count.
I BST stands for Bituminous Surface Treatment in which after a gravel road is properly graded and compacted, liquid
asphalt is sprayed on the road and then covered with select small aggregate.
Scoring of Gravel Road Characteristics
Grant Co Gravel Road Upgrade Project -Phase 2
Appendix C
September 29, 2006 Page I of 13
Scale
As general traffic count and commercial (truck) traffic are combined into one characteristic,
the two variables were combined into a single score with a maximum value of 10 points. As the
general traffic volume is the more important of the two, 80% or 8 points maximum was assigned to
this variable. 20% or 2 points were assigned to commercial traffic.
Assigning a maximum 8 points for general traffic volume, the 8 points are scaled as follows:
• Less than 50 AADT = 0 points
• 50 to 99 AADT = 2 points
• 100 to 149 AADT = 4 points
• 150 to 249 AADT = 6 points
• Over 250 AADT = 8 points
Assigning a maximum 2 points for commercial traffic, the 2 points are scaled as follows:
• Average Daily Truck traffic of less than 10 = 0 points
• Average Daily Truck traffic of 10 to 24 = 1 points
• Average Daily Truck traffic of 25 to 39 = 1.5 points
• Average Daily Truck traffic of 40 or more = 2 points
Scoring
The final number of points assigned to the General Traffic Volume/Commercial Traffic (trucks)
characteristic is the sum of the general traffic volume and the commercial traffic score.
Scoring of Gravel Road Characteristics
Grant Co Gravel Road Upgrade Project -Phase 2 Appendix C
September 29, 2006 Page 2 of 13
2. Number of Residences Near
A count of residences (dwelling units) adjacent to a gravel road is an indicator of the relative
severity of any dust problems as they affect personal comfort and quality of life. How close or far
away a residence adjacent to a gravel road is from the road will also be important to assessing the
probable impacts. For this analysis, a distance of 500 feet has been used. To adjust for the difference
in project length, the final computation is in residences per mile.
Method to Determine
This data is not readily available and has been gathered by a site-specific field review of the
actual residences on or adjacent to each road segment. Each road was inventoried and the number of
residences within 500 +/- feet of the road were counted. This is limited to those residences that are or
appear to be at least semi-permanent and occupied. Trailers and mobile homes that are blocked up
were counted as residences.
Scale and Scoring
Assigning a maximum 10 points for number of residents near, the 10 points are scaled as
follows:
• No residences on or adjacent to road = 0 points
• Residence density adjacent is 1 to less than 4 per mile = 3 points
• Residence density adjacent is 4 to 8.9 per mile = 5 points
• Residence density adjacent is 9 to 11.9 per mile = 7 points
• Residence density adjacent is 12 or more per mile =,10 points
If a road is less than one mile in length or there is only one residence on road more than one
mile in length, the actual number of residences is used to compute the points (residence density less
than 1 is scored as having 1 per mile).
Scoring of Gravel Road Characteristics
Grant Co Gravel Road Upgrade Project -Phase 2 Appendix C
September 29, 2006 Page 3 of 13
3. School Bus Routes
A new characteristic that was not considered in the 2000 study, school bus routes are
considered in the 2006 phase 2 study. School buses, like trucks, also create a high wear and tear on
gravel roads. Many of the children being transported wait at the edge of the gravel road and are thus
subject to being dusted during the dry months. Public Works also indicate that many of the
complaints the receive concern school bus traffic on gravel roads being a major contributor to the
dust being created.
Method to Determine
This data is not readily available and was solicited from the various school districts with
routes within Grant County. Each of the transportation `directors' of the various school districts were
contacted and a determination was made regarding each project within each school district as to
whether the project was on a school bus route and the total number of times the route was used during
a typical school day.
Scale and Scoring
Assigning a maximum 10 points for school bus routes, the 10 points are scaled as follows:
• Not a school bus route = 0 points
• School bus route — 1 to 2 uses per day = 6 points
• School bus route — 3 to 4 uses per day = S points
• School bus route — 5 or more uses per day = 10 points
Scoring of Gravel Road Characteristics
Grant Co Gravel Road Upgrade Project -Phase 2 Appendix C
September 29, 2006 Page 4 of 13
4. "Missing Link"/Network Completion
Missing links are those unpaved pieces of a road system that connect between paved sections
for route continuity and provide alternate (and often shorter) connections between paved portions of
the road system. Missing links are most often on the major (arterial or classified truck routes) routes.
