CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE

200 E. Wells Street City of Milwaukee Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Meeting Minutes CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE ALD. JOSEPH DUDZIK, CHAIR Ald. Robert Bauman, Ald. Michael Murphy, Ghassan Korban, Martin Matson, Mark Nicolini, and Mariano Schifalacqua Staff Assistant: Tobie Black, 286-2231; Fax: 286-3456, tblack@milwaukee.gov Fiscal Planning Specialist: Kathleen Brengosz, 286-3926, kbreng@milwaukee.gov Thursday, November 10, 2011 9:00 AM Room 301-B, City Hall Meeting called to order at 9:04 a.m. Present: 7 Froh, Gupta, Schifalacqua, Dudzik, Nicolini, Bauman, Daun Also in attendance: Kathy Brengosz, Fiscal Planning Specialist 1. Review and Approval of the minutes of the September 29 and October 17, 2011 meetings. October 17 Minutes- Korban, page 5, 2nd to last paragraph, item 3, eliminate reference to the Sidewalk Program being postponed. Mr. Daun- page 1, 3rd paragraph- 1st sentence- too early to come up with a time schedule not "scheduled" September 29th Minutes- Page 4, second full paragraph, the second sentence should read "60 to 65 percent" and the third sentence should be changed to read "a dramatic increase in debt could increase that percentage because". Minutes approved as amended. 2. Presentation of the Sidewalks Condition Report. Individual appearing: Dale Mejaki, Department of Public Works- Operations Mr. Mejaki presented a PowerPoint presentation on the Sidewalk Condition Report (please see the attachment "Sidewalk Condition Report Presentation" to Council file 101154). The presentation contained an overview of the sidewalks, including the results of a condition assessment that was done in 2007; the assessment criteria; efforts to improvement the sidewalks; replacement of sidewalks by the various types City of Milwaukee Page 1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Meeting Minutes November 10, 2011 COMMITTEE of programs; and annual goals for replacement. With regard to the results of the condition assessment and the raised and settled percentages, Mr. Daun asked if defective sidewalk conditions such as raising and settling affect the determination of the average useful life of sidewalks. Mr. Mejaki said that the 60-year figure that DPW uses is more a measure of how the concrete itself will hold up. But anytime there is a facility that is exposed to the environment, it will be affected by it. Mr. Mejaki added that sometimes the sidewalk is not moving, but the tree border areas and the lawns are causing the raising and settling problems. Mr. Mejaki mentioned the innovative cutting of sidewalks, done most recently in the Third Ward. He said that it addresses some of the offsets that exist. Instead of using grinding machines that would result in a rough surface, the use of a horizontal saw now allows for a tapered offset. Ald. Dudzik asked if reducing offsets in this way is quicker than the grinding method. Mr. Mejaki said yes. Ald. Bauman asked about the cost comparison between reducing offsets and just replacing the sidewalk. He said that if seventy-four percent of the problem with sidewalks is raised or depressed sidewalks, it would seem that grinding down sidewalks would be more cost effective than sidewalk replacement. Mr. Mejaki responded that the grinding down or cutting of sidewalks is to reduce the offsets, which are tripping hazards. An offset is a different type of defect from a raised or settled walk. Offsets only represent seventeen percent of the sidewalk issues. Ald. Bauman asked at what point it becomes cost effective for the city to do the sidewalk-cutting work with city workers as opposed to with contractors. Mr. Mejaki said that if it is only done every couple of years, it is more cost effective to be done with city workers. Ald. Bauman then asked if a systematic grinding effort in the city would be a way of avoiding complaints from citizens regarding the length of time it takes to replace sidewalks. Mr. Mejaki said that the grinding and cutting have its application in certain instances and so far only two large uses have been made of the cutting and grinding. He said that in the future, the use of cutting will likely become more prevalent. Ald. Bauman asked how much the machine used for grinding down sidewalks would cost. Mr. Mejaki said that it would probably cost about 20,000 dollars to purchase a machine. Ald. Bauman said that a small crew could go around the City full-time with a grinding machine if the City bought it as a Capital purchase. Mr. Mejaki said that the sidewalk cutting maintenance can only address certain conditions and has limited applications. Mr. Mejaki said that as the paving program increases, it will also address more of the walk. He added that sidewalk work is different from paving because when a street is paved the entire road is the same age. In contrast, the sidewalks in each block are often various ages. He said that condition drives the replacement cycle of sidewalks, not age. Ald. Bauman asked if the department has a standard specification for width and depth of sidewalks and if those standards should be adjusted more frequently where conditions warrant, such as in tree border areas. Mr. Mejaki said that the standard across the nation for the width of sidewalks is five feet. He added that the Forestry Program reviews every paving project and identifies sidewalks on the paving job that should be arced around a tree. He said that quite a few arcs are done on the paving jobs. City of Milwaukee Page 2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Meeting Minutes November 10, 2011 COMMITTEE Ald. Dudzik said that years ago a map of the city existed that showed, with color coding, when the sidewalks had been replaced and the average age of the sidewalk. He asked if there is a computer generated version of the map. Mr. Mejaki said that the physical map still exists and it is used to track the area-wide replacement programs. Ald. Dudzik also mentioned that the City has gone to a five inch thick concrete through the driveway area versus a standard seven inch. He asked Mr. Mejaki to explain the difference in concrete