HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - February 21, 2006 - CC 411.
WOO
d�
AZUSA
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JAMES MAKSHANOFF, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
VIA: F. M. DELACH, CITY MANAGER)' "
DATE: FEBRUARY 21 , 2006
SUBJECT: PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN - STATUS REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the status report.
BACKGROUND
In 2002 the City of Azusa adopted a pavement management plan (Exhibit A). The
purpose of the pavement management plan was to identify and determine the
condition of City streets and also to formulate a plan for their rehabilitation.
The city has approximately 170 miles of streets not including alleyways and in the
first half of 2002 City staff analyzed the condition of all of them. At that time it
was determined that the City streets were in the following condition:
Excellent -9%
Good Condition - 17%
Fair Condition - 68%
Poor Condition - 6%
After determining the condition of the streets, staff then formulated a plan to
rehabilitate them over the next five years. The street network was divided into
one-year blocks with the anticipated completion date being the 2006-2007 budget
cycle.
Currently the City is one year behind the program plan and the anticipated /
completion year in now the 2007-2008 budget cycle. The City recently completed ��
year three and staff is planning to start year four during the 2006-2007 budget
cycle.
Staff is going to start analyzing the remaining streets to determine what streets
might be a higher priority than the other remaining streets. Staff is also going re-
evaluate the pavement methods due to the recent issues associated with year
three.
Attached (Exhibit B) are three maps for the City Councils review: the first map
shows the streets that have been rehabilitated over the past three years, the
second map shows the streets planned for year four (2006-2007 budget cycle)
and the last map shows the streets planned for year five (2007-2008 budget
cycle).
Staff wants to assure the City Council that it is committed to rehabilitating all of the
City streets in the next two years so that all Azusa citizens can be pleased with the
driving surface in their neighborhoods.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as a result of this informational report.
Date: September 23, 2002
To: Rick Cole, City Manager
Via: Joe Hsu, Director of Utilities
From: Bill Nakasone, Director of Public Works
City of Azusa—Pavement Management Plan
Street Network Description
The City of Azusa street network consists of approximately 170 lineal lane miles of street
(excluding alley way). These 170 lineal lane miles have a total surface area of
14,899,220 square feet. 99% of street network is of asphalt pavement construction
(Gladstone, Todd, and Foothill have some concrete pavement sections).
There are (3) types of street designations within the street network; arterial streets,
collector streets, and local streets. Arterial streets are the "life blood" of the street
network for(3) major reasons; they handle the highest volume of average daily traffic,
they are designed to handle the heaviest vehicle/truck load across their surface, and they
connect the City of Azusa with neighboring communities. Examples of arterial streets
are Foothill Blvd and Azusa Avenue, etc. Collector roads play a supporting role to
arterials. They connect to the arterials and are considered secondary main thoroughfares
within the city. Their average daily traffic count is sizeable but less than the arterials.
Local roads are best defined as the residential streets within the community. Their traffic
volume is fairly light and the amount of weight and size of vehicles traveling on their
surface is limited by use.
Street Network Condition Rating
Public Works staff performed a condition analysis on all of the city streets in the first half
of 2002. Our methodology entailed a complete condition analysis of street network.
Each of the individual street sections that comprise the street network was inspected by
the Director of Public Works, Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer, and the
Engineering Associate for the following pavement distresses;
1. pavement cracking—longitudinal
2. pavement cracking—transverse
3. rutting
4. alligator cracking
5. potholes
6. raveling
In addition to using quantitative measures to evaluate pavement condition, some
qualitative measures were also employed. Each of the individual street sections was
1
driven upon to determine "ride quality"with special attention paid to both"smoothness"
and"tracking". Smoothness pertains to the ride smoothness experienced in the vehicle
while traveling over the street surface. "Tracking" is the perceived tendency of a vehicle
to favor a direction outside of the striping configuration. In other words, if the street is
straight,the vehicle should"track" in a straight direction and not meander to the left or to
the right.
After both quantitative and qualitative factors were considered, a condition rating and
appropriate corrective treatment determination was made. Streets were then classified
into (1) of four condition ratings; Excellent Condition, Good Condition, Fair Condition,
and Poor Condition.
Excellent condition is defined as a pavement whose surface is intact and totally devoid of
cracking, rutting,potholes, or alligator cracking. The pavement membrane is monolithic
and of excellent ride quality and aesthetic appearance. The only maintenance required on
streets of excellent condition is frequent sweeping and slurry seal application on 5-7 year
intervals.
Good condition streets is defined as a pavement where 70% or more of the overall
surface is intact while the remaining sections are in need of minor maintenance work
such as slurry seal, crack seal, and minor patching.
Fair condition is defined as a pavement whose exposed surface are is in need of an
overlay of new material. In the case of local streets, this would require a"cape seal". A
"cape seal" is an overlay of 3/8"aggregate followed up by a slurry seal. In the case of a
collector street, this would require a 1 IA" overlay of asphalt material. In the case of an
arterial street(high traffic volume with large load weight)this would require a 2" overlay
of asphalt material.
Poor condition is defined as "totally deteriorated". Streets in this condition are subject to
(2)treatments. The first option is total "reconstruction"which involves the total removal
of existing street and sub base material followed up by installation of a brand new street.
The second option is reconstruction by means of grinding the upper surface, application
of a stress absorbing membrane, and installation of a new asphalt street.
The City of Azusa street network is currently in the following overall system condition;
Excellent Condition 9%
Good Condition 17%
Fair Condition 68%
Poor Condition 6%
Street Condition Rating and Appropriate Corrective Strategy
Streets that are in"excellent condition"do not require any corrective strategy for 5-6
years after their initial installation. However, at about year#6, they are usually in need
of a"slurry seal" application.
2
Good Condition streets require"preventative maintenance" in the form of a"slurry seal".
"Slurry Seal" is a coat of liquid asphalt combined with a fine aggregate that is applied to
the road surface. The application of slurry seal performs (2)major functions; it stops the
infiltration of water through the asphalt membrane into the sub base underlayment(and
thereby compromising the structural integrity of the street) and it also keeps the asphalt
membrane pliable and thermoplastic by infusing oils back into the asphalt surface
(thereby preventing the asphalt from becoming dry and brittle). Slurry seal is usually
preceeded by minor preparatory work such as crack sealing and asphalt patching.