Network completion refers to a characteristic that takes into account the general existing
surfacing of the roads in the immediate vicinity of a gravel road. Locations where there are unpaved
connections between existing paved roads are most likely good candidates for paving. Improvements
to such locations can improve overall network circulation (more options for traffic routing and more
direct point-to-point travel options) on the paved road system. When all of the roads surrounding and
connecting to (at both ends) a gravel road are paved, there is some utility in upgrading to paved as
road graders do not have to be `deadheaded' to pick up an isolated section. Roads categorized as
"network completion" sections are typically fairly short sections with a total length of 2 miles or less
and must be connected to other county or state paved roads at both ends.
Dead end roads are not considered as being either a `missing link' or will be scored for
network completion.
Method to Determine
Missing Links
Each proposed road was located on a county map of sufficient scale and detail to determine the
functional class (arterial or non -arterial) and the FGTSZ classification (is on FGTS system or is not)
as well as those characteristics for the roads connecting to the proposed gravel road.
Network Completion
Each proposed road was located on a county map of sufficient scale and detail to determine the road
surface (paved or not paved) for all roads connecting at each end of a proposed gravel road.
Scale
Assigning a maximum 10 points for "missinglinks", inks", the 10 points are scaled as follows:
For all gravel roads that appear to be a missing link, score as follows:
On the county road arterial system and the county FGTS = 10 points
On the county road arterial system only = 8 points
On the county FGTS only = 6 points
L In 1993 and in accordance with State requirements, all counties have evaluated their road systems and designated what
is called the Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS). This system of roads (which also includes all of the State
highways) maps the major truck routes based on annual estimated tonnage being moved. Most of the designated FGTS
routes are on paved roads, however there some 64 miles of the gravel and less road system that are designated FGTS
routes.
Scoring of Gravel Road Characteristics
Grant Co Gravel Road Upgrade Project -Phase 2 Appendix C
September 29, 2006 Page 5 of 13
If not on the county road arterial or FGTS system:
• Connection to county' arterials and/or state highways at both ends = 5 points
• Connection to county arterial or state highway at one end = 4 points
Assigning a maximum 10 points for network completion, the 10 points are scaled as follows:
For all gravel roads that appear to be part of a network completion, score as follows:
• All other roads within 1 mile of each end are paved = 10 points
0 80% of all other roads within 1 mile of each end are paved = 7 points
• If less than 80% of all roads within 1 mile of each end are paved, but the road does otherwise
provide a connection between two paved roads = 5 points
Scoring
Because of the similarity between missing links and network completion, a proposed road
section was scored under "network completion" or "missing link", not both. The higher of the two
values was used.
Scoring of Gravel Road Characteristics
Grant Co Gravel Road Upgrade Project -Phase 2 Appendix C
September 29, 2006 Page 6 of 13
5. Road Maintenance Costs
Those gravel (or less) roads with the highest maintenance costs should rank high on any
upgrade priority list. Such high-cost roads may have the average annual maintenance cost reduced
through upgrading to paved.
A related issue is that of transporting `soft' fruits. Roads with a high maintenance cost
experience more frequent periods of potholing and general road roughness. This requires that the
transporting vehicles must go very slow to reduce fruit damage. Roads in areas where such fruit is
grown and the transport period coincides with the worst roughness should be good candidates for
paving.
Another issue of concern to road maintenance supervisors is reducing the amount of gravel
road grading in urban areas (chiefly those adjacent to the city of Moses Lake) and in the small rural
unincorporated town -like areas such as Trinidad and Schawana. Parked cars and right-of-way
encroachments make periodic grading difficult on both the Public Works department and the local
residents.
Method to Determine
It is possible to obtain at least some relative `cost to maintain' rankings by interviewing the
road maintenance staff. Such a review of gravel roads has been done by each of the three county
road supervisors. Specific gravel road sections that are considered unusually high in gravel road
maintenance cost for which the maintenance costs may be lowered by paving have been identified
and tabulated. In addition, gravel road segments that have other, unique maintenance problems (for
example, steep grades, excessive grader travel to maintain, short miscellaneous pieces within urban
areas, and rural unincorporated town -like areas) have been identified.
Scale and Scoring
Assigning a maximum 10 points for high road maintenance cost, the 10 points are scaled as
follows:
• Roads designated as high maintenance = 10 points
lu`keas peO
• Roads designated as rural unincorporated town -like areas = 4 points
Roads that are designated as being in out -of the -way locations or as isolated pieces requiring
excessive grader travel time will be rated under the "Missing Link"/Network Completion
characteristic.
