HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 01-18-2005 SpecialAgenda
City of Plymouth
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Discuss Street Reconstruction Program
3. Set Future Study Sessions
4. Adj ourn
Proposed "Mix -of -Fixes"
Approach to Address Street
Condition Deficiencies
Submitted to
Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
January 1.4, 2005
Written by
Mike Kohn, Financial Analyst
Contributing Staff
Dale Hahn, Finance Director
Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director
Eric Blank, Park and Recreation Director
Dan Faulkner, City Engineer
Ron Quanbeck, City Engineer
Ross Beckwith, Assistant City Engineer
Dan Campbell, Sr. Engineering Technician
Steve Koskela, Sr. Engineering Technician
Jim Renneberg, Civil Engineer
Brian Young, Sewer and Water Supervisor
Tom Vetsch, Public Works Superintendent
Gary Smith, Street Supervisor
Scott Newberger, Street Supervisor
Executive Summary
Over the last several months a group of staff has met to examine the issue of preserving
and improving the condition of the City's street system. The approach taken was to
receive input from all the involved parties including street maintenance, engineering,
sewer and water, and finance to develop a comprehensive and multifaceted approach to a
very significant problem. This has been a challenging and complex exercise that has
served to point out the importance of coordination and cooperation between all divisions
that work on streets or infrastructure within the street right-of-way. The result of this
examination is a series of proposed changes to our current practices that will allow the
City to improve the condition of its street system in a realistic and cost-effective manner.
Staff is recommending an integrated "mix -of -fixes" program to resolve the City's street
condition problem. It emphasizes increased preventive maintenance activities, greater
use of temporary overlays on streets due for reconstruction, and the phase-in of more
street improvement (reconstruction and mill -and -overlay) projects. The following is a list
of the more significant changes in practice that staff recommends:
Establish a staff committee to plan and coordinate maintenance and street
improvement activities on an annual basis. This committee would provide a
report to the City Council and submit recommendations for projects to be
included in the CIP.
Establish and fund a more aggressive and higher quality sealcoat application and
pre-sealcoat repair program. This will cost-effectively preserve the quality of the
City's good streets and extend street life.
Implement and fund a catch-up program of temporary overlays to increase the
condition of failing streets while the City phases -in an increased street
improvement program.
Implement and fund an expanded street improvement program. The expanded
program, along with additional maintenance efforts, is anticipated to result in the
increase of the average street rating from 66 to 70.
Change the City's assessment policy to allow for the assessment of street
reconstruction and mill -and -overlay or full -depth mill -and -overlay projects. Both
types of projects benefit adjoining properties. This would be a more equitable
approach.
Change the City's assessment policy to increase the assessment amount to 40% of
project cost. This amount conservatively estimates the increased value enjoyed
by adjoining property, and compares well with other communities in the metro
area.
Change engineering specifications for street reconstruction from a fairly rigid
standard that is significantly higher than that required for new road installed by
developers, to a more flexible standard based on soil and drainage conditions for
each street. This would save money while maintaining a comparable and
reasonable life.
Change engineering specifications to allow the use of PVC or HDPE water main.
This would provide a better product, more resistant to damage by the City's poor
soils, at a lower cost.
Consider the replacement of water main, and replacement or relining of sewer
main, in street projects as applicable. This will reduce the need to dig -up a new
street to repair or replace decaying underground infrastructure.
The financial impact of these changes is as follows:
0 $600,000 will be required to finance the catch-up temporary overlay program.
Financing could come from the Street Reconstruction Fund, supported by the
transfer of General Fund surplus.
If alternative 5 is selected, which seems like a reasonable alternative, phase-in of
the expanded street improvement program would begin with the amounts
currently budgeted in the CIP for 2005, 2006 and 2007. Expenditures for street
improvements would then increase by 10% per year until the amount reaches
10,000,000. According to projections, this level of expenditures should be
sufficient to stabilize and eventually lead to an increase in street condition.
Funding is proposed to come from the expansion and increase in the amount of
special assessments for street improvements, and a phased -in increase in the
property tax levy for street reconstruction, if levy limits are removed. The levy
would increase from $1,288,700 in 2005, to about $5,850,000 by 2015. Bonding
would be the second choice if levy limits remain in place. This would not
eliminate the need for tax levy increases, only defer them.
Funding for replacement of water and sewer main will have to come from the
individual utilities. It is estimated that it will cost an average of about $650,000
per year to replace water main over the next 5 years. This amount will likely have
to increase in the future as the water system ages. A program for sewer main
replacement/relining is not as closely tied to street improvements but needs to be
developed soon. Assessments are not possible for water and sewer main because
replacement does not increase the value of the adjoining property. To increase
revenue by $650,000 per year, to cover water main replacement, water rates
would have to increase by 18% on a one-time basis. The 18% could also be
phased in over time. Even with this increase, Plymouth's water rates would
compare favorably with other municipalities.
Background
Maintaining the condition of the City's street system is an issue that affects all residents
and businesses. In the 2004 City Survey, the number one complaint mentioned by
persons who viewed City services negatively was potholes. In the 1999 City Survey
potholes were not even mentioned. As the City's street system expands, its maintenance
and reconstruction efforts need to expand as well. If the City continues to fall behind, it
will eventually be faced with a large liability that will be difficult to overcome.
Currently, the City's street system consists of about 270 miles of roadway with a current
replacement cost in excess of $300,000,000. Each year, City staff conducts an inspection
of 1/3 of the streets and rates their condition. The City's average street condition rating is
currently 66. The ratings are based on a condition index (CI) rating, which ranges from 0
to 100, with 100 representing a brand new street. The 1995 street condition rating report
indicated an average condition rating in the low 80's. Since City residents have begun to
express concern regarding the condition of the City's streets, and condition ratings are in
decline, it seems reasonable to assume that efforts should be made to stem the decline and
increase this rating to a higher level.
On September 28, 2004, the City Council had a study session to discuss long-term road
reconstruction and financing. At that time staff presented a report that outlined the
current condition of the City's street system and provided an option for improving the
condition of the City's streets through a greatly expanded program of street
reconstruction and mill -and -overlays. This option called for an increase in funding for
street reconstruction and mill -and -overlays from a historical level of about $2,500,000
per year, to approximately $7,400,000. Due to the financial impact of this option, staff
continued to look at other alternatives. As a result of this request, staff assembled a
group of individuals that represent the street maintenance division, water and sewer
division, engineering division, and finance department to more broadly examine the
City's street condition issues.
Approach
The traditional approach to declining street condition has been to replace the failing
streets with new ones. Over the last ten to fifteen years however, public works
practitioners have gone to a "mix -of -fixes" approach which includes reconstruction,
rehabilitation (overlays and mill -and -overlays), and preventive maintenance to preserve
street condition and extend street life. A considerable amount of research has recently
been generated that substantiates the cost-effectiveness and benefits of preventive
maintenance and the "mix -of -fixes" approach to pavement management. Three articles
have been attached as Appendix items I, II, and III for your review. These articles
explain some of the preventive maintenance practices available, and describe and
document some of the benefits. The most significant highlight of the research is the
discovery that for every dollar spent on preventive maintenance, $4 to $10 dollars are
saved on rehabilitation and reconstruction. This is largely due to the life extension
benefit of properly timed preventive maintenance treatments. The approach taken by
staff in developing a new option for enhancing and maintaining street condition is based
on this "mix-of-fixes" philosophy.
Analvsis
The tool utilized for examining the City's current practices and developing alternatives
was the preparation of a written policy establishing guidelines for street maintenance and
street rehabilitation/reconstruction activities. In preparing this policy, current practices
and alternatives to enhance street condition and save money in the long-run were
evaluated item by item from a number of different perspectives. The result of this
exercise is the draft "Street Maintenance and Street Improvement Policy" which is
included as "Attachment 1 " to this report.
The second portion of the analysis involved modeling the street system on the City's
ICON pavement management software. These models were utilized to determine the cost
impact of various street improvement options.
Find inu/Reeommend ations
The following summarizes the findings/rec6mmendations illuminated by the policy
preparation exercise:
1. The City needs to establish a measurable goal for street condition. Staff
recommends a goal of an average street condition index of 70, or better, as
determined by the ICON Pavement Management System.