Fair Condition streets require street rehabilitation. In terms of local streets, street
rehabilitation can be accomplished through a"cape seal". A "cape seal" is composed of
three steps. The first step is the application of a hot liquid"rubberized" seal coat. This
is followed up by application of 3/8" aggregate. The aggregate is also heated and
"rolled" into the liquid"rubberized" seal coat and mastic. The final phase is the
application of a"slurry seal". This is considered "minor rehabilitation" and is best used
in applications where the street speed does not exceed 40 miles per hour, the average
daily traffic count is comparatively low, and the weight of the vehicles that travel and
park on the street are not of high axle weight.
In the case of collector and arterial streets, Fair Condition street sections require"major
rehabilitation". "Major rehabilitation" is the application of either 1 '/2" (collectors) or 2"
(arterials) of new asphalt to the existing surface. Prior to application of new asphalt, the
top surface is "cold planed"to a depth of 1 '/2"—2". This grinding of the top surface
enables the street contour and crown to remain correct after the new asphalt is applied.
There is a tremendous amount of ancillary work associated with major rehabilitation. In
addition to adjacent concrete curb and sidewalk work,there are many tasks/activities
that must be addressed including but not limited to the following; signal loop removal
and reinstallation, manhole adjusting,restriping, legend application,raised pavement
marker removal and reinstallation, etc.
Streets that are in"Poor Condition"require "total reconstruction". This can be achieved
in one of two ways. The first method entails the total removal of the existing street and
its sub base followed up by reinstallation of new base and new asphalt. The second
method entails the grinding of the existing street, installation of a stress absorbing
membrane, and the final application of 2" of asphalt.
Cost Comparison for each of the Corrective Strategies
There is a wide variance and range is cost for the various strategies for street maintenance
and repair. If we take the previously mentioned strategies and break them down into a
similar unit cost, the relative cost comparison per square foot is as follows;
Good Condition- Preventative Maintenance (slurry seal and preparation) $.25 sf
Fair Condition- Cape Seal(minor rehabilitation on local streets) $.57 sf
Fair Condition- 1 '/2" overlay (major rehabilitation on collector streets) $1.60 sf
3
•
Fair Condition- 2"overlay (major rehabilitation on arterial streets) $2.00 sf
Poor Condition-Reconstruction $3.00 sf
These per unit rates are all inclusive of ancillary activities that must take place on street
projects such as crack sealing, patching,manhole adjusting, striping, etc. Keep in mind
that these rates are expressed in 2002 dollars and subject to annual escalation in
accordance with the consumer price index (and all the principles related to the current
value of money, future value of money, and opportunity cost).
City of Azusa Street Network—Current Cost for Corrective Strategies
If the City of Azusa wanted to restore its current street network from its present condition
of 9% excellent, 13% good, 72% fair, 6%poor to "Excellent Condition" on 100% of its
surface area,the cost would be $13,760,661 broken down as follows;
Condition Rating Square Footage % of System Unit Cost Total Cost
Excellent 1,286,810 9% $.00
Good 2,535,300 17% $.25 $633,825
Fair—cape seal 6,334,300 43% $.57 $3,610,551
Fair— 1 '/2" overlay 2,154,050 14% $1.60 $3,446,480
Fair—2" overlay 1,672,250 11% $2.00 $3,344,520
Poor—reconstruction 916,500 6% $3.00 $2,749,500
14,899,220 100% $13,784,876
Please reference the following maps delineating the areas of excellent condition, good
condition, fair condition, and poor condition streets with their appropriate corrective
strategy.
4
Pavement Correction Strategy Overview Map
5
City of Azusa
STREET PAVEMENT MAP
f
..0
LEGKND
1 III
SINCE 2001
- 2'AC OVERLAY PLUS
(PE!ROMAT. SAML Ere.)
■ 2'AC OVERLAY
-11m, 11I }
1 L • 1 5'AC OVERLAY
,1` •.•%• r..... i }' •� ." III SLURRY SEAL
» eX sr f. `yr i
t
' "
_•,
iii`
r 1, .
if
''' * 'TAIL :i I{ ille W
iiilmt ,7
M.
1 t
.,-.......„ - -.L._ _ _____ -ill
.�: r t m
„lida :MAillll ..... . ... , , , ,,
itiii so
rir
www d ..,1„,,,...„ _— '
a , , ._,—
"I . 11
Ilii
t Ti
b
# , . 1� „ T
sr
y1 g a1"1 !a
fi m 1 II maw,. ,_ ' 1"
..- _ nsaa,ym
i
i
0 11- ,i
Excellent Condition Streets (9% of Pavement Network)
6
City of Azusa
STREET PAVEMENT MAP
1 LEGEND
. PAVED SINCE 2001
1 2'AC OVERLAY PLUS
(PETRCYAT. SAYI. ETC.)
_
-. r'r�.. r AC OVERLAY
1>\.:.2 +'"ffr' 1 s'Ac OVERLAY
,.. _.-/ CAPE SEAL
....a
°'""' • �,� r SLURRY SER.
r r "
s - � ' g
8 i
on. r i ;1 11 -i
E `� �M'._
IN
'faa ma--.W —ROW
III 'N P 1 1 $ S �`
�a
til :
NM
__ ._ I i
>r IM.!11liw 1 wai It
i 7 W" Y
I . -..-fir mw-,---- i o
' i'
m
2 �►aaacr.-:....
Parawatacrn
•• -$
li-
Yr. rtt
i
1
1
Good Condition Streets Needing Slurry Seal(17%of Pavement Networks
7
City of Azusa
STREET PAVEMENT MAP
..----7,,,,:,..,
7.4,40
ri4
f
ISD
• 1
PAVED SINCE 2001
', YAC OVERLAY PWS
(PEiROMAT. SAMI. ETC.)
I'"'M +Y11111.11 ., 2'AC OVERLAY
a
..'[.
1.5"AC OVERLAY
+� t.Y. �.'w'killtt>.' „'
CAPE SEAL
J.
a+as..-r ti.;"'Sj y'� � ,� _ _.. ■ SLURRY SEAL
1
fr" _ .fIlL �.