3 Further consideration of spot locations in urban areas or within an urban growth boundary has been deleted as per
advisory committee recommendation of August 21, 2006
Scoring of Gravel Road Characteristics
Grant Co Gravel Road Upgrade Project -Phase 2 Appendix C
September 29, 2006 Page 7 of 13
6. Dust Susceptible Crops
Some field and row crops are more highly susceptible than others to diseases and market
value reduction when exposed to road dust. Such locations should be good candidates for paving.
According to the WSU Extension service, both fruit trees and grapes are clearly adversely affected by
dust. As part of a similar project done for Yakima County in 2004, the consultant was able to find
additional supportive research done by the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in
1999. The relative effect of dust on the commercial value of crops, using the very limited data
available, provides the following relative effects by general crop type. For simplicity, the highest
effected crop was assigned a value of 1.0.
Table I — Croy Dust Sensitivity
Crop
Sensitivity Factor
Peaches
Y_..............................................................._..............................._..................................;
1.0
...._..._..__..__..__...._...................._..._..__..__...._...._...................__.�
Cherries. . ......................
1.0
. ................. -._....._....._......................_.-..................._..--__.._.._
Apples
�........................................_.........................................._................
-�.--.
� 1.0 ...._....._..
........ _....__...._.........._....._........__.._..�_...._...._........._..._.... . _.
Pears
........................................ ........_..,_._............................ ..............._......._....._....._............._..w.....W..........._................_.M._.......�.....m
1.0
Vegetables
......._._..T....._..........�._..
4.7
ops
0.7
Potatoes
.......... _......................_.................._ .__.._.............. _..............._....
= 0.7
_._....._..._.._..............._................._....-_.............._..-......................__....................._._.....
.Apricots........_.._......_..........................................,.._....._....._.......
_._.._....._......_....._.._....._......_.� 1. Q........_.........._........
q.....!:4pes, All10
..........................................................................................__.._............_....__..__..__..__...._...._...........
..�_..................... ...
Corn, all
_ 0.7
As ara us
........................................... ........... ....... ....................... ............
...... _..... _......... ....._.._....._..... .�....._.._.....^......�.�o......._........_._......._........._.._....
Mint, all
......................................._...._....._..............................................._.._._.....�.......
_ 0.7
__.._....._......_.._._.._..._......_._........_....._................. .._.........w.r.-...
Prunes & Plums
1.0
Ha' , Alfalfa
_.._............_....._............._......_.....................................
0.... .2
_._....._.................._.....-.._..............._...._............._......._..._..__......................... .
Hay, Other
0.2
Grain0.2
............. . .. ------ ....... .
. ........... ....... ................ ............................................ ....................... ............
Irri ated Pasture
.........................................................................................................................................�...._�..................................................._...._....�
0.1.�................-.........._...._..........:
Method. to Determine
Each road on the initial project list was field -inventoried to determine the amount of each crop
currently being grown on each side of the road.
Scale and Scoring
Assigning a maximum 10 points for dust susceptible crops, the 10 points are scaled as
follows:
Scoring of Gravel Road Characteristics
Grant Co Gravel Road Upgrade Project -Phase 2 Appendix C
September 29, 2006 Page 8 of 13
1. Determine the total length in miles along each side of the road devoted to each of the
agricultural uses as per Table 1.
2. Multiply the miles in step 1 by the associated sensitivity factor.
3. Total the results of step 2.
4. Divide the results of step 3 by twice the total length of the road.
5. Multiply the results of step 5 by 10 to determine the final score.
Scoring of Gravel Road Characteristics
Grant Co Gravel Road Upgrade Project -Phase 2 Appendix C
September 29, 2006 Page 9 of 13
7. Safet
Safety problems are generally determined from accident history records. Many grant
programs require that at least a three-year accident history be submitted. There are, however, two
problems with placing too much emphasis on accident history in the prioritization of gravel road
upgrades:
1. Typically, gravel roads have a very low accident rate. Just one recorded accident can overly
skew the priority.
2. In rural areas, most minor accidents are not recorded or filed. We can have locations that
have a relatively large number of these low severity accidents but no one would know.
There are also combinations of grade and vertical/horizontal alignment that may create less
than desirable driving situations even if there is no recorded accident history. Relatively steep grades
on gravel roads are prone to `washboarding' during dry weather. This is a particular problem for
vehicles going uphill as the uphill lanes are far more prone to washboarding than the down hill lane.
