City of Piedmont COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Transcription

1 City of Piedmont COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: April 20, 2015 TO: FROM: Mayor and Council Paul Benoit, City Administrator SUBJECT: Street Selection Criteria and Discussion of Budget for the Proposed 2015 Paving Project RECOMMENDATION This is presented to the Council as an informational item. BACKGROUND The City of Piedmont has implemented use of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission s (MTC) Pavement Management Program (PMP) known as StreetSaver for many years. This is a computer-assisted program that uses real field inspection information to provide pavement condition ratings known as the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). It provides for various treatment options and aids in the decision-making process of road maintenance and repair. Further, it recommends the optimum way to spend available street maintenance funds, and develops the financial and physical consequences of deferred street maintenance. Each year in the late Winter and early Spring, the Public Works Director and City Engineer review the paving budget with the Finance Director, and then compile a list of streets to be considered for rehabilitation. The annual paving project list is developed using a combination of the budget constraints, the recommendations from the PMP, on-going observations and evaluations of the staff, and inquires and observations of the public. In order to maximize the value of available funds, various methods of rehabilitation are considered, including slurry sealing, asphalt overlay, and full reconstruction. Additionally, when compiling the list, staff takes into consideration any underground work scheduled in upcoming years by either the City or any of the public utility companies. Typically, paving on these streets are deferred until the underground work is completed. It should be noted that the last full update to the PMP was completed in In accordance with MTC requirements, a full update to the PMP is required every 5 years. To that end, Staff is currently in the process of completing an update to ensure compliance and anticipate it being completed by June of this year. Completion of the PMP update will provide a list of streets needing treatment over the next 5 years starting, with The report to Council related to street paving in 2016 will be based on this updated PMP information.

2 Agenda Report Page 2 CURRENT STATUS Based on the above stated selection criteria, the streets selected for treatment this year include: Street Limits Estimated Treatment Comments Construction Cost Highland Avenue Sierra to Highland Way $256,000 2 Asphalt Overlay Part of Federally Funded Grant project Moraga Ave Pala to easterly City Limits $257,000 2 Asphalt Overlay Park of Federally Funded Grant Project Harvard Rd. Portsmouth to Annerley $128,000 2 Asphalt Overlay Requa Place West of Hazel to $85,000 2 Asphalt Overlay end Requa Place Hazel to 130 west $2,000 Slurry Seal of Hazel Arbor Drive Nova to Fairway $31,000 2 Asphalt Overlay Lower Wildwood Winsor to 100 east $8,000 Slurry Seal of Portsmouth Abbott Way Maxwelton to end $14,000 Slurry seal and digouts Echo Lane Maxwelton to end $7,000 Slurry seal and digouts Sewer work slated to be done in Phase 7 in 7-10 years. Street needs treatment now and slurry seal/digouts should help with current conditions but is temporary Sewer work slated to be done in Phase 7 in 7-10 years. Street needs treatment now and slurry seal/digouts should help with current conditions but is temporary In order to provide staff with some flexibility to maximize the available funds, Arbor Drive, Lower Wildwood, Abbott Way and Echo Lane will be included in the overall project as bid alternates. This will allow staff to either include or remove these streets from the overall construction project, depending on the bids received compared to the budget. Due to their precarious condition, Abbott Way and Echo Lane were chosen despite the fact that future sewer work is slated for both of these streets in 7-10 years. The recommended slurry seal is a cost effective method to preserve the pavement until the sewer work can be completed. Additionally, it is anticipated that there will need to be work done on some of the pedestrian ramps and sidewalks on several of the streets to comply with the Complete Street regulations. FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS

3 For the 2015 Paving Project, there is approximately a total of $890,000 available from the County, which includes $710,000 from Measures B and BB Local Streets and Roads, and $180,000 from the Vehicle Registration Fee. These funds are restricted to transportation related projects of which the primary use is for street paving. (To be clear, they are separate from funds specifically ear-marked for Bike & Pedestrian Projects.) It should be noted that this is approximately twice the amount of monies received in past years, primarily due to the recent passage of Measure BB. As stated, the above costs totaling $788,000 are estimated construction costs only and do not include soft costs, which cover costs related to the preparation of the bid documents, contingencies or construction management and inspection costs. Once soft costs are added in, the overall project is anticipated to meet the budget of $890,000. Construction associated with upgrading ramps and sidewalks in order to meet the Complete Streets regulations can be funded through the Measure B and BB - Bicycle & Pedestrian funds. As this item is presented for information purposes only, no action is needed that will have financial impacts at this time. Although budgetary information is presented in this report, actual financial impacts will be presented when the project is bid and this item comes back to the Council for award of the construction later this year. By: Chester Nakahara, Public Works Director John Wanger, City Engineer

4 PCI Number Rating 100 Verbal Rating MTC Condition Category Figure 1 PAVEMENT LIFE CYCLE PAVEMENT CONDITION EXCELLENT 90 pavements which have little or no distress I 80 VERY GOOD 40% Drop in Quality (Relatively Slow) 70 pavements which have a GOOD II significant level of distress; non-load related 60 III pavements which have a 50 significant level of distress; load related FAIR 40 IV pavements which have a POOR major level of distress Another 40% Drop in 30 Quality (FAST) pavements which have 20 extreme amounts of VERY POOR major distress 10 V FAILED Figure *TIMELINE (YEARS) 75% of Useful Life 12% of Useful Life (CRITICAL TIME TO APPLY LOW COST TREATMENTS) *TIMELINE varies depending on traffic volume and loads, climate, pavement design, etc

5