,.
•
43
s s
A 1 . 'ci s i I '
Y r^
s. f *iii, 1, �. s i r
n
Kv
._ � x
s' ' -- 1,_,,,,,„„j .A Gam`
tan 100.1rf ST
L a«orer _... 1 { =nuc
i .V 111
r —
ebpeaTsr ► r Y *mss E� + �" �f..
, s°uuni
a
Fair Condition Local Streets Needing Cape Seal(43% of Pavement Network)
8
City of Azusa
STREET PAVEMENT MAP
,rte
LEGEND
\ PAVED SINCE 2001
Y AC OVERLAY PWS
(PEIROUAT. SAW. ER:.)
1_i" , YAC OVERLAY
{ ,� I. 1.5'AC OVERLAY
..1 r°' CAPE SEAL
GE 'tY s ;' ,; ;, SLURRY SEAL
`�,
J!<
: - i
I x
M '
' ij1�l et
r � �j,�j i
_ti . _k —1 lair MLC 1 Ili ' °,...j - _�
WIY R
e Ill
ii
t ,,.. ,,i CL,
' ; rico ; , wit, , -- ..---.--..tir
.._. _7 1!111 g. "' 1,......_. �� I A' ; .L +. ... " _
—
"'MINI (.ift.alikli llr
r _ kv. ."' , I ii
�Te ':lYYa lar. . d1-aa.
Iii '4 11 11 < 4". 1,. 1 if ii -
i it ii
r�1Q,Paan o .a!{! I e r.. ! ..
MAIM Ili ,
{e{e{ .r ' 'jIj 4. !
'lI�MC.MrR iIL__�,m�. ill-if i
�M 7 j .. ' cia..
aa. *. 4 a
Y
0 , ,4 re
1
I
Fair Condition Streets Needing 1 Y2" Overlay (14% of Pavement Network)
9
City of Azusa
STREET PAVEMENT MAP
t /If\1� itii
il IfIIIIIIIiili
1 . IICIi44 .
'*
PAVED SINCE 2001
.' 2 AC OVERLAY PLUS
Aira= 4 (PETROMAT. SAM‘ ETC.)
:-, t" +� 2'AC OVERLAY
1.5'AC OVERLAY
fid '""'K --it.._' .._. CAPE SEAL
s
..r f x 1 7l!"'""'.` ..- SLURRY SEAL
Y
.r
e..: t ..s
I!
Ft moi L°L ._,, _monk
z Ii
w ..Po. �I
r
_...... _' moi....+ +
P g r
+i !+'n 1 r.. 1 t r E
rrrEiii R I ;� I� R t i�'ra�.. fires! `
! ,._ --i--ft._
^
i
I ^,a6', L3ri.cti.Me ' }.
j '3 7:}tr:.
Fair Condition Arterial and Collector Streets Needing 2" Overlay (11% of Pavement
Network)
10
. City of Azusa
STREET PAVEMENT MAP
) , ,
i)111 LEGEND
} i PAVED SNCE 2001
bow 2'AC OVERLAY PLUS
di It (PETROYAT. SMI. ETC.)
ik
as ie ." MI z•Ac ovE►nAY
_ rrr i
1.3'AC OVERLAY
,. _ . '.. bI;... CAPE SEAL
■r s° * iiSUIRRY SEAL
II
rc _ III. ; * ,
Q : a
,
I T
-- grit rtilirtnur_ta .- - , ,
,.,
- , ..,,, .
W '
tIta
-fill
m r.-
rel
�®� 111 .
it ii ����. am i, � _ r
1 tai
;...::�t' .1 f ".3_!r'. i ams."4' `rte+.
tril i.tS'
IiK1494AN.mR., f *WS.'
i.
Poor Condition Streets Needing Reconstruction(6% of Pavement Network)
11
City of Azusa
STREET PAVEMENT MAP
-
A LEGEND
y -; PAVED SLICE 2001
■ Y AC OVERLAY PWS
(PETROWT. SAMI. ETC.)
Y AC OVERLAY
M-
.�.�. 1.5*AC OVERLAY
li
! ( CAPE SEAL
/ :■,. .
'"r-V-
"r— �� -` w SLURRY SEAL
.._I "
7 �,
1.
!i! ,
11' id
Edi . I Il
ippiI
+ Ti
&
1 `aures.:._.,.ar
# tL d r I I f
L _.
90" ._
'' 11 II
iI.l { t
a V,l
li
L ..
y
k re, -
w,o.a.0 _f''-'....11 r t / 1, .'.`!
.�-.-
I r.J
. .,-
OIMR.MR_-..� ', i fjf FOR aim,. g
[ L"
w
The Cost of Deferral
One of the major misconceptions about pavement and streets is the notion that the
conditions will remain static and not follow a progressive pattern of deterioration.
Pavement, like any other form of infrastructure, has a finite life span(generally speaking
25-35 years). This expected life span can be greatly influenced by either positive forces
(proactive maintenance, good design,proper construction) or by negative forces (deferred
maintenance,poor construction,poor design, etc). As stated earlier in the report, the
single largest extender of pavement life is proactive maintenance(preventative
maintenance) in the form of slurry seal every 5-7 years, crack sealing on an"as needed"
basis, and patching on an"as needed"basis.
If the maintenance cycle was to begin with a newly installed street (of proper design,
material specification, and proper installation) and practiced proactively in accordance
with proper service intervals, it is possible for the street to sustain and provide good
service for extended period of time(sometimes up to three times its original life cycle).
Conversely, if you do not employ sound management practices, the life of pavement will
markedly decrease.
If the City of Azusa were to do "absolutely nothing" with its street network for the next
(5) year period, there would be an absence of capital outlay but a severe deterioration to
the overall street condition. The hidden cost would be as follows;
1. Good condition pavement would degrade from needing "preventative
maintenance—slurry seal"to needing minor rehabilitation in the form of cape
seal. The cost per square foot would escalate from $.25 to $.57. Most of the
slurry seal candidate streets are arterials and collectors that have been done over
the last 5 years (and due for slurry seal in the next 2-3 years). The current cost to
slurry 2,535,300 square feet of pavement would increase by$.32 foot($.25 sf to
$.57 sf). The total cost to slurry these streets is $633,825 (2,535,300 * $.25). The
total cost to perform cape seal on these same streets would be $1,445,121
(2,535,300 * $.57). The cost of deferral would be $811,296 ($1,445,121 -
$633,825 = $811,296).