2. Greater coordination and enhanced planning of street maintenance, street
improvement, and water/sewer utility activities needs to take place. We intend to
establish a staff committee to review and establish maintenance plans and
recommend projects for inclusion in the CIP.
3. Underground utilities such as water and sewer infrastructiire are beginning to fail
and will have a significant impact on the scope and timing of street improvement
activities. For example, it does not pay to put in a new street without replacing
the underlying water main if it has a history of main breaks and/or is near the end
of its expected life. In addition, streets with many water main breaks may have a
higher priority for reconstruction than those that do not.
4. It is becoming apparent that water main will not last as long as previously
expected. Older cast iron water main is brittle, is subject to shearing, and was
installed with non -stainless steel bolts that are being dissolved by the acidic soils,
New ductile iron water main was also not installed with stainless steel bolts until
recently, and is subject to corrosion just like the bolts. An average of about 50 to
60 years of life can be expected from existing water main depending on
installation and surrounding soils. PVC pipe may be a better alternative for
smaller pipe sizes since it is flexible and resists corrosion.
5
5. Street maintenance activities do not provide any substantial benefit to the property
values of adjoining properties and therefore should be funded by property tax
dollars. This is not a change from our current practices.
6. Due to the declining condition of the City's streets, the amount of reactive
maintenance continues to increase. It is more cost-effective to try to prevent the
occurrence of reactive maintenance items, such as pothole patching and curb and
gutter repairs, than to focus on trying to catch-up.
7. More attention needs to be paid to crack sealing sealcoat areas the year prior to
sealcoat application, and greater supervision needs to be done on crack seal
contractors to make sure they are sealing appropriate cracks. Crack sealing
should generally be done on streets in good condition. The State of Michigan has
determined that crack sealing can add up to 3 years of additional life to an asphalt
street (see Appendix 3).
8. More seaicoating needs to be done. Currently, most streets are being sealcoated
in year 6 or 7 and then in year 16 to 18 when they are almost due for mill -and -
overlay or reconstruction, and damage has already been done. The life of a
sealcoat application is typically 5 to 7 years. Ideally sealcoat is applied every 6
years to prevent oxidation and drying out of the pavement. The State of Michigan
has determined that a proper sealcoat program can add 3 to 6 years of additional
life to an asphalt street (see Appendix 3). Sealcoating should generally be done
on streets in good condition. Attachments 2 and 3 describe the benefits and return
on investment of a proper sealcoat program.
9. More pre-sealcoat preparation work needs to be done. Pre-sealcoat work such as
crack sealing, pavement patching and leveling, manhole and catchbasin repairs,
and isolated dig -outs of sections of deteriorated pavement should ideally be done
the year prior to sealcoat application. Currently, only crack sealing and some
spray -patching is being done prior to sealcoat application. Performance of the
correct pre-sealcoat preparations, on the right schedule, will result in a street with
an enhanced life and better ride quality.
10. Temporary overlays are a cost-effective means of increasing street condition and
extending the life of streets that are in need of reconstruction. It is generally
suitable for streets with a rating of less than 50 that are not scheduled for
reconstruction for more than 2 years. Currently, there is a backlog of streets in
this condition. Temporary overlays cost about $115,000 per mile, versus about
850,000 per mile for a complete reconstruction. The life of a temporary overlay
is typically 5 to 7 years.
11. Street rehabilitation (mill -and -overlay or full -depth mill -and -overlay) and
reconstruction activities do provide benefit to adjoining properties that is reflected
in higher property values. Consequently, street reconstruction and rehabilitation
activities should be assessed.
12. The current street assessment policy should be revised to more accurately reflect
the special benefit each property derives. It is recommended that the assessment
be increased to 40% of project cost. Assessments for new curb and gutter and
new storm sewer would remain at 100%.
13. Criteria needs to be established for selection of street projects by the staff
committee assigned that responsibility. Selection of projects should be based
objectively on relative condition of street and subsurface infrastructure, and the
need to coordinate with other activities. All proposed projects will be forwarded
to the City Council for possible inclusion in the CIP.
14. Mill -and -overlays will generally be done on collector or arterial streets rated
between 50 and 75 if they have a good base, as determined by soil borings, and
adequate drainage. Money is better spent to mill -and -overlay a street on schedule
rather than to have it decline in condition until it needs a complete reconstruction,
which costs about 3.26 times as much. It costs about $260,000 per mile to mill -
and overlay a street. A mill -and -overlay will typically last 10 to 15 years.
15. Full -depth mill -and -overlays will generally be done on local streets rated between
75 and 50 if they have a good base, as determined by soil borings, and adequate
drainage. Money is better spent to full -depth mill -and -overlay a street on
schedule rather than to have it decline in condition until it needs a complete
reconstruction, which costs about 2.42 times as much. It costs about $350,000 per
mile to full -depth mill -and -overlay a street. A full -depth mill -and -overlay will
typically last 20 — 25 years.
16. Street reconstruction will generally be done to streets with a rating below 50. A
newly reconstructed street can be expected to have an initial pavement life of 20
to 25 years, and the base should be good for 1 or 2 mill -and -overlays before
another reconstruction is needed. It costs about $850,000 per mile to reconstruct
a street. Curb and gutter and'storm sewer are additional costs.
17. The standard specification for a reconstructed street was established in 1989, and
is fairly rigid. In addition, the City's reconstruction specifications are
significantly higher than those implemented in 1995 for a new street being
constructed by a developer. The City should consider adopting a more flexible
standard of a "7 -ton design with adequate sub -grade drainage". This would allow
the City to design and build streets based on local soil and drainage conditions. It
is expected that this could result in savings in excess of $50,000 per mile with no
discernable reduction in street life.
Financial Impact
Maintenance Activities
The street maintenance operating budget for 2005 is $1,401,651. This budget funds all
street maintenance activities outlined in the "Street Maintenance and Street Improvement
Policy" such as pothole patching, curb and gutter replacement, crack sealing, sealcoating,
and temporary overlays. The policy recommends several changes to the status quo that
will require additional financial resources. The following is an evaluation of each type of
maintenance and any associated budget impacts.
Pothole Patching — Pothole patching is mostly done by City crews. Over the last several
years a contractor was hired with a spray-patcher to supplement the efforts of the City. In
2004, the City acquired its own spray-patcher. In 2005, the use of the contractor will be
eliminated and the City will begin to use its own spray-patcher over two shifts to get
more work out of the machine. This will result in a savings to the City of around $16,000
26,000 in contractor savings offset by $10,000 increase in cost for additional spray-
patcher materials). The street maintenance staff believe that they can perform pothole
patching activities as outlined in the "Street Maintenance and Street Improvement
Policy" with the funding provided in the 2005 Operating Budget.
Curb and Gutter Replacement — Curb and Gutter replacement is done in parbbyuGiftyt r
crews and also by private contractors. Contractors typically are involved when the curb
and -gutter replacement is part of a driveway replacement being done by a homeowner or
business. Other curb and gutter replacement is typically done by City crews. The street
maintenance staff believe that they can perform the curb and gutter activities as outlined
in the "Street Maintenance and Street Improvement Policy" with the funding provided in
the 2005 Operating Budget.
Crack Sealing — Crack sealing is done by a private contractor and funded out of the line
item labeled "Sealcoating". This accounts for about $45,000 of the $278,000 budgeted
for that line item. Street maintenance and engineering staff feel that this amount is
sufficient to fund crack sealing as outlined in the "Street Maintenance and Street
Improvement Policy". A separate line item should be created in the budget to track this
item. It should increase as the street system increases in size.
Sealcoating - Sealcoating work is done by a private contractor and is funded out of the
line item labeled "Seal Coating". There are three distinct sub -categories of the
expenditure that are as follows: 1) patching/repairs prior to sealcoating ($40,000), 2)
sealcoating ($180,000), and 3) restriping after sealcoating ($15,000). The City's current
sealcoating effort is not sufficient to cover streets on a 6 -year cycle as outlined in the
Street Maintenance and Street Improvement Policy". Based on quantities of streets that
are of sufficient condition to receive sealcoating, the amount of funding for sealcoating
and restriping needs to increase by about $35,500 per year.
