2005 Audit Continued-Streets

In addition to the Auditor’s comments addressed in the previous posting, they were critical of one of our major reasons for having a city: Street Maintenance. Before I discuss the subject, you might want to click on the title of this posting. It will bring up a map shown to the City Council this July. If your street is purple (excellent) or deep blue (very good) be thankful for the efforts of the City Council, City Manager and staff that served you in 2001 and before. Once you are at the map, the arrows at the top will take you to the entire presentation. (Go forward and backward from the map page)

CAUTION: The PAVER system referred to in the presentation and by the Auditor is an objective tool used to evaluate the condition of a street that is predicated on the judgment of the city employees conducting the initial inspection.

Auditor’s statement: “During our review of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, we noted that in both 2004 and 2005, the repair and maintenance expenditures of the City did not meet the estimated required amount needed to maintain the street system at the originally determined level.” They went on to point out that the City must conduct an assessment in 2006. The City Council has agreed to the assessment and has set the minimum acceptance level at 70% which is the lowest point in the Very Good category.

The Auditor compared the conditions of the streets using the last two assessments: 2000 and 2003. It is also a comparison between the leadership teams of Parsons/Landeck versus Novak/Nelson. Here are the Auditor’s numbers for the streets that were not rated excellent or good:

Year 2000: Arterials 3.8% Secondary 7.4% Overall 6.6%
Year 2003: Arterials 20.7% Secondary 10.0% Overall 11.4%

The Auditor went on to tell us what we already knew in dollars. In 2004 and 2005 the City did not keep up with required maintenance. Here is a number to keep in mind when reviewing the following information. This year the Council authorized a street sealing program in the amount of $458,997.46. That’s it! The following comes from the Audit and covers the year 2005.

Arterial:.......Expenditures needed-$506,404. Actual spent-$169,424
Secondary:..Expenditures needed-$2,057,303. Actual spent-$0.00
Overall:.......Expenditures needed-$2,563,708. Actual spent-$169,424
Deficiency:..Expenditures needed: $2,394,284*
* In 2004 the deficient was $414,523. In 2001 the City was on the plus side: $273,158.