2. Fair condition local streets in need of cape seal at $.57 per square foot would
escalate to poor condition and require overlay reconstruction at$2.00 per square
foot. The 6,334,300 square feet of pavement initially requiring cape seal at
$3,610,551 (6,334,300 * $.57)would increase to $12,668,600 (6,334,300 *
$2.00). The cost of deferral would be $9,058,049 ($12,668,600 - $3,610,551 =
$9,058,049).
3. Collector streets in need on 1 I/2"overlay at$1.60 per square foot would escalate
to poor condition and require reconstruction at $2.50 per square foot. The
2,154,050 square feet of collector streets in need of 1 1/2" overlay at $3,446,480
(2,154,050 sf* $1.60= $3,446,480)would increase to $5,385,125 (2,154,050 sf*
12
$2.50=$5,385,125)based on a per unit cost of$2.50 for reconstruction. The cost
of deferral would be $1,938,645 ($5,385,125 - $3,446,480=$1,938,645).
4. Arterial streets in need of 2" overlay at$2.00 per square foot would escalate to
poor condition and require reconstruction at $3.00 per square foot. The
1,672,260 square feet of pavement initially requiring overlay at $3,344,520
(1,672,260 sf* $2.00) would increase to $5,016,780 (1,672,260 sf* $3.00=
$5,016,780). The cost of deferral would be $1,672,260 ($5,016,780-
$3,344,520=$1,672,260).
The cumulative cost of deferral for"doing nothing"for the next 5 year period would
be $13,480,250. The deterioration cost of$13,480,250 would have to be added to
our current capital requirement of$13,784,876 necessary to bring our 100% of our
street network into excellent condition. In other words, if we "did nothing" for the
next(5) years the total cost to fix our streets at that point in time would be
$27,625,126 ($13,840,250 in system deterioration in addition to $13,784,876 in
current need). The only static component of this scenario is the fact that"Poor
condition"pavement would not get any worse over time and would not place any
addition cost escalation due to time deferral (other than inflationary costs for labor
and material).
Best Management Practices and Principles—Pavement Management
There are (2)best management practices and principles that must be employed when
evaluating corrective strategies streets and their associated costs. The (2)best
management practices are as follows;
1. Do not defer maintenance activity and allow pavement to degrade to most cost
intensive corrective strategy. This is particularly true with streets that deteriorate
from"good condition—requiring slurry seal" ($.25 per square foot)to "fair
condition—requiring either minor rehabilitation($.57) or major
rehabilitation.($1.60 - $2.00 per square foot). Adherence to this best management
practice will insure the greatest amount of surface area corrected for every dollar
spent.
2. Quantify the price of deferral and incorporate it into the financial matrix of cost.
In other words, quantify both the hidden cost of system deterioration as well as
the tangible "up front" capital cost for pavement correction strategies. This will
yield a true picture of all direct, indirect, tangible, and hidden costs associated
with a chosen alternative.
Funding—Revenue Stream—A (5)Year Perspective
There are a number of funding sources for streets related capital projects. The majority
of these funding sources are of"non entitlement" origin. Simply stated, the City must
actively apply for funding and the City may or may not be eligible for funding based on
13
the parameters of the project. Additionally, most funding sources are of"non
discretionary"nature. This means that funding (if approved and received)must be spent
in accordance with strict provisions for its intended purpose. The rare exception to this
type of funding is Gas Tax. Gas Tax is entitlement funding that is apportioned to cities
annually. The amount each city receives is based on the amount of total revenue
collected at the gas pumps and allocated to local municipalities based on a formula that
employs the number of registered vehicles within city boundaries. The nexus for
allocation is based on the premise that the city population will equate to the street/
roadway needs and demands of a community.
The City of Azusa receives approximately$830,000 per year from Gas Tax funding. In
the world of uncertainty that we live in, Gas Tax is an extremely reliable funding source.
Past experience has demonstrated that our annual Gas Tax funding is approximately
$830,000 per year and seems to follow an annual upward increase of about 1.5%per
year. Our Gas Tax entitlement for FY 1999-2000 was $825,883. Our Gas Tax
entitlement for FY 2000-2001 was $837,552. Our revenue stream from Gas Tax for the
next(5) years (based on a 1.5%increase per year) is estimated below:
FY 2002-2003 $850,115
FY 2003-2004 $862,867
FY 2004-2005 $875,810
FY 2005-2006 $888,947
FY 2006-2007 $902,281
Years 1-5 revenue $4,380,020
Project Completion Capability—A 5 Year Perspective
Although the cumulative cost to bring 100% of street network up to "excellent condition"
is $13,784,876,we could bring 85% of our streets up to "excellent condition"within 5
years at a cost of$9,719,610. If we compare our 5 year project cost of$9,719,610
relative to our 5 year revenue stream of$4,380,020,there is a shortfall of$5,339,590.
5 Year Project Cost(85%of network in"excellent condition") $9,719,610
5 Year Revenue Stream $4,380,020
Net Difference $5,339,590
Ways To Deal With the Gap Between Anticipated Project Cost and Anticipated Funding
—Bond Issue
Our first option would be to borrow money and enter into a bond issue. This doesn't
seem advisable based on the fact that the current market rate of interest to borrow money
is at 4.5%per annum while the estimated cost escalation rate for services rendered is
estimated at 1.5%per annum. If the opposite scenario were true (cost of services
anticipated to increase at 4.5%while the cost to borrow money is at 1.5%),this would be
an attractive and viable alternative. Unfortunately, our past history and projections show
14
the cost of money will be far more expensive than the cost escalation associated with our
projects.