The amount of work done on patching/repair prior to sealcoating would also have to
increase by about $10,000 just to keep pace with the increase in the amount of
sealcoating that will be done. However, this is only part of the issue. Currently, the
40,000 allocated for patching/repair prior to sealcoating goes to hire a private contractor
to spray patch streets that are to be sealcoated. No work is currently being done to
correct rideability or drainage issues. More work should be done to fill dips, feather out
high spots, repair catchbasins, replace sunken curbing, and dig out and replace isolated
sections of deteriorated pavement. All of these activities will make the sealcoat a better
and more accepted product, and will also serve to increase pavement life. Currently, time
and materials are not available to do this work.
If the contractual spray -patching were eliminated, about $30,000 could be freed up to put
toward materials for repair and patching prior to sealcoating ($10,000 would have to be
kept for supplies for our spray-patcher). This is not enough money to accomplish the
work that needs to be done, nor does it free up time, but it is a start.
Temporary Overlays — Over the past several years, City crews have done temporary
overlays on streets that are in poor condition, but not yet scheduled for a complete
reconstruction, In 2004, a list of about 40 potential streets segments were identified as
candidates for temporary overlay, but only 10 were done. The amount of work was
limited by lack of staff time available and funding for additional asphalt material.
Temporary overlays are one activity that makes some sense to contract out. Most
temporary overlay projects are better done by private paving contractors because they
have larger equipment and greater expertise in this type of work. This type of work is
also more cyclical in nature which is typically difficult to accomplish in-house. Right
now, the City has a large backlog of streets that could benefit from a temporary overlay.
The City does not have the staff or equipment to do it all at once, but a contractor
certainly could.
In 2004, the City spent about $90,000 on materials to overlay 10 street segments. In
addition, about 2,000 hours of labor were utilized, which is about 12% of the total time
allocated for street maintenance activities. If temporary overlays were contracted out in
2005, the labor could be freed up for other things. However, additional funding would be
required to pay for the contractual services. Engineering and street maintenance staff
have compiled a list of streets eligible for temporary overlay that are not scheduled for
reconstruction through 2007. This list includes 33 separate street segments totaling 5.15
miles of street (see Attachment 4). It is estimated that it would cost approximately
590,000 to have a contractor overlay these streets. If these streets could be overlayed
within the next year or two it would provide an immediate and significant increase to the
condition of some of the City's poorer streets -and assist in the effort to phase into an
expanded program of street improvements more slowly. If all 5.15 miles of street were
overlaid in 2005, it would raise the overall average condition from 66 to 67. If the
590,000 could be funded from a source other than the General Fund, $90,000 would be
freed up for additional street maintenance activities.
Funding For Proposed Maintenance Activities - In order to carry out an expanded
sealcoat program the City would have to come up with an additional $35,500 per year for
sealcoat and restriping in the General Fund. A good share, $30,000, could be freed up by
the elimination of the spray-patcher contract for pre-sealcoat patching. However, the
City would not have the time or materials budget to perform any pre-sealcoat repairs or
patching. If, however, temporary overlays were contracted out, and a separate funding
source was found for this activity, the freed up dollars and time would be sufficient to
fund the expanded sealcoat, and pre-sealcoat patching/repair program, outlined in the
Street Maintenance and Street Improvement Policy". Street maintenance staff believe
that they may also be able to make inroads in repairing other rideability issues throughout
the City such as filling settlements, edge patching along curb lines, more catch basin
repairs, more curb and gutter replacements, and isolated dig -outs and replacements of
deteriorated pavement, if the 2,000 hours and $90,000 were available for their use instead
of for temporary overlays.
Since the use of temporary overlays would provide an immediate impact on street
condition in some areas, and delay the need for street reconstruction, it does make sense
to utilize the Street Reconstruction Fund to finance this work. In addition, because the
work is largely a one-time catch-up, it may also make sense to finance the work with a
one-time revenue such as General Fund surplus that could be transferred to the Street
Reconstruction Fund. This would enable the City to expand its sealcoat and pre-sealcoat
efforts to preserve the long-term quality and life of its existing streets, and also provide a
short-term impact by increasing the condition of some of the City's poorer streets. Any
ongoing temporary overlay activities (estimated at under $100,000 per year) should be
funded by the Street Reconstruction Fund.
Street Improvements
While the City has devoted significant resources to street improvement activities, it is
clearly not enough. This is evidenced by the fact that on average our streets are in a
poorer condition than most people would like despite that fact that brand new street is
being added each year to serve new development. In addition, a simplistic mathematical
analysis confirms the conclusion that we are not doing enough. Given that the City has
270 miles of street, and each street needs to have something done to it (reconstruction,
full -depth mill -and -overlay, or mill -and -overlay) at least once every 25 years, the City
should be improving 10.8 miles of street per year. This contrasts with the 2 to 3 miles of
street: that has been done in the past.
In an effort to get a more detailed picture of what should be done the Engineering
Department has enlisted the assistance of a pavement management software package
called ICON. This software is the repository for all street rating information obtained
during the inspections that are conducted every three years. This software also has
analytical and reporting capabilities that enable the user to run different scenarios to
determine how different budget and street improvement project mixes will affect street
condition. With this system, the City's Design Engineer Jim Renneberg, has evaluated
many alternatives. The following are a few of the alternatives evaluated:
10
The first alternative (see Attachment 5) projects forward continuation of the City's past
practice of spending about $2,500,000 per year on street improvements. The projection
based on this alternative shows that the condition of the City's streets will continue to
decline. The average CI rating will go from 66 to 51 over the next 10 years. In addition,
while the amount of street in good condition (CI greater than 75) will hold at about 42%,
the amount of street in poor condition (CI under 50) will increase from 28% to 50%.
Eventually, the amount of street in good condition will decline as well. This alternative
is based on the assumption that about 75% of funds would go to complete reconstruction,
and 25% would go toward mill -and -overlay as has happened in the past.
A second alternative (see Attachment 6) projects forward the level of street
improvements anticipated in the 2005-2009 CIP. This amount, which varies by year,
averages about $4,000,000, or roughly 60% more than we have done in the past. The
projection based on this alternative shows that the condition of the City's streets will
continue to decline. The average Cl rating will go from 66 to 60 over the next 10 years.
In addition, while the amount of streets in good condition (CI greater than 75) will
increase from 42% to 51 %, the amount of streets in poor condition (CI under 50) will
increase from 27% to 41 %. Eventually, the amount of street in good condition will
reverse course and decline as well. This alternative is based on the assumption that about
85% of funds would go to complete reconstruction, 10% would go to mill -and -overlay, and 5% would go to maintenance, as is projected in the current CIP. If assessments stay
at the current level of 30% for reconstruction, and 0% for mill -and -overlay, this
alternative would require a 19% levy increase for street reconstruction from 2006 to
2010. This would raise taxes by $69 on the average home by 2010. If assessments were
increased to 40% for all street improvements, the required levy increase would be 7%
from 2006 to 2010. This would raise taxes by $20 on the average home by 2010.
A third alternative (see Attachment 7) projects forward the first three years of the 2005-
2009 CIP and then increases total expenditures by 20% each year from 2008 through
2011. Expenditures then stay at $8,500,000 per year thereafter. The projection based on
this alternative shows that the condition. of the City's streets will decline to a 64 and then
increase to and maintain a 70 CI rating. It would take 11 years for street condition to
reach the 70 Cl goal. The amount of streets in good condition (CI greater than 75) will
increase from 43% to 63%, and the amount of streets in poor condition (CI under 50) will
increase slightly from 28% to 29%. In order to raise condition as soon as possible, it is
assumed that about 50% of funds will go to complete reconstruction, and 50% will go to
mill -and -overlay for years 2008 to 2011. Thereafter, the City runs out of streets to mill -
and -overlay and the split becomes 90% reconstruction and 10% mill -and -overlay. If
assessments stay at the current level of 30% for reconstruction, and 0% for mill -and -
overlay, this alternative would require a 36% levy increase for street reconstruction from
2006 to 2010. This would increase taxes by $182 on the average home for the year 2010.
