Sausalito considers investing more in road repairs

Sausalito has a chance to improve some of its damaged roads, but the City Council wants a more concrete list of options first.

The council, which met on Nov. 19, told staff to assess the city’s 26 miles of roads through the lens of climate resilience, and to return with a list of specific projects and costs.

“Our roads are in not great shape in a lot of areas, and we need some infrastructure and some improvements for sure,” Councilmember Janelle Kellman said.

In its annual Bay Area road quality report, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission gave Sausalito a “pavement condition index” score of 58 out of 100, the second lowest in Marin.

“That’s a low C, a high D,” Chris Zapata, city manager, said. “It’s not a good number to have.”

PCI scores defined as “fair” are in the 60s, while “good” is the 70s, “very good” is the 80s and “excellent” is the 90s.

The City Council passed a road repair program in July, but only allocated about $1.2 million out of the $2.9 million needed to increase the rating by an average of five points over the next five years.

Sausalito, incorporated in 1893, has old infrastructure above and below ground. In April, the City Council approved a five-year capital improvement plan to help address some of the infrastructure needs relating to drainage, sewers, transportation, stairs, sidewalks and digital systems.

Zapata said the city is at a critical point where there are several opportunities and funding avenues to invest in the city’s infrastructure.

“These things don’t get aged overnight, and they don’t get fixed overnight,” Zapata said.

Two years ago, the city’s audits showed $10.7 million in a reserve fund, Zapata said. The council decided to use that money to set a 25% emergency reserve policy, but Zapata said that still left around $8 million in unassigned, discretionary funds available.

Vice Mayor Joan Cox said unexpected, expensive issues have arisen every year since 2019, and that a 25% reserve buffer is not enough. She added that the city is approaching the height of its annual pension payment obligations.

The city also has Measure L, a sales tax that generates between $2.4 million and $2.8 million annually to help fund infrastructure needs, and an additional $2 million left over from fiscal year 2023-24, according to Zapata.

Zapata said he does not advocate spending all of the funds on infrastructure, but just to “do something” to address it. He added that making improvements will reduce the city’s risk profile — a significant issue because the city was dropped by its insurer in part due to its high-risk rating.

“Whether it’s buildings, whether it’s roads, whether it’s stairs, whether it’s storm drains,” Zapata said, “all of those things matter at this point so it’s time to move the needle on all of those to provide better facilities, better conditions for people that walk, ride bikes, drive cars, own properties or visit your city.”

Mayor Ian Sobieski asked what benefit there is to investing more money into road resurfacing now versus doing multiple smaller projects over a few years. Kevin McGowan, the city’s public works director, said if the city does separate projects, it would have to pay more mobilization fees — the cost to prepare a site for work — and runs the risk of increased costs.

If $5 million were provided now, Cox asked, what are the most essential projects that would reap the most benefits? McGowan said he would start with the roads, but noted the city still needs to complete studies on its dozens of staircases, its city-owned facilities and its drainage systems.

Cox wanted to wait until all the various reports and studies — on streets, facilities, storm drains, sea-level rise, stairs, landslides, geologic hazards — are completed so they can be evaluated in a “holistic” way. She suggested a menu of options based on those data points coupled with funding sources.

“I don’t think we can make a decision to invest funds this year, to take our streets from a PCI from 58 to 70 without factoring into account these other infrastructure needs and identifying which of them are most emergent,” Cox said.

Councilmember Jill Hoffman agreed on waiting to see a clearer list of options and balancing surplus funds with the city’s emergency reserve needs.

Sobieski said that when looking at roads, especially those prone to flooding, resilience and stormwater treatment should be considered when designing projects. He said he is in favor of accelerating the city’s roads program.

“I think the devil’s in the details about the tradeoff between using funds for infrastructure improvement, which definitely has pros, versus other priorities of the city, whether it be early paydown of some of our pension obligation or even just greater financial resilience,” Sobieski said. “Those should all be weighed against each other.”