Fund Balance
Our second option would be to use portions of the fund balance in the City of Azusa Gas
Tax Fund. As of June 30, 2001, the City of Azusa had $4.7 million dollars in their Gas
Tax Reserve Account. It is anticipated that by the end of the current fiscal year(June 30,
2002), that fund reserve will approximate$5 million dollars. The City could use the
reserves to "kick start" an aggressive pavement management program. Using the fund
reserves, the city could implement an aggressive street rehabilitation program and still
maintain prudent financial practices in terms of maintaining adequate fund reserves on
hand, enabling fund solvency, and providing for adequate cash flow. The scenario
would be as follows;
Year Annual Expenditure Fund Balance at Year End % of Excellent Streets
Current 0 $5,150,000
02-03 $2,138,879 $3,977,073 12%
03-04 $1,593264 $3,344,076 32%
04-05 $2,420,340 $1,853,533 50%
05-06 $1,949,010 $817,274 65%
06-07 $1,618,117 $104,482 85%
It is significant to note that by the end of year#5 (06-07), 85% of the entire surface area
of our street network will be in"excellent condition" and our fund balance will be
$104,482. Itemized on the next page is a complete cash flow and fund balance.
At the end of 5 years, 85% of our system network will be in excellent condition with the
remaining 15% of the network needing repair at the cost of approximately$4,065,266
($13,784,876 total system repair cost over 10 years - $9,719,610 of repairs made in years
1-5 = $4,065,266 remaining project cost). Based on anticipated revenue stream of
$900,000 per year($450,000 over years 6-10),the repairs on the remaining 15% of the
street network at a cost of$4,065,266 could easily be accomplished in years 6-10.
The Holistic Approach to Pavement Management—Neighborhood Improvement Instead
of Just Street Improvement
A unique feature of our pavement management strategy is the holistic "neighborhood
improvement" approach. We have divided the city into 19 distinct segments (see
attached map). The segmentation was based on similar characteristics such as date of
construction, proximity to local parks, and other demographic common denominators. It
is our strategy to concentrate on 3-4 segments per fiscal year for rehabilitation(with the
expectation of completing all of the segments within 10 years). Not only will the entire
neighborhood segment have their streets reconditioned and repaired with one or more of
15
Pavement Mana • ement Pro• ram - Cash Flow Anal sis - Fund Balance Trackin •
annual gas tax funding level fund balance interest income adjusted annual % of s.f. cumulative % of
expenditure 1.5% increase annually w/o interest 3% annual fund balance corrected s.f. corrected
2001-2002 $ 5,000,000 $ 150,000 $ 5,150,000
year 1 $ 2,138,879 $ 850,115 $ 3,861,236 $ 115,837 $ 3,977,073 12% 12%
year2 $ 1,593,264 $ 862,867 $ 3,246,676 $ 97,400 $ 3,344,076 20% 32%
year 3 $ 2,420,340 $ 875,810 $ 1,799,546 $ 53,986 $ 1,853,533 18% 50%
year 4 $ 1,949,010 $ 888,947 $ 793,470 $ 23,804 $ 817,274 16% 65%
year 5 $ 1,618,117 $ 902,281 $ 101,438 $ 3,043 $ 104,481 19% 85%
years 1-5 $ 9,719,610
the pavement correction strategies already identified, we will also perform the following
tasks;
1. trim all of the trees within that segment that require trimming
2. root prune all of the trees that are uplifting curb or sidewalk
3. repair all of the damaged curb and gutter
4. restripe or apply street legends where appropriate
The reasons for this strategy are threefold. First, the holistic approach to rehabilitating an
entire neighborhood has visual impact. With all of the trees, sidewalk, curb, gutter, and
streets in excellent condition, the entire neighborhood is transformed.
Second, grouping street improvements in selected and clustered areas has strong
economic justification. The time/motion associated with performing isolated repairs
over a widespread area is excessively time consuming for a contractor and expensive for
the city to absorb. The segment approach enables contractors to perform work in a
concentrated area and minimize the time and expense associated transit to different job
sites, work mobilization,work demobilization, and other logistical concerns. We feel
confident that both the segmented approach and the economy of scale associated with this
project will yield cost effective per unit pricing.
Third, the segmented neighborhood approach also enables City staff to concentrate their
future maintenance and repair efforts to other"high priority" areas and shift away from
those areas already treated. For the same time/motion reasons as a contractor, City staff
can focus on more critical areas knowing that the treated segments are in top condition.
The Global Approach to Pavement Management—Coordination With Underground
Utilities—(Natural Gas, Electric, Water, and Sewer)
Although the focal emphasis of this program is the restoration of our street network, we
must be equally cognizant of the other"utilities related"infrastructure that resides below
the street surface such as sewer main lines, sewer laterals, water main lines, water service
laterals, and natural gas piping. Like the street network, utilities infrastructure has a
finite life span and must eventually be replaced.
Each of the affected utilities was contacted and asked to provide year identification for
system repair/replacement. This information was superimposed on our pavement repair
grid map for each of the participating utilities (water, electric, natural gas, and sewer).
For obvious reasons, a segment which will require a sewer main replacement in a future
year will not be treated for pavement rehabilitation until after all necessary utilities repair
/replacement work has been completed. Underground utility replacement and repair has
been incorporated into a decision matrix for determining the order by which projects are
done.
The basic rules for utility coordination will be as follows;
16
1. If a street is planned for improvement using either an overlay (1 '/z"or 2") or
reconstruction(2" overlay plus or total removal and reconstruction), we will defer
street correction activity on that specific street until after the planned underground
utility is installed.
2. If a street is planned for improvement with either slurry seal or cape seal, we
commence with street repairs regardless of when a utility installation is scheduled.
The reason for this strategy is that the low cost form of pavement correction
(slurry and cape seal)will save the integrity of the entire pavement membrane.
Deferral of the pavement correction strategy would not be cost effective since the
cost of deterioration would be greater than cost of patching a select portion of
pavement for underground utility replacement.
Please reference the following maps which identify the underground utility projects
scheduled for Sewer, Electric, and Water.
17
City of Azusa
SEWER MAP
k
l
, it.i. -- _ .....-"v
Ntt8,
�y
,
Y_ 4�
z
1 MIND
1 .t`,
�. e■eiji+J
- _�It i jj 1 4 ._r a _..
�� j a ,
a .L.