If assessments were increased to 40% for all street improvements, the required levy
increase would be 22% from 2006 to 2008, 20% from 2009-2010, 15% in 2011, and 10%
in 2012. This would increase taxes by $115 on the average home by 2012.
11
A fourth alternative (see Attachment 8) projects forward the level of street improvements
currently in the CIP for 2005, a $10,000,000 program funded by debt in 2006, a 20%
increase per year (based on 2005) for years 2007 to 2010, $7,500,000 for 2011 and 2012,
and $8,000,000 from 2013 to 2020. The mix of projects is projected at 85% recon and
15% null -and -overlay for the first two years, 50% recon and 50% mill -and -overlay for
the next five years, and 90% recon and 10% mill -and -overlay for the remainder. This
option is designed to increase condition quickly based on the large program in 2006 and
use of 50% of funding for mill -and -overlays from 2007 to 2011. The average CI rating
would increase to 69, decline to 67, and then increase to and maintain a 70 rating by
2012. The amount of streets in good condition (Cl greater than 75) will increase from
43% to 62%, and the amount of street in poor condition (CI under 50) will remain at
28%. If assessments stay at the current level of 30% for reconstruction, and 0% for mill -
and -overlay, this alternative would require a 38% levy increase for street reconstruction
from 2006 to 2009, and a30% increase in 2010. This would increase taxes by $186 on
the average home by 2010. If assessments were increased to 40% for all street
improvements, the required levy increase would be 22% from 2006 to 2009, 20% from
2010-2011, and 12% in 2012. This would increase taxes by $129 on the average home
by 2012.
A fifth alternative (see Attachment 9) projects forward the first three years of the 2005-
2009 CIP and then increases total expenditures by 10% each year from 2008 to 2016.
Expenditures then stay at $10,000,000 per year thereafter. The projections based on this
alternative shows that the condition of the City's streets will decline to a 63 and then
increase to and maintain a 70 CI rating. It would take 15 years for street condition to
reach the 70 CI goal. The amount of streets in good condition (CI greater than 75) will
increase from 43% to 62%, and the amount of streets in poor condition (CI under 50) will
increase slightly from 28% to 29%. In order to raise condition as soon as possible, it is
assumed that about 50% of funds will go to complete reconstruction, and 50% will go to
mill -and -overlay for years 2008 to 2011. Thereafter, the City runs out of streets to mill -
and -overlay and the split becomes 90% reconstruction and 10% mill -and -overlay. If
assessments stay at the current level of 30% for reconstruction, and 0% for mill -and -
overlay, this alternative would require a 30% levy increase for street reconstruction from
2006 to 2019, 20% increase in 2010, and 10% increase in 2011. This would increase
taxes by $190 on the average home for the year 2011. If assessments were increased to
40% for all street improvements, the required levy increase would be 14% from 2006 to
2012, 12% in 2013, and 10% from 2014 to 2015. This would increase taxes by $119 on
the average home by 2015.
To evaluate the various alternatives, a table of key information has been developed to aid
in comparison. This table is attached as Attachment 10. It quickly becomes apparent that
alternatives 1 and 2 do nothing to improve average street condition. In fact they lead to
declines of 16 and 7 CI points respectively within 10 years. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 all
lead to increased street conditions, although some take longer than others. Alternative 3
takes 11 years, Alternative 4 takes 8 years, and Alternative 5 takes 15 years. An
interesting point to note when comparing Alternatives 3, 4,and 5 is that they all spend
about the same amount of money between 2005 and 2020. This is because it will take
12
about the same amount of work to raise the condition of the City streets whether it is
done quickly or slowly. The final piece of relevant information is the levy impact of each
alternative. Options 3 and 4 require quicker levy increases of about 6 to 8 percent per
year, since they do more work quicker. Alternative 3. would require a levy increase of
36% or 22% per year depending on whether the assessment policy is changed.
Alternative 4 would require a levy increase of 38% to 22% per year depending on
assessment. Alternative 5 would require a levy increase of 30% or 14% depending on
assessments. While Alternative 5 is slower at increasing street condition, it is the one
that seems most realistic in terms of affordability. Consequently, it seems to be the most
reasonable alternative.
Assessments
The City's current special assessment policy for existing streets states that the City will
assess 30% of the cost of street reconstruction and 0% for mill -and -overlay unless it is
part of a reconstruction project area. This policy seems inconsistent and inequitable.
Since both reconstruction and mill -and -overlay result in new street surfaces with
substantial new life, properties adjacent to both kinds of street improvements receive
benefits that increase property value. It does not seem right to subsidize property values
for one type of improvement and not the other. Furthermore, it does not seem right to
assess or not assess for mill -and -overlay depending on whether it is part of a
reconstruction project or not. It would seem reasonable to assess for all street
improvements (reconstruction and mill -and -overlay) on the same basis.
As stated above, the current assessment rate for reconstruction projects is 30%. This is
an improvement over the past when assessments varied from 15 to 20 percent. However,
assessment are still low. A survey of other cities (see Attachment 1 I) shows that not all
cities have assessments for street improvements. However, for those that do, assessment
rates vary between 20% and 100%. The average assessment for a local street adjacent to
low-density residential property is 52.87%.
State law governing assessments states that the amount of an assessment may not exceed
the increase in value to the adjacent property as a result of the improvement.
Assessments can be challenged in court and invalidated if they are determined to be too
high. Determining the appropriate amount for street reconstruction projects is very
difficult and is not an exact science. State law requires a minimum of a 20% assessment
on a project to sell GO special assessment improvement bonds. Consequently, 20%
should probably be viewed as a minimum assessment. On the other hand, the City does
not want to go to the other extreme and be one of the cities that assess an above average
amount due to the risk of court challenge. Staff has discussed this issue with the City
Attorney, Roger Knutson. Roger has stated that he is comfortable with an increase to
40%.
A change to a 40% assessment rate, and the expansion of assessments to all street
projects, would have a. considerable impact on the need to levy property taxes for street
projects. As seen above in the section on street improvement alternatives, property tax
13
increases could be about 15% lower per year if the assessment policy were changed to
40% on all street improvements. In addition, the overall levy increase could be reduced
by about $70 per year for the average valued home. Overall, a change in the assessment
policy would make assessments more equitable and make an expanded street
improvement program more affordable for the average City resident.
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Another cost related to street improvements is water and sewer replacement. Much of the
City's water and sewer system is between 30 and 40 years old. Due to poor soils in the
City of Plymouth, much of the water main has deteriorated significantly as evidenced by
a large number of main breaks and dig -ups. The following table outlines the dig -up
history over the last 9 years for water main:
Year Number of Dim -ups
1996 56
1997 59
1998 65
1999 63
2000 76
2001 91
2002 72
2003 78
2004 85
It is the opinion of the water and sewer division that the expected life of existing cast iron
and ductile iron water main in the City of Plymouth is about 50 to 60 years on average. It
makes little sense to do a complete street reconstruction, with a new street surface with a
25 -year life and new base with a 50 -year life, over water main with only 10 to 20 years of
life left. As a result, street improvement projects may also require water or sewer main
replacement to avoid having to dig up the new street surface.
If a major sewer defect is observed that requires actual replacement it should be done
with a street improvement project. However, in many instances, sewer main can be
relined without actually digging up the street surface and sub -grade. This type of work
does not have to be done as part of a street reconstruction. The City has not done much
sewer replacement or relining in the past. However, future CIP's should include funding
to begin this type of work before the City is faced with the need to replace and reline
sewer all at once.