thickness. Mr. Mejaki said that the standard driveway is seven inches for a commercial application. He said that streets are eight or nine inches. Ald. Bauman asked if the five foot width of the sidewalk is a mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) or just the conventional standard over the years. Mr. Mejaki answered that five feet is the conventional standard, although many sidewalks are six feet wide. Regarding the assessment of sidewalks that will be done next summer in areas that have not been assessed in the last thirty-three years, Mr. Nicolini asked what proportion of the walk will be improved. Mr. Mejaki said that he would estimate that eighteen percent of surveyed sidewalk will be replaced. But because the department already worked in the area before, the amount may be a bit lower. Mr. Schifalacqua mentioned the five percent city-wide survey that the department did a few years ago and asked if the survey will be done on a yearly or bi-yearly basis to obtain new, more up-to-date data. Mr. Mejaki said that he does not anticipate that the data will change dramatically. He said that the survey should probably be done every five to ten years as it is very labor intensive. Mr. Schifalacqua suggested that the department have some sort of repeat survey or evaluation of the sidewalk program on a regular basis since the committee is interested in having an ongoing evaluation of all the City's infrastructure. Ald. Dudzik asked about scattered-site sidewalk repair and inquired about a cost comparison between the work done by city workers and the work done by private contractors. Mr. Mejaki said that the comparison is difficult because the City costs and a private contractor may have different types of costs. He said that costs of the City's crew is comparable if not a little higher. Ald. Bauman asked where water main work is done if Milwaukee Water Works does the sidewalk replacement and what is the completion time. Mr. Mejaki said that that Water Works will place a temporary asphalt patch that can stay in place for up to two years. However, DPW does the permanent repair to the sidewalk. He said that the goal is to replace those sidewalks within one year, although at times there is a delay of a year or two. Ald. Bauman asked if this work is done by City workers and Mr. Mejaki responded that it is since City crews do utility-type, sewer and water related sidewalk repair. Mr. Froh echoed the need for periodic surveys of sidewalk conditions. He also said that one of the positive aspects of having City crews do the work is the speed of responsiveness to citizen concerns. He also said that the department should find a way to use the data from the citizens' requests that are entered in through the City's online submission program. Mr. Froh added that even though the committee is not responsible for economic development, the role of evaluating capital programs involves measuring the economic benefits of the programs. He said that he would be very interested in knowing the total dollars spent versus the hours generated in labor for sidewalk projects and that this would be important in evaluating the benefits of a capital program. City of Milwaukee Page 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Meeting Minutes November 10, 2011 COMMITTEE Ald. Bauman asked about the private property owner's option for replacing his or her own walk and how that would work. Mr. Mejaki explained that a licensed and bonded contractor must do the work and a permit must be obtained for the work. He added when the department is doing an area-wide project, the department notifies property owners that the City will repair the sidewalk unless the property owner prefers to hire a private contractor. 3. Discussion of the Improvement of the Capital Budget Process. Ald. Dudzik said that there was some concern about how the Capital Budget process was handled this cycle. He said that Ald. Murphy did not feel that there was adequate communication between this committee and the Finance and Personnel Committee. He also said that in the budget process, the Legislative Reference Bureau summaries provided to the Council highlighted the CiC recommendations, but perhaps a representative from the Capital Improvements Committee should appear at budget hearings to advocate for the committee. Mr. Daun said that the Mayor and the Budget Office have to put together an Executive Budget with a series of considerations that are beyond the scope of the committee. He said that determining what the "A" items are in the Capital Budget recommendations would frame any advocacy that the committee would want to make with the Mayor or the Finance and Personnel Committee. If a staff person for the committee can do this, then there will be full-disclosure with regard to what the Capital Improvements Committee considers to be the most important Capital Improvement-related policy and spending issues that are embedded in the budget. Ald. Dudzik added that the committee has to keep in mind that is that it has been consistently asking departments for information and data that they have not generated for years. He said that there is no unwillingness to look at the process and see if there is a better way of doing it. Ald. Bauman said that the principal issue this year is that the excellent spreadsheet prepared by Ms. Brengosz that outlined the 2010 spending, the 2011 Budget, the committee's recommendations, the Executive Budget's proposed recommendations and the method of funding for each category was not distributed to the rest of the Finance and Personnel Committee or to the rest of the Council. He also said that when there is a difference between the CIC recommendation and the Executive Budget recommendation, there should be a brief narrative attached to the spreadsheet explaining the basis for the committee's recommendation. Mr. Schifalacqua said that he is concerned about there being significant changes in the capital requests of departments after the department has reported to the Capital Improvements Committee. He said that any department with these sorts of changes should reappear at the CIC to explain the changes in its capital requests. Mr. Froh said that in the past, the committee produced documents that were widely distributed. He said that the committee should routinely distribute the documents it generates to all the aldermen and their staff and to the Mayor's office. Ald. Dudzik asked Mr. Nicolini if he saw anything that he felt needed tweaking. Mr. Nicolini said that the Budget Office did take the opportunity to point out and explain when there was a discrepancy between the committee's recommendation and proposed budget. He also said that in the absence of having a borrowing target, a higher level of requests will be generated than the City's budget and debt repayment capacity can handle. The committee should prioritize not only what it would like to see done but also what can be reduced or eliminated as a trade-off. City of Milwaukee Page 4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Meeting Minutes November 10, 2011 COMMITTEE Mr. Nicolini added that the committee may want to spend more time looking at borrowing targets and financing issues early in the process. He also said that if more information about the collateral impacts of various programs could be added, such as how the street program affects street lighting demand and conduit demand, it would be helpful. Mr. Daun said that the Mayor and Council have a better idea of what can be spent because they are limited in their revenue-raising capability due to actions by the state. He said that the committee should have a firmer idea of the range of limits based upon the issuance of debt. It might be a productive exercise to have a meeting or two at the outset of the budget process to examine what the range of the debt limits are and to frame the rest of the process around that information. Mr. Froh added that the City is one of the entities that has debt on the property tax bill, along with the Metropolitan Sewerage District and Milwaukee County, and it should be examined how this impacts the City's borrowing. There used to be a coordinating committee of the five taxing units, but it is no longer active. Mr. Daun said that when the prior County Executive was elected, that process ended, but the City provides, in its Financial Statements, information on the portion of the other entities' debt that is owing to the City of Milwaukee. The City has the data on this debt and it could become part of the front-end analysis. Ald. Bauman said that the Committee's role is not to shadow the Budget Office, whose job it is to weigh revenue and expenses. He said the committee should let the Budget Office, Comptroller's Office and the Common Council evaluate the competing bodies of information. The CIC should not start out with a borrowing ceiling; it should state how much it believes is required and why and the Budget Office and Council should work with that request and make trade-offs. Also, the CIC should be not be stating that the City does not have money to do certain things, as that is the role of the Budget Office. Mr. Nicolini responded that he was suggesting that there be more of an emphasis on prioritization and not necessarily absolute constraint, particularly after the capital request has been submitted. Mr. Daun said that Ald. Bauman makes a compelling point and that the role of CIC is to be an advocate for the maintenance of the City's investment in its capital facilities. Ald. Dudzik asked if the joint committee that was composed of the five taxing units involved MPS. Mr. Froh said that it was called the Coordinating Committee of the Five Taxing Units. Mr. Daun said that each of the Chief Executives of the five units approved of its creation and the body then retained staff. Each year the committee produced a document that looked back five years and forward five years and there was a narrative associated with each government's program that that government developed. Each government was free to lay out its own capital plan and the committee developed a database that put the numbers together, which allowed there to be a picture of all five governments. This was performed through 2001. Mr. Daun said that it did take a significant amount of staff time to assemble the numbers in a legitimate, auditable way. The Coordinating Committee identified strengths and challenges and Mr. Daun said that he was surprised at the level of disclosure with regard to the challenges that appeared in the reports. Ald. Dudzik said that he will talk to the Mayor about recreating the Coordinating Committee. Mr. Daun said that some of the committee's previous reports are still on file and can be made available to the Capital Improvements Committee. Mr. Froh said that the reason he is in favor of integrating the consideration of financing into the committee's work is because it was done with the previous CIC City of Milwaukee Page 5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Meeting Minutes November 10, 2011 COMMITTEE committee. He said that the previous CIC produced a document that integrated all of the information regarding the long-range capital improvements program. This type of document would be a valuable thing for a bond rating agency to look at and consider. Mr. Daun said that the Comptroller's office will obtain the previous reports that were done by the CIC committee and make them available. 4. Set the 2012 Capital Improvements Committee Calendar. The committee discussed two versions of a potential CIC committee calendar, versions A and B. Ms. Brengosz said that the time line for having the budget request hearings is tight before the month of April because of the due dates for Capital Request reporting. Also, after the date of the Charter Meeting, the committee can function as it is until there are any appointments of members or changes due to election results. Ald. Dudzik said that Proposal "A" would be the best proposal for the Committee. 5. Set next agenda. The Fire Department is scheduled to give its Condition Presentation at the next meeting on December 1st. Meeting adjourned at 10:21 a.m. Staff Assistant Tobie Black This meeting can be viewed in its entirety through the City's Legislative Research Center at http://milwaukee.legistar.com/calendar. City of Milwaukee Page 6