Iii
ii : t ' __,
it }rur e-h
��,
11/W4 I _;.f _ r— 1 flit!, f�� �_
tlOIL'IOltl Si
i....„,,
W` 1, ' 1i' 1 11,E
n
��''' k
12,101 Mt
� �
` y M r rr , 47,
tis
1 1. T T •ttt}:�
City of Azusa
ELECTRICAL MAP
p
/
t 4
„..„
e
r -:
1----\,„„
ti I+2
z
-.,.
LEGEND
* 4' aux iwaa rs
r 1
AI
3. t .. �s '�-
V r f, E
MN� I
a (I4Ijl_ !j
E
jil s , 0
-4,4
{
" 11Th .woney. 16y Maur 1'uotu.ri a
n m 1 - # ;
111' s g•
L .aIP.a_.rlH. lye, 0111614,...01,
I , ileZwit � nlp
■`Flr ' Cr--, + gi . ' :
I a —. � YKIOa.
ios4.R_.
i
I k =
7
City of Azusa
WATER MAP
i„„
00. ti\i,
tvi
LEGEND
, r- -MUTER*PROUO/EMS
'' i 1 ,.
,' 11.11*
116
"` ice,Pf %
-' --.'., : ' '1, - I Iiiiip 4.-11.7r. - __ ,
y
Ii rrrrtI -b— —v r r..0 + *
(ACILLYALI XT
wiii rd e_.
�t
. ii ilwpt----- ,1" -7:. ' '. '''''''-
-• !
. ..
- r*.1 ....0
ii y
The Decision Matrix for Determining the Order by Which Segments are Selected
Staff has examined not only the entire city but also each of the respective 19 segments
that comprise the city of Azusa. The order by which each segment is selected for
treatment is based on the following criteria;
1. The planned year of any underground utility replacement (water line,
sewer line, gas line, etc).
2. The current street condition rating and its vulnerability to degrading to
its next level of deterioration.
3. Funding source constraints that may require project completion areas
by a specified drop dead date.
4.
The planned year of any underground utility replacement will obviously dictate the order
of project scheduling. If a segment has an underground utility replacement planned for
FY 2002-2003, this segment will not be scheduled for street work until after FY 2002-
2003. If a neighborhood segment is quickly deteriorating and we anticipate that it will
degrade to a lower(and considerably more expensive treatment condition—especially
good condition to fair condition),we will treat that segment over a less needy segment. If
funding becomes available but only be used on certain streets by a certain time,we will
move that segment forward for immediate attention. An example of this would be Prop C
funding becoming available on a bus route street that must be completed by a given date.
After considering all of the above variables, staff has determined the following schedule
for repairing our pavement network. This schedule will result in 85% of the entire
pavement network being in"excellent condition"within a(5) year time frame. The cost
for this level of service delivery over a(5) year time span is $9,719,610. Please reference
the attached schedule on the next page for a year by year itemization of the street
segments that will be corrected;
18
Pavement Plan - Order of Project Completion
Year Zones Cost % of network
#1 -2002/2003 zone 6 $ 470,430.00 3.2%
zone 3 $ 172,054.00 3.0%
zone 18 $ 1,496,395.00 5.9%
sub total $ 2,138,879.00 12.1%
#2-2003/2004 zone 4 $ 823,353.00 6.3%
zone 7 $ 212,895.00 3.9%
zone 15 $ 228,225.00 4.2%
zone 17 $ 328,791.00 5.2%
sub total $ 1,593,264.00 19.6%
#3 -2004/2005 zone 12 $ 1,040,640.00 9.8%
zone 14 $ 1,379,700.00 8.3%
sub total $ 2,420,340.00 18.1%
#4-2005/2006 zone 8 $ 1,403,818.00 9.3%
zone 9 $ 192,033.00 2.9%
zone 11 $ 353,159.00 3.3%
sub total $ 1,949,010.00 15.5%
#5-2006/2007 zone 1 $ 193,074.00 5.0%
zone 2 $ 767,849.00 7.1%
zone 13 $ 332,754.00 4.4%
zone 10 $ 324,440.00 2.8%
sub total $ 1,618,117.00 19.3%
5 YEAR TOTAL $ 9,719,610.00 84.6%
19
City of Azusa
Year#1 —Street projects in segments 3,6,&18
Water Projects in segments 12,13,&14
Sewer Projects in segments 7,13,&16
20
City of Azusa
2002-2003
YEAR #1
t
`� ;
.. 1. -
/`e/�
19
�'�%� LEGEND
- WATER
+� ��f:__���
17 p "�`�", ELECTRICAL
: E- SEWER
r'
^-= .*'ie1 — M STREETS
t ' L�' _ i ' 14 —
15 . ■�I�.
ILI ; 1: ing 11 "almi: ;,..0,' .,-.,--41: 7-1- :---- 12 6. t_t,
r
�
111J,°i t' �! — " x 13
i
( AL.____• .!... i ill—, ' 1.—.,11., -
1
111 ,17.. 2 I . �_- a 4 ,. �.� ,.
—"Y"e' ,roe a ,,,,.40..07...._,,
.
5 Cil
R
0,
sJL —cj--iTj
I
City of Azusa
Year#2—Street Projects in segments 4,7,15 &17
Water projects in segments 8,9,11,12,13, &14
Sewer projects in segments 8 & 12
Light projects in segments 1,12, &17
21
City of Azusa
2003-2004
YEAR #2
A
a ,,..
19 ,•r 7,:--
LEGEND
xx-
7 / 1 - WATER
i �;� 1"1, 18 ELECTRICAL
f, �� � r./d%i 9( � __ SEWER
4,--41.•,.,� ''� �i4.r0` IM STREETS
�� _. 14
A � r�; :: ( /i/� i li t~.
�t r �ril
, 1 t,' r
` fit „- �:T,I!tj,01.:'>fi� til
2 I
�4 Y�r1/rir r.r H.
�. r',rr rro-
P 16
11
d _Imo �, ,
- C �� � - ■
srcrrrrit rI F , . w 13
.i, 1111141N14_ . _, I i ,,,,,,,,, ,:,...d' 4 1 mourx.
ti
jpt
—
I
' r fL .R.. 1_ fr't
'. .�0
!