The need to replace water main cannot be deferred as easily as sewer. There is no current
technology to replace or reline water main without digging up the street surface. A look
at the projects contained in the current CIP calls for water main replacements as part of
street improvement projects in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009. The estimated costs per year
are as follows:
14
Year Cost
2005 1,263,418 yet to be determined
2006 498,036
2007 420,584
2008 0
2009 1,011,282
Total $3,193,320
Average $638,664
Currently, there are no funds anticipated for water main replacement in the C1P or rate
projections for the Water Fund. Water main replacement should be funded by the Water
Fund and be recovered by adequate water rates. Very few municipalities attempt to
assess for water main replacement. The reason for this is that the replacement of an
existing main (which works), with another main (which also just works) provides no
additional benefit to an adjoining property's value. If the City plans on replacing about
650,000 per year (approximately the average from above) it would require a rate
increase of about 18% ($650,000 increase needed/$ 3,544,000 current rate based
revenues). This rate increase could be tapered in over a period of years. It should be
pointed out that this is only the beginning. Water main costs about $440,000 per mile to
replace. $650,000 per year buys the City only about 1.5 miles of water main per year.
The City currently has 322 miles of water main in the ground. Assuming an average life
of 55 years, the City will at some point have to replace on average 5.85 miles per year.
Now is the time to start replacement and plan for the future.
Fortunately, the City of Plymouth's water rates are still among the lowest in the metro
area. This is likely due in part to the fact that the City has been under -investing in water
infrastructure. Based on 'information collected for the proposed 2005 water rate increase,
the ranking for the City of Plymouth and a few its neighbors would be as follows:
City (2004 Rates)
New Hope
Golden Valley
Minnetonka
Brooklyn Park
Plymouth (18% increase + 3.85% for 2005)
Eden Prairie
Plymouth
Maple Grove
Avcraze Residential Cost
Total may be higher depending on usage within tiers.
372.88
355.00
150.00 *
146.60 *
138.86
125.00
113.96
103.20
Even after the 2005 rate increase, and a potential 18% additional rate increase, the City of
Plymouth would only jump past one community. The issue of a rate increase, and
15
additional water main replacement, should be reviewed and considered with the revision
of the CIP and review of any utility increases for 2006.
Actions
Implementation of the recommendations made in this report will take City Council
action. Some actions are more time -critical than others. The following is a list of
possible actions and a potential time frame for approval.
Next 2 — 3 Weeks
1. Adopt revised street specification — needed for 2005 street recon project
2. Adopt revised water main specification allowing use of PVC pipe — needed for
2005 construction season and potentially 2005 recon project.
3. Adopt revised special assessment policy (assessment rate and type of street
improvements covered) — may impact the 2005 reconstruction project
4. Approve inclusion of water main replacement in 2005 reconstruction project if
staff recommends that it should be done.
Next 4 — S Weeks
1. Approve proposed maintenance changes for 2005.
2. Approve proposal to implement and finance an expanded temporary overlay -UWI
program for 2005.
Next 2 — 4 Months
1. Provide staff with direction regarding the scope of future street reconstruction
efforts for inclusion in 2006 — 2010 CIP.
2. Approve proposed "Street Maintenance and Street Improvement Policy"
3. Adopt revised special assessment policy (assessment allocation to different types
of affected property) — does not affect 2005 reconstruction project.
Council Report on Street Condition (Study Session I-05).doc
16
Attachment I
City of Plymouth
Policy Guiding Street Maintenance and Street
Improvements
Purpose
This policy is intended to guide the City of Plymouth's street maintenance and street
improvement activities. The intent is to provide a framework that will support the
following principals:
Protect the City's investment in street infrastructure.
Utilize financial and staff resources in the most cost-effective manner.
Maintain the City's street system in a safe and generally acceptable condition,
with a goal of maintaining an average street condition index of 70.
Provide maintenance and street improvement services to all. City residents and
businesses in an objective and equitable manner.
Coordinate street maintenance and street improvement activities with other
infrastructure needs such as water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, parks, and trails.
Administration
A staff committee will be given responsibility for planning and coordination of the street
maintenance and street improvement activities and policies outlined in this document.
The committee will meet as needed to review and establish maintenance plans and select
projects for inclusion in the proposed Capital Improvement Program that will be
forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption. The committee
will also be responsible for submitting a report to the City Council by May 1" of each
year that will outline planned maintenance activities and street improvement projects for
the remainder of the year. The committee shall consist of 6 to 10 members representing
street maintenance, engineering, sewer and water, parks, finance and other City
departments as selected by the City Manager.
Maintenance Activities
Financing
Street maintenance activities are generally performed to fix damage to, or prolong the life
of street pavements, curb and gutter, and the underlying street base. These actions
attempt to maintain the pavement in its current condition rather than to upgrade the
surface to a "like -new" condition, Because the condition of the street is not being
significantly upgraded, other than perhaps aesthetically, no substantial benefit can be
attached to the property values of adjoining properties. Consequently, the funding
mechanism for maintenance should be the property tax levy rather than special
assessments.
Activities and General Guidelines
Activities and the general guidelines for their use are as follows:
Pothole Patching - While pothole patching is a year -around activity, it becomes a
primary activity in the spring and early summer months. Potholes need to be repaired to
eliminate dangerous and potentially damaging conditions, and to prevent further decay to
surrounding street surfaces. Pothole patching is accomplished by the placement of hot
spring, summer & fall) or cold (winter) asphalt material into the holes by a crew of
maintenance workers, followed by compaction. Alternatively, some potholes are patched
by a spray -patching machine that sprays an oil and aggregate mixture into the hole under
pressure. The City's goals and practices relating to pothole patching are as follows:
Repair large (potentially damaging) potholes within 24 hours of notification or
discovery.
The City will address other (non -damaging) springtime potholes in a systematic
manner. Crews will begin pothole patching starting with major streets (high
speeds and large traffic volumes) and then proceed to streets with high
concentrations of potholes. Finally, a sweep will be made of all other areas of the
City, with all springtime pothole patching being completed by the end of June.
Pothole patching during the summer months will be done as potholes are reported
or discovered.
In early fall, streets will once again be actively reviewed and potholes will be
repaired with the objective of eliminating all substantial potholes by freeze-up.
During the winter months, potholes will be repaired as reported or discovered, and
as weather allows.
Curb and Gutter Repairs — Repairs are made to sections of curb and gutter that are
extensively cracked, sunken, or raised. Curb and gutter in this condition may represent a
safety hazard and/or contribute to drainage problems that will damage adjoining sections
of street and/or private property. Repairs typically involve the removal and replacement
of damaged curb sections and a portion of the adjoining street surface. The City's goals
and practices relating to curb and gutter repairs are as follows:
Curb and gutter repairs will be done on streets in the following order of priority:
1. Curb and gutter conditions that represent hazardous conditions.
2. Curb and gutter conditions that are resulting in damage to the street or
adjoining private property such as driveways.
3. Curb and gutter conditions that are considered a nuisance.
Curb and gutter repairs will not typically be made on streets that are scheduled for
street improvements in the CIP, unless they represent hazardous conditions or
would cause undue damage to public or private property. Curb and gutter repairs
and replacements will be done as part of a street improvement project.
Crack Sealing — Streets are crack sealed with a rubberized asphalt compound to prevent
the penetration of water into the pavement structure. Water, which expands and contracts
with freeze and thaw cycles, is a primary cause of pavement deterioration. It is estimated
that crack sealing can add 2 to 4 years to pavement life. The City's goals and practices
relating to crack sealing are as follows:
Crack sealing will be done to streets in the following order of priority:
1. New and newly reconstructed streets should be crack sealed as needed in
their first 5 years of life. Most cracks tend to appear during this time
period.
2. Streets scheduled for sealcoating should be crack sealed 1 year prior to
seal coat application.
3. Other streets may be crack sealed on an as -needed basis if funds are
available.
Crack sealing will generally be done on streets with a condition index rating of 75
or higher. Streets with a rating less than 75 are due for some type of street
improvement and the crack sealing effort would typically not be cost-effective.
Sealcoating — Streets are sealcoated with an asphalt emulsion and aggregate to prevent
degradation of an asphalt pavement. Sealcoating reduces oxidation and drying out of
pavement materials, seals small cracks, improves surface traction, and generally
improves the aesthetics of a street. The life of a sealcoat application is typically 5 — 7
years. Consequently, sealcoat should be reapplied approximately every 6 years. It is
estimated that a good sealcoating program can postpone the need for resurfacing by 2 to 6
years. The City's goals and practices relating to sealcoating are as follows:
Streets should be sealcoated on a 6 -year cycle. It is expected that streets
constructed on the City's current standard base will receive a sealcoat application
in years 6, 12, and 18, and will be resurfaced around year 24.