A possible result is that vehicles may use the `wrong' lane when going uphill to avoid the washboard
surface. If this combines with minimal sight distance with on -coming traffic (the grade and the
vertical/horizontal alignment are not well coordinated), there is a potential for accidents.
Method to Determine
The available accident records available as computer files identified by county road log
number and milepost cover the five year period of 2001 through 2005. The county's computerized
County Road Information System was queried to identify all recorded accidents on the initial project
list.
As part of the field inventory of each road on the initial project list, a visual observation was
made to identify those locations where there are poor combinations of steep grade and
vertical/horizontal alignment.
Scale
Assigning a maximum 10 points for safety, the 10 points are scaled as follows:
• 2.00 or more accidents per mile 2001 through 2005 = 10 points
• 1.00 to 1.99 accidents per mile 2001 through 2005 = 7 points
• 0.50 to 0.99 accidents per mile 2001 through 2005 = 4 points
• Zero to 0.49 accidents per mile 2001 through 2005 = 0 points
If there are locations where there are poor combinations of steep grade and vertical/horizontal
alignment deficiencies noted on the field inventories, they are scored as follows:
• Two or more locations = 6 points
• One location = 3 points
Scoring of Gravel Road Characteristics
Grant Co Gravel Road Upgrade Project -Phase 2 Appendix C
September 29, 2006 Page 10 of 13
Scoring
Both the accidents and the poor steep grade and vertical/horizontal alignment locations are
scored. The final score is the. higher of the two values.
Scoring of Gravel Road Characteristics
Grant Co Gravel Road Upgrade Project -Phase 2 Appendix C
September 29, 2006 Page 11 of 13
8. Arterial/Non-Arterial
Roads that are on the county arterial system serve a higher function to convey traffic than do
local access roads. Gravel road arterials should rate higher than gravel road local access roads.
Method to Determine
Each county maintains an up-to-date designation of all arterial roads within its computerized
road log.
Scale and Scoring
Assigning a maximum 10 points for arterial/non-arterial, the 10 points are scaled as follows:
• If a rural major collector4 (arterial) or urban arterial, score 10 points
• If a rural minor collector(arterial), score 7 points
• If not a collector (arterial), score 0 points
4 Road systems are fundamentally broken down into arterial and local access. Rural "collectors" are a subdivision of the
arterial definitions.
Scoring of Gravel Road Characteristics
Grant Co Gravel Road Upgrade Project -Phase 2 Appendix C
September 29, 2006 Page 12 of 13
9. Land Value (Agricultural)
Agricultural land value is a measure of the relative property values and generated tax income.
The theory is that the higher valued land grows the higher valued crops and thus generates a higher
commercial `value' to the county as a whole. A higher priority for roads that serve and support this
higher commercial (and tax) value to the county is implied.
Method to Determine
Each road on the initial project list was field -inventoried to determine the agricultural land use
on each side of the road. The amount of mileage of each agricultural land use was multiplied by the
assessed value from figures provided by the County Assessor's office. As there are a range of
assessed valuation for most agricultural land uses (the exact figure is determined for each parcel by
the Assessor's office periodically and is based on more specific information than can be gathered by
a field inventory), a figure slightly more than one-half of the way from the lowest to the highest
assessed value was used. The per -acre figures (2006 values) used are as follows:
• Dryland grain - $500
• Orchards - $11,000
• Irrigated row crops - $2,000
• Asparagus - $2,500
• Uncultivated/unimproved - $200
• Hay/alfalfa - $1,300
• Grapes - $7,000
• Irrigated pasture - $850
Using -the above values and the mileage of each current agricultural use along side a road, a
weighted average value was determined ranging from a low of $200 per acre to a high of $11,000 per
acre. Only agriculture land being served or supported by each of the gravel road sections was
considered; land primarily devoted to business, homes, public use, etc. was not included in these
calculations.
Scale and Scoring
Each road was scored as follows:
1. Determine the total length in miles along each side of the road devoted to each of the
agricultural uses as shown above.
2. Multiply the miles in step 1 by the associated agricultural land value6.
3. Total the results of step 2 and divide by twice the total length of the road.
4. Divide the results of step 3 by 11,000.
5. Multiply the results of step 5 by 10 to determine the final score.
5 Includes tree nurseries and turf farms
6 All values were reduced by $200 as unimproved and uncultivated land was not inventoried and they have a base land
value of $200 per acre.
Scoring of Gravel Road Characteristics
Grant Co Gravel Road Upgrade Project -Phase 2 Appendix C
September 29, 2006 Page 13 of 13