; ' Vi0-#...f.-.-4.7~.i , r ' i. ( Fi ,<
•- -+, .-
ill3 '— 5
City of Azusa
Year#3 - Street projects in segments 12 & 14
Water projects in segments 8,9, &11
Light projects in segments 12,13,&14
Sewer projects in segments 8,9,&10
22
City of Azusa
2004-2005
YEAR #3
- 1
1 Tc
-'
- LEGEND
> ^,f - WATER
"" ! ELECTRICAL
17 I:+ 18
•
,.. G'-:, r 1ir - SEWER
/ '; �.�.. ..---* *7 f$M''
17ASTREETS
/
,00...6.4.,
gV4--- , Ili Y ,Pi 1r9% /10
Pr
I+ ; 1 r y_ #46.),__--
--, ..i7-. - i cm in,,v7f,w, 4-
_._ ------ irrr tw#A,:it'.4'..e41'4--„---- ..
ot
'ittilvt.g6v .4.1
xi j {
OILYYl R
N r _ _____},,,- .-.,-- _
. , .4_,.....
Tr 1 I I •�
R
R
7101_ I 4 ' 14N/�!
y
-_ , 3 , 5-
City of Azusa
Year#4—Street projects in segments 8,9, &11
Water projects in segments 1 &2
Light projects in segment 15
23
a
City of Azusa
2005-2006
YEAR #4
Ii.
N.
is +
-. —�
44
19
i,--_-::-J
LEGEND
- WATER
17 _ ELECTRICAL
t��
N 18
•
r - SEWER
" .° 1 71 ' , \ 1 I; Iasi
® STREETS
14 :; ] �i � — 14
it
a15 :-4, 41
q gm1 7
/' J r *
ti.. ,r
-Y 7 4 4
12fr,�r ./� am ?IlT c► ata iK'j* Ilig _ch - �i�i
od.
4040, I
r1 f
�/���_il� . i
I,,I �.,� /moi1:. _ ry .. " ,
I
5iv,,, i„,,,,,..,„,,f,„,„,„.„
SIF*.. i/4i 701 ;-r-8400e li7
- • ikk Nor'944:9 coYee#6 d4!,..4;,,t eAr j ,, Ili ,,.. 1 Nal141.10.4 1114
! i 'L
1 11
R
.
3 ,
City of Azusa
Year#5 —Street projects in segments 1,2, & 13
Water projects in segment 18
24
City of Azusa
2006-2007
YEAR #5
I
il
19 ,/_rivit
t.. LEGEND
r -
f �� - WATER
-,
, - ' !r l l�' 18 ELECTRICAL
17 1
_ SEWER
• ,-r
- ,,r _ _ / STREETS
A/ �.�� ;� 14
15
,- 7,-_774,1_1,_ Ii6i
I
It
4::14-4:dlos—7,1-'
...'ham �e -0-11°.4-id: -
L.L.I:LAL�� . err.
LP1
1811 /11=
:'kir . I7IIL?
'. ..
j/d....,,,,d :Or Wyjr,vd,2/7,riti„,,,, .,,,,,r, , , A sall'. r;._ir_
Smourril
AI '/ �/. �� r11
% -
A of b im 3
The Essence of Time
With 85% of the pavement network restored to "excellent condition"by Year#5, it is self
evident that this program is heavily weighted to accomplish the majority of project
completion within the first five years of the ten year program. The reason for the
intensity of speed is due to the deteriorating condition of the pavement network. Simply
stated, we really only have a(5) time frame to address the majority of our streets. The
majority of streets have been denied maintenance over a sustained period of time and are
now reaching a critical condition stage. In a high percentage of the streets surveyed, the
pavement membrane is becoming very lean and brittle. We must infuse oils back into the
membrane to make it pliable and thermoplastic. Additionally, we must prevent intrusion
of water into the sub base and increase the structural integrity of the street. We cannot
afford to have our streets decline into the next stage of deterioration or the cost to bring
them back will be prohibitive.
25
Year I, 2, & 3
y -11111101.' .
••.............•....._._..„ Legend
.. 1
2002 -2003
1........1
II • I
I
. .' li I 2003 -2004
%••• d
poi/ Ili 1 2004 -2005
. i
4 :
v 1
1 ... „.. ...,
1
,..
1904111111°, -. I
'4W 1 • •
Tri& ;sum! i
. i......... 41 .
r--....„ vinimil 1 . - I
i - Itlatim - i i
1
i., ,
i ......ipiU
r t ll.1111 i
,
i I NT r NITWITITI 111
II
NIMIIIIMPfifir" T 111111E1M,
_••....•....______a.
_........11...11 L
1 . IIII II
.,
H he lill 7 7 51 si :i 11111M -
.
•
•
[2rd--SC h 1111111 II II
irg/ !.. MI INT 11111 :
nog r
1 i
1 I. 11.111 I t)! -saartsidie I
•........1
....
P
ill A
a ilN1l . . -
bIIP . 1
*El- t I MI I illik. 1
1 ,1=-:,. 1---4111111.111111
.....nii-i.........
1 Ail ill*
LI
ma fro..--
L
. . .A1 al I
i 1 , r It ----"'"'
-•"'''"Miiiii
Aiya GIS C WeelejAlic Projeds_lklemeeHfuelleWeikereoemertAinsgemenle mxd JPredo
Year 4, 2006-2007 Budget Year
i 4111111
IIIIIMP-1111)- III I
oot 1 :Iv.
i..,,,t I : Vs 1
.0
11 111D
I
11 11 1 .
I 1111111
it .1
. .
,.A iiim• — I
101LIl 1...1'..Ls...111C.1
PIN.
Iiili ,. lir i
lialomm...6.
r—*''' '-. `' a•
1ilh i ,
. L. ,
i
Vicinity Map
Aim ...,
,
s'
I A * • 1. I 11_ 14,..i 0
, .
- "(a
, iiit•tiitti, It
:f:'F--T:11111111i
, .
ritiertio....,..1.
1
^
1 nottimp.lirl'Iti441_, ., ; A.
'''''''""'--- ' lil'Ai,l-trit , h,
I
- - 'rl'-' - '"
;111,1 i,,k3hilisessis
r t .
i , ',..4. rritili,,4„,.
ill
II' 0-
:,,) 1-- liftlis ilkilliriThill11111 III !