Sealcoating will generally be done on streets with a condition index rating of 75
or higher. Streets with a rating less than 75 are due for a street improvement and
the sealcoat effort would typically not be cost-effective. Streets with a rating
below 75 may possibly be considered for sealcoating if there would be some
benefit and they are not included in the City's Capital Improvement Program for a
street improvement such as mill & overlay, full -depth mill & overlay, or complete
reconstruction.
One year prior to sealcoat application, all surface defects and drainage issues
should be repaired. This includes pothole repair, crack sealing, filling of low
spots and large cracks, and adjustment of manholes, gate -valves, and catch basins.
Repairs that are allowed to cure hold sealcoat better.
The City standard sealcoat is a chip seal (118 to 3/8 inch rock chips embedded in
asphalt emulsion). However, other types Of sealcoat such as slurry seals and
micro -surfacing may be utilized in special applications. Chip seal is the City's
standard sealcoat option due to its combination of performance and economical
cost.
Temporary Overlays — Temporary overlays involve the application of a 1 to 2 inch
overlay of hot mix asphalt to a street with extensive surface defects that is in need of a
complete reconstruction. It is applied with the expectation that it will provide 5 to 7
years of life while waiting in queue for reconstruction funding to become available. A
temporary overlay is much less extensive than a standard mill & overlay or full -depth
mill & overlay. A temporary overlay would typically include only minor milling along
the curb line, minor curb and gutter improvements, and few if any surface or sub -surface
improvements. In addition, it has a reduced life expectation and a significantly lower
cost.
Temporary overlays will generally be applied to streets with a condition index
rating lower than 50.
Temporary overlays will only be applied to streets that are not scheduled for
complete reconstruction for at least 2 years.
Streets eligible for a temporary overlay will be considered based on condition and
traffic volume compared to others.
Temporary overlays will generally be applied only once if the street is scheduled
for reconstruction.
Street Improvement Activities
Financing
Street improvements include mill & overlay, full -depth mill and overlay, and complete
reconstruction of streets. These activities are performed to upgrade the condition of a
street surface to a "like -new" condition, with a substantial new service life. Because the
condition of the street is being upgraded, the adjoining properties do receive substantial
benefit that is reflected in higher property values. Consequently, the use of special
assessments to fund a portion of the cost of the street improvements is reasonable. The
following summarizes key points from the City's Special Assessment Policy.
It is the policy of the City to special assess abutting benefiting property (with
direct access to an applicable street) for street improvement costs, but not in
excess of the special benefit to the property. This policy applies to all streets that
are the responsibility of the City.
2. The assessment amount for the improvement of previously paved streets shall be
determined by the City Council for each project. The assessment amount shall be
40% of the actual project cost for the project area. Project cost includes both
direct construction costs and all indirect project costs such as engineering and
administration.
3. Assessments shall normally be levied for a period not to exceed five (5) years.
Longer assessment periods will be considered when other assessable public
improvements such as curb and gutter, and storm sewer are being constructed at
the same time.
4. In areas where concrete curb and gutter did not previously exist, properties will be
assessed for 100% of the project cost to install curb and gutter.
5. In areas where storm sewer did not exist, or is inadequate, properties will be
assessed for 100% of the project cost to install, or improve, the storm sewer
system.
6. Assessments for street improvements on streets designed to a level higher than the
residential standard will be based on the project cost adjusted for the width and
depth of the standard residential street.
Project Selection
Since street improvement activities are very expensive and somewhat disruptive to the
people who live along the affected streets, advanced planning and notification are
desirable. The following general principals will govern the selection of street
improvements.
Street improvement projects will be included in the City's 5 -year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP):
Only the first two years of street improvement projects will be specified in the
CIP. It is not possible to accurately prioritize street improvement projects out
more than 2 years since the condition of street surfaces and utilities on some
streets may change more quickly than on others.
Funding needs for years 3, 4, and 5 will be earmarked in the CIP for projects not
yet prioritized.
The staff committee will meet as necessary to select projects for inclusion in the
proposed CIP.
Items considered by the staff committee should include data from the pavement
management system, input from the street division, input from the utilities
division, input from the parks department, and citizen concerns or comments.
Street improvement projects must be coordinated with other subsurface
infrastructure needs such as water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer.
Street improvement projects must also be coordinated with park, trail or street
maintenance activities.
Effort should be made to group projects by location to take advantage of reduced
contractor costs for mobilization.
Selection of projects must be based objectively on relative condition of street and
subsurface infrastructure, and the need to coordinate with other activities.
Activities and General Guidelines
Street improvement activities and general guidelines for their use are as follows:
Mill & Overlay — Collector or arterial streets with a Cl rating ranging from 75 to 50,
with an adequate base verified by soil borings and adequate drainage, are candidates for
mill & overlay. A mill & overlay is accomplished by milling and removing a portion of
the existing street surface, replacing any damaged curb and gutter, and repaving with a
1.5 to 2.5 inch layer of hot mix asphalt. The new street surface can be expected to last 10
to 15 years. The City's goals and practices relating to mill & overlays are as follows:
Mill & overlays will generally be done on collector or arterial streets with a CI
rating between 75 and 50. Streets rated above 75 are still in very good condition
and cannot fully benefit from a new street surface. Streets rated below 50 are
usually too far gone and typically have serious deficiencies affecting their base
and/or drainage. This poor base or inadequate drainage would greatly reduce the
life of a mill & overlay and should be corrected through complete reconstruction.
Mill & overlays will generally only be done on streets with existing curb and
gutter. Curb and gutter serves to hold the pavement edge together and promote
drainage that will help the mill & overlay to achieve its expected life. Streets
without curb and gutter will only be considered if adequate drainage exists.
The condition of subsurface infrastructure must be adequate to exceed the
expected life of the mill & overlay (10 to 15 years).
Emphasis should be placed on scheduling mill & overlays of streets before they
deteriorate to such a condition that a complete reconstruction is necessary.
Full Depth Mill & Overlay - Residential streets with a Cl rating between 75 and 50,
with an adequate base verified by soil borings and adequate drainage, are candidates
of full -depth mill & overlay. A full -depth mill & overlay is accomplished by milling
and removing the entire street surface, regrading and recompacting the street base,
replacing any damaged curb and gutter, and repaving with 3.5 inches of asphalt
pavement material. The new street surface can be expected to Iast similar to a surface
on a newly reconstructed street at a reduced cost. The City's goals and practices
relating to full -depth mill & overlays are as follows:
Full -depth mill & overlays will generally be done on residential streets with a CI
rating between 75 and 50. Streets rated above 75 are still in very good condition
and cannot fully benefit from a new street surface. Streets rated below 50 are
usually too far gone and typically have serious deficiencies affecting their base
and/or drainage. This poor base or inadequate drainage would greatly reduce the
life of a mill & overlay and should be corrected through complete reconstruction.
Full depth mill & overlays will generally only be done on streets with existing
curb and gutter. Curb and gutter serves to hold the pavement edge together and
promote drainage that will help the mill & overlay to achieve its expected life.
Streets without curb and gutter will only be considered if adequate drainage
exists.
The condition of subsurface infrastructure must be adequate to exceed the
expected life of the full -depth mill & overlay (20. to 25 years).
Emphasis should be placed on scheduling full -depth mill & overlays of streets
before they deteriorate to such a condition that a complete reconstruction is
necessary.
6
Street Reconstruction -- Streets with a CI rating below 50 will generally require a
complete street reconstruction. Residential streets will be reconstructed to a 7 -ton
design with adequate sub -grade drainage, based on local soil and drainage conditions.
The current City standard of a 7 -ton design, which developers are required to install,
is 12 inches of sand base, 8 inches of class -5 material, and two courses of asphalt
pavement material totaling 3.5 inches in depth. A complete reconstruction of a
typical residential street would likely include the following: removal of street surface
and base material, addition or repair/replacement of curb and gutter or storm sewer,
installation of drain tile behind curb line, and installation of the appropriate sand,
gravel and bituminous sections as determined by the street design for each
reconstruction area, which will reflect the most cost-effective street section. The
street reconstruction could also include the replacement of underground infrastructure
if condition and life expectancy warrants. The street surface on a newly reconstructed
residential street can be expected to last 20 to 25 years with proper maintenance. In
addition, the base should be good for 1 or 2 mill & overlays before another
reconstruction is needed. The City's goals and practices relating to street
reconstructions are as follows:
Street Reconstruction will generally be done on streets with a CI rating below
50. Streets part of a reconstruction project are that are marginally over 50
may be reconstructed as instead of mill & overlaid if soil borings show a bad
base or underground utilities would require extensive repair or replacement.
Curb and gutter, and storm sewer (including sump pump drainage) will be
included in street reconstruction projects if none is currently present.
Curb and gutter and storm sewer will be upgraded or replaced as part of a
street reconstruction project if it is inadequate.
This policy supersedes all previous policies relating to street maintenance, street
improvements, and street assessments.
Stceel Maintenance and Improvement Policy.doc
m
Attachment 2
Benefits of An Adequate
Sealcoat Program
Application of sealcoat prevents oxidation and drying out of pavement
materials. This reduces erosion of the pavement surface and maintains
pavement strength and flexibility.
Application of sealcoat seals small cracks in pavement surfaces and prevents
water intrusion. This reduces the susceptibility to water damage of the
pavement surface and street base.
Application of sealcoat increases surface friction, which increases traction,
especially in wet and icy conditions. This makes the surface safer for vehicle
traffic and reduces the need to apply salt and other chemicals.
Application of sealcoat can improve the aesthetics of a street that has had
patching or crack sealing operations performed on it. The sealcoat covers
these items with a visually consistent and uniform surface.
Application of sealcoat can extend the life of a street surface. The State of
Michigan has documented life extension benefits of 3 to 6 years.
Attachment 3
Pay -Back of Life Extending Street Maintenance Activities
Current Sealcoat & Crack Repair Expenditures (Per Year)
Sealcoat - Contractor 180,000
Restripping After Sealcoat - Contractor 15,000
Patching Prior to Sealcoat - Contractor 40,000
Crack Sealing - Contractor 45,000
In -House 0
280,000 280,000
Proposed Sealcoat & Crack Repair Expenditures
Sealcoat - Contractor 212,500
Saving Above 20 Year Life
Miles of Street 270
0
Average Current Life of a Street (Years) 20
Patching Prior to Sealcoat - Materials - City Crew
Average Cost For Street Reconstruction (Per Mile) 850,000
59644
Average Cost For Mill & Overlay (Per Mile) 300,000
Average Cost Per Year For Street Replacement - Based on 20 Year Life Cycle 11,475,000.
Average Cost Per Year For Mill & Overlay - Based on 20 Year Life Cycle 4,050,000
Average Cost Per Year For Street Replacement - Based on 21 Year Life Cycle 10,928,571 546,429
Average Cost Per Year For Mill & Overlay - Based on 21 Year Life Cycle 3,857,143 192,857
Average Cost Per Year For Street Replacement - Based on 22 Year Life Cycle 10,431,818 1,043,182
Average Cost Per Year For Mill & Overlay - Based on 22 Year Life Cycle 3,681,818 368,182
Average Cost Per Year For Street Replacement - Based on 23 Year Life Cycle 9,978,261 1,496,739
Average Cost Per Year For Mill & Overlay - Based on 23 Year Life Cycle 3,521,739 528,261
Average Cost Per Year For Street Replacement - Based on 24 Year Life Cycle 9,562,500 1,912,500
Average Cost Per Year For Mill & Overlay - Based on 24 Year Life Cycle 3,375,000 675,000
Current Sealcoat & Crack Repair Expenditures (Per Year)
Sealcoat - Contractor 180,000
Restripping After Sealcoat - Contractor 15,000
Patching Prior to Sealcoat - Contractor 40,000
Crack Sealing - Contractor 45,000
In -House 0
280,000 280,000
Proposed Sealcoat & Crack Repair Expenditures
Sealcoat - Contractor 212,500
Restripping After Sealcoat- Contractor 18,000
Patching Prior to Sealcoat - Contractor 0
Crack Sealing - Contractor 45,000
Patching Prior to Sealcoat - Materials - City Crew 90,000
Patching Prior to Sealcoat - Labor - City Crew- 1 FTE 59 644
425,144 425,144
Pay -Back of Life Extending Maintenance Activities.xls
Attachment 4
2005 Overlays, Cost Estimate
111312005
Street Number Length ft Width ft Area (ft2) Street Name 1.5" Bit, Comments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
1,200
350
420
366
256
1,872
880
330
1,630
775
562
861
1,280
310
1,275
390
1,250
715
2,073
1,070
613
185
925
490
605
1,523
412
430
328
450
1,660
29
29
29
29
29
27
27
29
29
29
31
40
30.5
28
28
27
27
29
69/32/24
29
19
28
40
28
30
27
29
24
29
29
28
34800
10150
12180
15340
11958
50544
23760
9570
47270
22475
17422
34440
39040
8680
35700
10530
33750
20735
100486
31030
13610
33180
37000
16557
18150
41121
16724
10320
15184
13050
46480
Polaris Ln. 44th $ 16,433
44th Ave. (Niagara $ 4,793
Minnesota 42nd $ 5,752
Lanewood 43rd $ 7,244
Kin sview Ln. 43rd $ 5,647
Ithaca 43rd $ 23,868
Ithaca 47th $ 11,220
Dallas 37th Pl. $ 4,519
RosewoodlQuinwood 46th $ 22,322
51st Ave. Cottonwood $ 10,613
55th Ave. Yorktown $ 8,227
54th Ave. Nathan $ 16,263
45th Ave. Nathan $ 18,436
169 Frontage Rd. 45th $ 4,099
169 Frontage Rd. Nathan $ 16,858
44th Ave. Trenton $ 4,973
Trenton Ln.143rd Ave. $ 15,938
Yorktown Ln. 47th $ 9,792
S. Shore Dr. $ 47,452 Scheduled for 2008 Recon
Norwood 26th) $ 14,653 Scheduled for 2009 recon
Kirkwood Ln. 12th $ 61427
Magnolia Ln. Sunset $ 15,668
6th Ave. (Sycamore) $ 17,472
4th Ave. Harbor $ 7,819
Kin sview Ln. 13th $ 8,571
Olive Lane 19th $ 19,418
Olive Lane 8th $ 7,897
8th Ave. Queensland $ 4,873
Troy Ln. 30th PI. $ 7,170
30th Olive $ 6,163
Ranchview 26th $ 21,949
650 37 24050 32nd Ranchview $ 11,357
1,063 44 46772 37th (Plymouth) $ 22,087
IJ9y j
Subtotal $ 425,972
Miles 5.15 Mobilization $ 30,000
Edge milling $ 36,265
20% admin.& contingencies $ 98,447.43
590,684.60
2005 Temp Overlays MikeK.xls
A No ck. I+eh,t S
1
1
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2D10 2011 2012 2013 2014
0 BudgetK
BacklagK
AvgG
Budget_ vs. Backlog Report.
