HomeMy Public PortalAbout01) Staff Report - Pavement Management Program with AttachmentsDATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA
ITEM 4.A.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDU M
December 10, 2013
The Honorable City Council
Jose E. Pulido, City Manageftt'
Via : Mark Persico, AICP, C~munity Deve lo pment Director
Tracey L. Hause, Adm inistrative Services Director
By: Ali Cayir, City Engineer, Transtech Engineers
Robert Sahagun, Public Safety and Services Manager
Andrew J. Coyne, Management Analyst
UPDATE OF CITY OF TEMP LE C ITY PAVEMEN T
PROGRAM AND ADO PTION OF RE SO L UTION
E STABLISHING GUID ING PRIN CIPLES FOR
MANAGEMENT
MANAGEME NT
NO . 13-4951
PA VEMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council is requested to:
a) Receive the Draft Report for the Pavement Management Program 2013 Update
(Attachment "A") and have a presentation from Harris & Associates (Harris) w ith
highlights of the Pavement Management Program (PMP);
b) Rece ive publ ic comments;
c) Approve Resolution No. 13-4951 Establishing Guiding Principles for Pavement
Management (Attachment "8") to maintain the City street networl< at an ave rage
Pavement Condition Index (PC I) of 75 (Ve ry Good = B);
d) Adopt a six yea r funding program based on ac h ieving and maintaining a City-wide
average PC I of 75 (Ve1y Good = B); and
e) D irect staff to move forward with the necessary steps to develop and implement a
Benefit Assessment District for the purpose of repairing, reconstructing , and
prov iding for annual preventative maintenance of the City's street network that
maintains a City-wide wide average PC! of 75 (Very Good = B).
City Council
December 10, 2013
Page 2 of 10
BACKGROUND:
1. In September 2000, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works completed the
City's Pavement Management Study.
2. On September 26, 2006, RKA Consulting Group submitted the Pavement Evaluation
and Pavement Management Program, which detailed: 1) How pavement inspections
were performed; 2) The City's budgetary needs for pavement maintenance and
improvement; 3) The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) scores for city streets; and 4)
A maintenance and rehabilitation decision tree. The Pavement Evaluation and
Pavement Management Program was received and filed by the City Council.
3. On July 20, 2009, RKA Consulting Group submitted an update to the Pavement
Evaluation and Pavement Management Program. The update was received and filed
by the City Council.
4. On November 1, 2012, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Pavement
Management System (PMS) services that would: 1) Establish baseline data on
pavement conditions throughout the City; 2) Implement and operate pavement
management software; and 3) Complete a PMP that would determine budgetary
needs over a six-year period for street maintenance and repair.
5. On November 26, 2012, the City received 10 proposals from firms offering to perform
PMS services. City staff completed a review of the proposals, and selected the three
most qualified firms (i.e., Harris & Associates, Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd.,
and MDS Technologies, Inc.) for interviews.
6. On December 3, 2012, the City's selection committee interviewed representatives
from the three selected firms. The selection committee determined that the proposal
from Harris offered the most comprehensive and cost effective scope of services.
7. On December 18, 2012, the City Council approved a contract services agreement
with Harris in an amount of $31,880 to complete the PMP.
8. On January 23, 2013, City staff met with the Harris project team to kick off the
PMP project and discuss the benefits of adding digital imagery services to the
scope of services.
9. On February 19, 2013, the City Council approved an amendment in the amount of
$13,020 to the contract services agreement with Harris to expand the scope of
services for the PMP to include digital imagery with a Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) database to allow annual monitoring of pavement condition.
10. On March 19, 2013, Harris submitted an update to staff on the progress of the
PMP. At that point, field inspections of street conditions had been completed and
entered into a database and a PCI for each street had been developed. Next steps
City Council
December 10, 2013
Page 3 of 10
included: 1) Linking the data to a GIS program; and 2) Developing maintenance
strategies to explore for developing budget scenarios.
11. On April 23, 2013, City staff met with members of the Harris project team to
discuss the initial findings of the PMP. Staff advised Harris to make amendments
to the initial draft report and presentation in order to better reflect the City's needs
and fiscal constraints.
12. On August 20, 2013, staff met with Harris to review the incorporated changes
based on the prior meeting.
13. On September 12,2013, Harris submitted the final Draft PMP report to staff.
ANALYSIS:
As part of the City's on-going efforts to proactively address long-term infrastructure
needs, the City Council is being requested to consider adoption of a strategy to ensure
the long-term maintenance of City streets. This strategy would establish appropriate
street conditions (i.e., PCI) as well as a funding mechanism for the on-going repair,
reconstruction and preventative maintenance. Staff explored a range of options as
outline below in order to develop the recommended strategy.