'w i I,- ilgtifttn,r,itir1110,111.11,1L,T,10.4,,,t4
1111
likkiiiii---11 'WI •
a rri Ul 4-,Akii11.11.1 1 —ts-7-''.fr-kiv t
k,
Year 5, 2007-2008 Budget Year
F Li
in juir IIIIII I -. PIIII
111111117_i.: M11111F/111:11111! 111111111. . ,x
.... ............ --- ..._ toil IN H 'HI I I , 1
,
i 11 1111 11 II II li
,
1"-'"IIM.IIIII....„1111.1giquilitialliiIIIIIIIItririmil
. °'
i
I lil 10 ;. i
,
,
,
/
El .
i III ...,1 g II gill
1/4........., i . . .. Irmli• NET r....titim, . .. . : : . . ...._
- - nano uull II I
.i . .. . i ii ii ,,• . I \ __________----/lig
III
1MM" liglil.11111 II I 11,_11, li ii li 10 II Mbr, , - , .1111
..—,
1,'/Olgi.°' ,.-- I 111_,
ii
...611r.A1111111 1111: . ..."1111111 I II
' -- I•
"1" ..°.. ° 11 I ] g i:
A
IIII
. 111
jal '-i Ilg
1 1
imi,ii 11,1!ill 1,1il i I— :.. 21
• IFFI all 'Hi ,ilitrusul'
II1N :
n :II• . • '' _ I II
ta-Elm 1 1 rir
j 11.
III Fara III
P view*Map , r7,---11. •
r /Ili
1 ' 1--
•
i ..._,„,....1
- 1 1 .T14' i
........... _. •
. .
li• ' i 1 ---- I ,,, F ,..,-,A.___ 1 •
--•-4„,
• I . 11,5 "' '
Nort.... . .
Italia,-' 4
_
,
-
-'
iiivi-rcitm.1 IL _s'i.
L , - i i•
1 Leill.J01111. .
°11in1.0.,..1_ __...., ...„,,
or -I.........m - -
.
—— .. . '''..., -7,--..•.r• ..._i . _,, . .,, , .__.litr_ ..,,..,Iiitiliilmi
i I • u
I
111 il • i 4fill i i INIL
41-..,Lm[l : - Isr
1 ! -
• NIP ----,-.„_ - -- -.7•444,:raltiejiiiilleft* :IN. , A
: IIMA i ifillit;7* 111., Ittr'r.
41111litfil-116.2 .-..k....--.4411
• , aw, . -....q---- .
ri--
1 i -Wril
1 I I_=
,Ai1___ w7 ,1:1t41..tL"1,1.0. ...,.1..l.. .*..:7...'...1'L.''.''.1.414,,:..4'
1
• A. •
AZUSA
CONSENT CALENDAR
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BOB GARCIA, CHIEF OF POLICE
VIA: F.M. DELACH, CITY MANAGER 0"k2
DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2006
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF APPLICATION TO THE EDWARD BYRNE JUSTICE
ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM (JAG)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the application to the Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program in the amount of $12,008.
BACKGROUND
Annually, the police department applies for federal funding under a formula block
grant. The amount awarded to each city must be expended in one of several
`purpose areas.' Each year we have met with successful results and have generally
allocated the funds toward technology.
In order to be eligible for this grant, the City must present the application in a public
setting in order to provide the public with the ability to comment. The recommended
action meets this requirement.
If and when the funds are received, the Police Department Operating Budget for fiscal
year 2006/2007 will be amended at that time. The proposed funds are to be used for
the enhancement of the police department's mobile computing and communications
system.
-AI
1 6
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact as a result of submitting this grant application. Approval of
the grant will provide the Police Department with an additional $12,008 for its FY2006
Operating Budget. In the event that the application is awarded after the end of this
fiscal year, the FY2007 budget will be amended.
Prepared by: Captain Bob Garcia, Cynthia Haebe
2
• i • ..
• , �
AZUSA
CONSENT ITEM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
INITIATOR: DIANE CHAGNON, MAYOR
FROM: F. M DELACH, CITY MANAGER/1140
DATE: FEBRUARY 21 , 2006
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AB 1844 (CHAVEZ) INCREASING CALIFORNIA'S
MINIMUM WAGE.
RECOMMENDATION
This is a Council policy issue therefore it is recommended that the City Council consider adopting
the attached Resolution supporting AB 1844 (Chavez).
BACKGROUND
Assemblyman Ed Chavez initiated Assembly Bill 1844 which would raise the minimum wage over
the next 7.5 years. California's minimum wage was last adjusted January 1 , 2002.
AB 1844 initially raises the minimum wage from the current $6.75 to $7.25 per hour, July 1, 2007.
Then on July 1 , 2008 the minimum wage would automatically raise to $7.75 per hour. The
Assembly Bill contains an annual inflationary adjustment factor totaling 14.81% over the next 7.5
years, or 1 .97% annually.
The annual inflationary rate will likely exceed AB 1844's inflationary adjustment factor of 1.97% and
seems to be a very modest proposal.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact for this action. However, if adopted the Assembly Bill could affect
future City outside service contracts by increasing costs.
(H1) 4/
..eth ,-aor
•
rA
440
114**,
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA
SUPPORTING THE ADOPTION OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1844 (CHAVEZ)
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 1844 (Chavez) would raise the minimum wage from $6.75 to
$7.25 per hour on July 1 , 2007; and then to $7.75 per hour on July 1, 2008; and
WHEREAS, The minimum wage in California was last increased January 1, 2002; and
WHEREAS, California's minimum wage is significantly low considering the cost of living in
our great State; and
WHEREAS, AB 1844 (Chavez) is intended to assist our hard working-class residents with
the inclusion of a modest inflation adjustment increase estimated at 1 .97% annually over the seven
and one-half year period outlined in the legislation; and
WHEREAS, Assemblyman Chavez's Bill is needed by Azusa's working-class, and all
throughout the State for an improved livable wage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Azusa does hereby
support and recommends the passage of Assembly Bill 1844 (Chavez) and commends
Assemblyman Chavez for his efforts in addressing the need for a higher minimum wage in
California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21' day of February, 2006.
MAYOR
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of
the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21"day of February, 2006, by the following
vote of the Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: