Report says city's roads are 'at risk'

Some Petalumans think calling the city “Pothole-uma” is going too far, but Judy Barrett is not one of them.

Barrett's street is so bad, in fact, that she plans to sue the city. A few years ago, a sinkhole formed beneath a patch of grass in the street in front of Barrett's home on Lauren Drive. She called the city, who told her it wasn't their responsibility. She then called a plumber, and had to pay $6,000 to replace sewer lines going from her house to the street.

“We had to replace four feet of city-owned pipe,” she said.

She plans to sue the city “if at all possible.”

“This is not a minor problem at this point. It's a little ridiculous, actually. These are things that aren't our fault,” she said.

The street is “like gravel,” echoed her neighbor, Debra Kutlik. “It's been patched so many times that the patches just don't work anymore.”

“I understand they don't have money,” Kutlik said about the city. But conditions are so bad something needs to be done, she said.

Last week, the Metropolitan Planning Commission — the state agency in charge of the Bay Area's transportation infrastructure — released a report rating Bay Area streets. Petaluma was near the bottom of the list.

Petaluma's roads were classified as “at-risk,” and given a rating of 55 on a 100-point scale. The Bay Area average is 66.

The City Council unanimously approved a similar statewide report, giving Petaluma the same placing, at Monday's City Council meeting.

The at-risk rating is “kind of like the magic number” before a road deteriorates much faster, said John Goodwin, a Metropolitan Transportation Commission spokesperson.

“Deferred maintenance costs a lot more than doing the work now,” said Larry Zimmer, manager of Petaluma's capital improvement program.

It would cost $6 million per year to maintain current road conditions in Petaluma, and would cost $117 million to raise conditions to an optimal rating of 85, said Zimmer.

“The single biggest factor (for road conditions) is that the primary funding for roads is state gas tax,” said Goodwin. The tax was set at 18 cents in 1994 and hasn't been increased or adjusted for inflation since then. There is no political will in Sacramento to increase the unpopular tax, said Goodwin.

“Part of the problem is that the city of Petaluma is 151 years old,” said Mayor Pamela Torliatt, noting that funding is a huge issue in every city across California.

Petaluma's officials “did not invest in infrastructure for (the past) 20 years,” said Councilmember David Glass. “To catch up is going to be very challenging.”

Main arterial streets are made a priority because they are used by everyone, said Torliatt. Federal funding is also often geared toward improving main routes rather than residential streets, said Zimmer.

Funding for roads has always been an expensive and volatile issue, said Glass. In 2002, many residents wanted to spend the city's reserves on fixing roads all over Petaluma. The council decided to save the money instead, and the reserves helped the city get through the current financial crisis, said Glass.

“Had they not done that, this city long ago would have gone bankrupt,” he said.

The scale and cost of improving streets is a challenge, but “there are things we can and will do,” said Glass.

The city will coordinate road improvements with redevelopment projects in order to “get the most bang for your buck,” said Torliatt. The second round of federal stimulus funds will come in soon, and the city will determine which streets to address in the next few weeks, she said.

“We want to ensure that the streets and roads that are most used are in the best condition,” said Torliatt.

(Contact Philip Riley at philip.riley@arguscourier.com)