Purpose of the Pavement Management Program (PMP)
Well-maintained streets are integral to the general health, quality of life, and economic
stability of the City. Maintaining a high level PCI on streets also has a positive impact on
the overall "image" that the City projects to residents, visitors, and neighboring
communities. Streets require on-going preventive maintenance in order to maintain the
street's life expectancy. Depending on the surface material of the street, its useful life
expectancy may range from 25 years (for asphalt) to 50 years (for concrete). Failure by
the City to conduct timely preventative maintenance will significantly shorten a street's
life-cycle, which would subsequently require costly complete street reconstruction. The
PMP, once implemented, would ensure the necessary repair, reconstruction, and
preventative maintenance is completed in a systematic manner.
It should be noted that the PMP is a planning level document. The costs contained in
the report are based on conventional construction techniques and regional prices, but
these are estimates only for planning purposes. Construction costs fluctuate based
upon oil prices, project size, and complexity. Firm cost estimates need to be prepared
annually by City engineering staff as part of the budget process in order to achieve the
City Council stated goals related to street repair, reconstruction, and preventative
maintenance.
City Council
December 10, 2013
Page 4 of 10
General Approach for Pavement Rehabilitation Program
The general approach for the PMP is to implement a work program that prioritizes
preventive maintenance on the street segments whose conditions are currently at or
above the critical PCI of 55 (Fair= Grade D). This general approach ensures that street
segments currently within the PCI range of 86 -100 (Excellent = Grade A) to 41 -55
(Fair= Grade D) get the required preventive maintenance (i.e., slurry/cape seal, asphalt
concrete overlay) needed to maintain or increase their life expectancy.
The opposite strategy, choosing a "worst first" program that conducts expensive,
immediate reconstruction work on the minority of streets (approximately 20%) with a
PCI of 26 -40 (Poor = Grade E) to 0 -10 (Failed = Grade G), would result in a
significant drop in the City's overall PCI, and will ultimately cost more as the other
streets in better condition will degrade below acceptable levels by the time rehabilitation
work is scheduled for these streets. The preferred approach is to be proactive with
repair, reconstruction and preventative maintenance planning to ensure dollars spent
will most effectively maintain the desired PCI level.
Analysis Methodology
The PMP was developed by Harris based upon a field inspection of pavement
conditions on all 71 miles of streets within the city, using Federal guidelines to create a
condition inventory of all streets. Following the completion of this component, a PCI was
calculated to reflect the overall pavement conditions of each individual street segment
within the City. The PCI is a qualitative scale, ranging from 0 -100, used to rate the
condition of paved surfaces (see table below). A recently paved street segment has a
PCI at, or close to, 100 (Excellent= Grade A). As the pavement material deteriorates
(i.e., concrete or asphalt), its PCI gradually decreases over time. Once it drops to a PCI
of 55 (Fair = Grade D), its condition is considered critical. Unless some form of
treatment is done, the pavement condition will rapidly deteriorate until it becomes "poor"
and "failed", with an exorbitant reconstruction cost, which cities should avoid getting to
this point.
The following table shows pavement conditions and relative PCI ranges:
Pavement Quality PCI Range Grade
Excellent 86-100 A
Very Good 71 -85 B
Good 56-70 c
Fair 41-55* D
Poor 26-40 E
Very Poor 11 -25 F
Failed 0-10 G
*PC/ 55 is considered a Critical Point. Streets with PC/ levels over 55 require less expensive treatment
methods to maintain or increase their PC/ levels.
City Council
December 10, 2013
Page 5 of 10
According to the data compiled by Harris, the following average PCI values have been
calculated for various street types in the City:
Arterial Streets Very Good Grade B with average PCI of 77 PCI range 71 to 85
Collector Streets Good Grade C with average PCI of 59 PCI range 56 to 70
Residential Streets Fair GradeD with average PCI of 54 PCI range 41 to 55
Average PCI for all Good Grade C with average PCI of 62 Streets PCI range 56 to 70
Conditions Summary
The majority of the streets (over 77%) in the City have a PCI at or above the critical PCI
of 55, which would require less expensive treatment methods to maintain or increase
their PCI levels. A minority of streets in the city fall under the "failed" and "poor" PCI
levels, and would require more expensive reconstruction work to bring their PCI back up
to an "excellent" level. The final page of the PMP report details the current conditions of
the entire City street network.
Recommended General Policy to Establish an Efficient Work Program
In order to establish an efficient work program, the City Council is requested to consider
a general policy which staff can use to develop a specific annual work program and
budget estimates to achieve the City Council policy. The general policy should do the
following:
• Set an average PCI goal of 75 (Very Good = Grade B) for the entire City street
network;
• Prioritize higher volume streets and/or streets serving key areas such as
commercial zones, parks, schools and public facilities; and
• Employ a maintenance strategy that prioritizes keeping as many of the streets
currently in good condition from deteriorating to a poor condition.
The general policy statement is incorporated into the attached Resolution implementing
a City Council policy to maintain the average PCI of 75 (Very Good = B). After adoption
of the policy, staff will annually assess the condition of the street network and develop a
specific work plan and budget that will achieve the policy goal.
City Council
December 10,2013
Page 6 of 10
Street Maintenance Funding Options
The following is an analysis of various maintenance funding options:
1. Current Funding
The City's current funding scenario projects what would happen to the
City's pavement network if current expenditure levels remained the same
over the next six years. In recent years, the City has spent approximately
$1 million per year on street maintenance. Continuing this level of funding
would cause the City's average PCI to fall from 62 (Good = Grade C) to 50
(Fair= Grade D) over the six years.
2. Funding to Maintain Current City-Wide Average PCI of 62 (Good = Grade
C)
In order to maintain the City-wide average PCI at or above 62 (Good =
Grade C) over the next six years, approximately $2.8 million per year need
to be allocated from the General Fund. With current resources, the City
cannot realistically support this level of maintenance.
3. Funding for Completion of Street Repair and Reconstruction (Immediate
Impact) -Bringing all street to the City Council policy of 75 (Very Good =
B)
If the City-wide improvement program were to be completed in one year, a
cost would be $23 million. This global scenario is provided to establish an
overall understanding of the magnitude of the total costs. It is not feasible
to complete all street repair and reconstruction at once in a one year
period. However, if completed, the city-wide PCI average would be within
the highest achievable category, 86 to 100 PCI (Excellent= Grade A), and
the average annual cost of maintenance at approximately $1.3 million. In
this scenario, after five years, the city-wide average PCI would be
estimated to be 83, which is still within the highest achievable PCI range
of 86 to 100 (Excellent= Grade A).
4. Funding for a Six Year Program Based Upon Achieving City-Wide
Average PCI of 75 (Very Good = Grade B)
In order to achieve an average PCI of 75 (Very Good = Grade B) at the
end of the sixth year of the program, the cost would be approximately $4.6
million per year.
For the above scenarios, after completion of the first year program, costs would be
updated based on bids received and market conditions and an updated funding amount
would be established for the following years annually.
City Council
December 10, 2013
Page 7 of 10
Funding Sources
• Funding for Repair and Reconstruction
Typical sources of funding for use in the repair and reconstruction of City
streets are: 1) General Fund monies; 2) Local taxes allocated for transportation
(State Gas Tax); 3) County (e.g., Prop A, Prop C, and Measure R); 4) Various
grants and incentive programs; 5) Sale of municipal bonds; and 6) Benefit
Assessment Districts.
The City Council has already committed all Gas Tax, Prop A, Prop C, and
Measure R funds until FY 2017-18 for use in both the Rosemead Boulevard
and the Las Tunas Drive Safety and Enhancement Projects.
This leaves the City's General Fund as the primary potential source of funds for
street repair and reconstruction. Since the General Fund does not currently
have a revenue source to support these proposed expenditures, the sale of
municipal bonds and/or a Benefit Assessment District are viable options the
City Council should consider:
1. General Obligations (GO) Bonds
GO bonds are bonds secured either by a pledge of the full faith and credit
of the issuer, and/or by a promise to levy taxes in an unlimited amount as
necessary to pay interest and principal on the bonds maturing each year
(debt service).
With very few exceptions, local agencies are not authorized to issue "full
faith and credit" bonds. Even if the City fell under one of the exceptions,
securing bonds with "full faith and credit" would not be recommended at
this time, as currently there isn't a dedicated General Fund revenue
source that can be identified to support the debt service. As a result, the
alternative would be to levy taxes to pay the debt service. Taxes for debt
services typically come from an ad valorem property tax which is required
to be levied in an amount sufficient to pay the debt service each year.
There are two types of taxes that can be levied: 1) A general tax imposed
for general governmental purposes and requires a simple majority of the
registered voters within the jurisdiction; and 2) A special tax imposed for
specific purposes and requires a 2/3 majority of the register voters within
the jurisdiction.
If the City Council considers GO bonds as a funding measure, the City
Council should consider levying a special tax to support the debt service
as a special tax cannot be redirected by future City Councils to fund other
general purpose expenditures. A general tax can be redirected and could
potentially put the revenue source previously identified for debt service in
City Council
December 10, 2013
Page 8 of 10
jeopardy, thus creating a possible default on the GO bonds and not
implementing the City Council policy to maintain the PCI at 75 (Very Good
=B).
2. Assessment Bonds
As an alternative, as assessment district could be formed with the sole
purpose of issuing assessment bonds to fund public improvements (i.e.,
street improvements) for a special benefit enjoyed by all property owners
within City limits, including commercial and residential, from the public
improvement.
If assessment bonds are issued, the debt service is secured by
scheduled assessments collected from property owners that benefit from
the improvement. An engineer's report would be completed determining
the benefits attributable to each parcel in order to determine the amount
of the proposed assessment for each parcel owner.
The property owners of the affected areas (City-wide) would have to cast
ballots in favor or against the creation of the district and the corresponding
proposed assessments for the purpose for the annual debt service.
If the assessment district is formed and assessment bonds are issued, the
debt service will be secured by scheduled assessments collected upon
real property. Once the bonds are issued, the assessment cannot be
challenged and the assessment stays in place until the bonds are paid off.
The scheduled assessments can be collected either by a direct billing to
the property owner or by posting it to the Los Angeles County secured
property tax roll.
3. Benefit Assessment District-Pay As You Go
If the City chose to not issue GO or assessment bonds, the City could
propose a Benefit Assessment District in which assessments are levied
annually on property owners to pay for repair, reconstruction, and
preventative maintenance of streets. An engineer's report would be
completed at the initial phase to determine the benefits attributable to
each parcel in order to determine the amount of the proposed assessment
for each parcel owner. The parcel owners would have to cast ballots in
favor or against the creation of the district and the corresponding
proposed maximum annual assessment for the purposes of funding street
repair, reconstruction, and preventative maintenance. If ballots in favor
exceed ballots against, weighted by the dollar amount of the assessment,
then the district could be formed and assessments levied.
This option would allow the City to spread out the expenses for repair and
reconstruction over a longer period of time (five to 15 years), determined
City Council
December 10, 2013
Page 9 of 10
by the expected life of the street) and fund the costs of repair,
reconstruction, and preventative maintenance on a "pay as you go"
method. Further, if this option is considered, the City should determine
the timing for all repair, reconstruction, and preventative maintenance
projects on an annual basis, so that the City can ensure the necessary
resources required to complete the planned repair and reconstruction are
available from the annual assessments. However, with benefit
assessment districts, the annual assessments can be repealed by the
voters at any time if ballots against exceed in favor, weighted by the dollar
amount of the assessment.
• Funding For On-Going Annual Maintenance
This funding option assumes that GO bonds or assessment bonds are issued
to complete all recommended improvements, however there still is a gap
between resources available, from all funding sources, and the annual costs of
maintenance recommended to maintain the streets at the desired level.
Since all transportation related funds are committed to the Rosemead
Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive Safety and Beautification Enhancement Project
for the foreseeable future, any amount required for maintenance over $1 million
annually (the amount the City is currently allocating for street maintenance City-
wide) any additional on-going maintenance costs the City may require, by City
Council direction, also could come from an annual assessment from a Benefit
Assessment District. The same process as described above for the formation
and levy of assessments of a Benefit Assessment District would have to be
completed.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council is requested to approve Resolution No. 13-4951, establishing guiding
principles for pavement management and setting a general goal of an average PCI level
of 75 (Good = B) for all city streets, or as determined by City Council; adopt a six-year
funding program to achieve the selected PCI goal; and direct staff to move forward with
the necessary steps of developing and subsequently implementing a Benefit
Assessment District for the purpose of repairing, reconstructing, and providing of annual
preventative maintenance of the City's street network.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact to implement the PMP includes: 1) A one-time cost to form a Benefit
Assessment District, which is estimated to be $70,000-$100,000; and 2) The cost of a 6-
year program to bring the City's street network up to a PCI of 75, which is estimated to
cost approximately $4.6 million, annually, and $27.5 million, in total. The cost of the
City Council
December 10,2013
Page 10 of 10
program would be fully funded by the Benefit Assessment District and no General Fund
monies would be utilized. This 6-year program consists primarily of repair and
maintenance work that will extend the life-cycle of streets. When a street has reached the
end of its life-cycle, full reconstruction will be required. At that point, the City's annual cost
would increase from $4.6 million to between $8 million and $11 million.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Report for the Pavement Management Program 2013 Update
B. Resolution No. 13-4951