10-11-10 CC WS AgpCITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2010
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY HALL
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Liz& _
Bailey_
Turgeon _
Woodruff
Zerby
RWUMWT���
Finance Director's
Memorandum
MEMORANDUM
Date® October 7, 20 10
To: Mayor Lizee
Council Members
From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Reviewed y: Brian Heck
Larry Brown
James Landini
Re: Pavement Management Discussion
The topic of roadway maintenance and reconstruction has been identified as a top priority to
resolve during 2010. In order for staff to prepare a meaningful plan for City Council adoption
as part of the 2011 -2020 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), we need to make sure that there is
mutual understanding of both the program goals and underlying data on which decisions will be
made. We also need to detennine how, once staff and Council have decide that a road needs to
be upgraded, the city gains buy -in and consent for the project from residents.
In 2007, the Shorewood City Council commenced with a road revitalization program to respond
to residents' growing concerns about road conditions in the city. The City Council directed
staff to design a comprehensive plan that lays out the roadway infrastructure maintenance,
repair, reconstruction or reclamation demands, and financing over the long term. While the
City has used a Five Year CIP for other capital items, the City needs to program the roadway
and infrastructure projects over a longer term. Those plans will allow for more stable financial
forecasts with a consistent funding source set in place. To date, projections for this discussion
have focused on a twenty year time span. The urgency of this issue comes from the current
projection that under the existing funding methodology, moneys set aside for the local roadway
program will be depleted in the year 2012. Future needs will exceed the current annual transfer
amount of $700,000.
Staff sees the program goals being related to when a road is considered for reconstruction and
the standard to which a road will be rebuilt. For example, is it the goal to ensure all our roads
are constructed with proper base and drainage, or is it ok to have some roads constructed to a
lesser standard? Is it the goal to reconstruct /reclaim roads with a PASER rating of less than 5 or
should we consider reconstruction/reclamation on roads with a PASER rating of 2 or less and
let everything else stay in the maintenance category?
The plan and financial forecast of how the City provides for the maintenance and rehabilitation
of the city's roads over the long term cannot be accurately determined until we have consensus
on some of the following decision points.
• What is the current or future need for city water service on the street?
• At what point on the PASER rating scale do we consider rehabilitation?
• What type of rehabilitation will be performed - reconstruction or reclamation?
Will the type of rehabilitation vary based on road type?
Should edge control become a standard on city streets?
How do we effectively address MSA standards to incorporate those funds into the plan?
How do drainage or storm water concerns get incorporated?
Staff intends to use more detailed spreadsheets containing individual characteristics of each
road stretch along with updated cost information from recent bids to recalculate the cost of each
maintenance and rehabilitation option. The roadways will be scheduled in an appropriate time
frame based on the decision points that we agree to tonight and the costs will be adjusted to
account for some general measure of inflation.
Below is a general outline of the PowerPoint we will use to assist in the discussion Monday.
I. Program goals & objectives
a. Maintain an accurate inventory of roadways with annual PASER ratings.
b. Establish an average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating goal for the entire
roadway system and determine whether the current efforts in pavement management
are improving or reducing the overall condition rating of our streets.
c. Establish a decision matrix to assist the City Council and staff in making key
pavement rehabilitation decisions.
d. Prepare a preliminary financial plan of scheduled activities for a 20 year period.
II. Pavement lifecycle with proper base and maintenance
a. What causes a road to deteriorate?
b. At what point do we stop doing maintenance?
III. PASER rating system review
IV. Definition of Maintenance
a. Patching
b. Sealcoat
c. Overlay
V. Rehabilitation Activities
a. Reclamation
b. Reconstruction
VI. PCI changes in rating index 2005 vs 2010
VII. What is a standard roadway?
VIII. Rehabilitation Decision Model
a. Establish a PASER rating needed to consider rehabilitation
b. Flowchart decision points in determining reconstruct vs. reclaim
Attachments: PASER Rating system
Decision Flowchart for Street Reconstruction versus Pavement Reclamation
Rating pavement surface condition
Rating system
� •[7TH
None.
No longitudinal cracks except reflection of paving joints.
Occasional transverse cracks, widely spaced (40' or greater).
All cracks sealed or tight (open less than 1 /4 ").
New construction.
Recent overlay. Like new.
Recent sealcoat or new cold mix.
Little or no maintenance
required.
Very slight or no raveling, surface shows some traffic wear. First signs of aging. Maintain
Longitudinal cracks (open 1 /4 ") due to reflection or paving joints. with routine crack filling.
Transverse cracks (open 1 /4 ") spaced 10' or more apart, little or slight
crack raveling. No patching or very few patches in excellent condition.
Slight raveling (loss of fines) and traffic wear. Shows signs of aging. Sound
Longitudinal cracks (open 1 /4 "- 1 /2 "), some spaced less than 10'. structural condition. Could
First sign of block cracking. Sight to moderate flushing or polishing. extend life with sealcoat.
Occasional patching in good condition.
Moderate to severe raveling (loss of fine and coarse aggregate).
Surface aging. Sound structural
Longitudinal and transverse cracks (open 1 /2 ") show first signs of
condition. Needs sealcoat or
slight raveling and secondary cracks. First signs of longitudinal cracks
thin non - structural overlay (less
near pavement edge. Block cracking up to 50% of surface. Extensive
than 2 ")
to severe flushing or polishing. Some patching or edge wedging in
good condition.
Severe surface raveling. Multiple longitudinal and transverse cracking Significant aging and first signs
with slight raveling. Longitudinal cracking in wheel path. Block of need for strengthening. Would
cracking (over 50% of surface). Patching in fair condition. benefit from a structural overlay
Slight rutting or distortions ( deep or less). (2" or more).
Closely spaced longitudinal and transverse cracks often showing Needs patching and repair prior
raveling and crack erosion. Severe block cracking. Some alligator to major overlay. Milling and
cracking (less than 25% of surface). Patches in fair to poor condition. removal of deterioration extends
Moderate rutting or distortion (1 " or 2" deep). Occasional potholes. the life of overlay.
Alligator cracking (over 25% of surface). Severe deterioration. Needs
Severe distortions (over 2" deep) reconstruction with extensive
Extensive patching in poor condition. base repair. Pulverization of old
Potholes. pavement is effective.
1 Severe distress with extensive loss of surface integrity. Failed. Needs total
reconstruction.
Failed
15
* Individual pavements will not have all of the types of distress listed for any particular rating. They may have only one or two types.
•
•
•
•
•
s
•