Scenario: Current Plan A Lt I
Year Budget ($K) Backlog ($K) Avg CI
2005 2,769.95 66,543.36 67
2006 2,769.99 70,941.42 65
2007 2.672.60 73,734.10 63
2008 2,570.96 78,382.98 61
2009 2,528.65 82,080.44 59
2010 2,671.78 88,159.17 57
2011 2,529.88 91,548.30 56
2012 2,562.42 97,755.78 54
2013 2,554.75 105,071.45 52
2014 2,515.77 111,317.31 51
1
1
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2D10 2011 2012 2013 2014
0 BudgetK
BacklagK
AvgG
9
Budget Analysis Report
Scenario: Current Plan
2,086.25 75.32%
Year Strategy Name Total Cost K Of Budget
2005
407.70 14.72%
Construction kC (local) 2,088.43 75.39%
Crack Seal 48.10 1.74%
Mill & Overlay 405.83 14.65%
Seal Coat (collector) 53.54 1.93%
Seal Coat (local) 174.05 6.28%
Unused Funds 0.05 0.00%
2006
Construction AC (local) 2,088.82 75.41%
Crack Seal 208.67 7.53%
Mill & Overlay 402.39 14.53%
Seal Coat (collector) 1.59 0.06%
Seal Coat (local) 68.51 2.47%
Unused Funds 0.01 0.00%
2007
Construction AC (local) 2,086.25 75.32%
Crack Seal 117.85 4.25%
Mill & Overlay 407.70 14.72%
Seal Coat (collector) 1.63 0.06%
Seal Coat (local) 59.17 2.14%
Unused Funds 97.40 3.52%
2008
Construction AC (local) 2,094.87 75.63%
Crack Seal 27.23 0.98%
Mill & Overlay 399.94 14.44%
Seal Coat (collector) 11.42 0.41%
Sea[ Coat (local) 37.49 1.35%
Unused Funds 199.04 7.19%
2009
Construction AC (local) 2,092.07 75.53%
Crack Seal 3.27 0.12%
Mill & Overlay 400.15 14.45%
Seal Coat (collector) 0.00 0.00%
Seal Coat (local) 33.16 1.20%
Unused Funds 241.35 8.71%
2010
Construction AC (local) 2,090.36 75.46%
Crack Seal 7.37 0.27%
Mill & Overlay 404.42 14.60%
Seal Coat (collector) 24.78 0.89%
Seal Coat (local) 144.85 5.23%
Unused Funds 98.22 3.55%
2011
Construction AC (local) 2,081.80 75.16%
Crack Seal 0.41 0.01%
Mill & Overlay 406.61 14.68%
Seal Coat (collector) 10.58 0,38%
n__i el -4 n.._._,i QQn AR 1 Ino/n
Construction AC (local) 2,074.53 74.89%
Crack Seal 0.83 0.03%
Mill & Overlay 419.67 15.15%
Seal Coat (collector) 3.80 0.14%
Seal Coat (local) 63.59 2.30%
Unused Funds 207.58 7.49%
2013
Construction AC (local) 2,074.25 74.88%
Crack Seal 2.05 0.07%
Mill & Overlay 415.77 15.01%
Seal Coat (collector) 14.60 0.53%
Seal Coat (local) 48.08 1.74%
Unused Funds 215.25 7.77%
2014
Construction AC (local) 2,078.35 75.03%
Crack Seal 5.71 0.21%
Mill & Overlay 405.96 14.66%
Seal Coat (collector) 11.54 0.42%
Seal Coat (local) 14.23 0.51%
Unused Funds 254.23 9.18%
1
1
1
Percentage of Budget Spent in Different Rehabilitation Type
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Unused HE Seal Coat (local) Seal Coat (collector) I] Nall & Overlay
M Crack Seal 0 Construction AC (local)
C
T 7 t
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Unused HE Seal Coat (local) Seal Coat (collector) I] Nall & Overlay
M Crack Seal 0 Construction AC (local)
Predicted Condition Report
Scenario: Current Plan
Total: 3517699.01 square yards have been analyzed each year.
Total Square Yards in Different Condition Index Intervals.
2005 980,030 1,036,944 1,500,725
2006 1,112,695 921,460 1,483,545
2007 1,221,929 786,324 1,509,446
2008 1,345,655 653,292 1,518,752
2009 1,435,382 572,681 1,509,636
2010 1,610,670 403,975 1,503,053
2011 1,730,846 324,399 1,462,454
2012 1,757,182 271,311 1,489,206
2013 1,773,280 264,479 1,479,941
2014 1,771,700 287,914 1,458,085
O
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2ul2 lugs iv 14
M 0-49
0 50-74
0 75-100
2005 2406 2007 2008 2009 2010 2019 2012 2013 2014
0
BudgetK
Back ogK
A tt O'CA 6 Z
Budget vs. Backlog Report
Scenario: Proposed CIP A L* 2.
Year Budget ($K) Backlog ($K) Avg Cl
2005 3,499.97 63,794.51 67
2006 4,518.87 64,137.87 66
2007 4,085.83 63,112.25 65
2008 3,329.33 64,243.36 64
2009 4,660.29 64,920.84 63
2010 4,023.39 66,427.39 63
2011 3,909.33 65,207.23 62
2012 3,930.18 65,995.30 61
2013 3,926.33 67,479.26 60
2014 3,903.17 67,742.65 60
2005 2406 2007 2008 2009 2010 2019 2012 2013 2014
0
BudgetK
Back ogK
Budget Analysis Report
Scenario: Proposed CIP
Year Strategy Name Total Cost $K % Of Budget
2005
Construction kC (local) 2,821.46 80.61%
Crack Sea] 54.89 1.57%
Mill & Overlay 401.16 11.46%
Seal Coat (collector) 53.47 1.53%
Seal Coat (local) 168.98 4.83%
Unused Funds 0.03 0.00%
2006
Construction AC (local) 3,842.62 85.03%
Crack Seal 215.84 4.78%
Mill & Overlay 395.83 8.76%
Seal Coat (collector) 0.00 0.00%
Seal Coat (local) 64.58 1.43%
Unused Funds 0.13 0.00%
KiIIr1
Construction AC (local) 3,550.44 83.93%
Crack Seal 82.13 1.94%
Mill & Overlay 397.63 9.40%
Seal Coat (collector) 1.49 0.04%
Seal Coat (local) 54.15 1.28%
Unused Funds 144.17 3.41%a
2008
Construction AC (local) $2,864.41 80.92%
Crack Seal $23.36 0.66%
Mill & Overlay $398.10 11.25%
Seal Coat (collector) $10.15 0.29%
Seal Coat (local) $33.31 0.94%
Unused Funds $210.67 5.95%
2009
Construction AC (local) 4,227.98 86.20%
Crack Seal 4.22 0.09%
Mill & Overlay 398.51 8.12%
Seal Coat (collector) 0.00 0.00%
Seal Coat (local) 29.59 0.60%
Unused Funds 244.71 4.99%
2040
Construction AC (local) 3,469.37 83.60%
Crack Seal 6.19 0.15%
Mill & Overlay 399.63 9.63%
Seal Coat (collector) 22.95 0.55%
Seal Coat (local) 125.25 3.02%
Unused Funds 126.61 3.05%
2011
Construction AC (local) 3,465.59 83.51%
Crack Seal 1.27 0.03%
Mill & Overlay 409.23 9.86%
Seal Coat (collector) 7.27 0.18%
zn-nl f nn1 llnrml) cg?r,.g7 0.63%
Construction AC (local) 3,474.01
Crack Seal 0.00
Mill & Overlay 400.61
Seal Coat (collector) 3.09
Seal Coat (local) 52.47
Unused Funds 219.82
2013
Construction AC (local) 3,466.66
Crack Seal 2.73
Mill & Overlay 406.71
Seal Coat (collector) 11.53
Seal Coat (local) 38.70
Unused Funds 223.67
2014
Construction AC (local) 3,472.69
Crack Seal 5.65
Mill & Overlay 400.89
Seal Coat (collector) 12.16
Seal Coat (focal) 11.79
Unused Funds 246.83
1
Percentage of Budget Spent in Different Rehabilitation Type
83.71%
0.00%
9.65%
0.07%
1.26%
5.30%
83.53%
0.07%
9.80%
0.28%
0.93%
5.39%
83.68%
0.14%
9.66%
0.29%
0.28%
5.95%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2019 2012 2013 2014
M Unused E Seal Coat (local) W Seal Coat (collector) 0 Mill & Overlay
0 Crack Seal ® Construction AC (local) .
Predicted Condition Report
Scenario: Proposed CIP
Total: 3517699.01 square yards have been analyzed each year.
Total Square Yards in Different Condition Index Intervals.
W
2005 964,916 1,036,704 1,516,079
2006 1,061,263 921,308 1,535,128
2007 1,138,224 786,324 1,593,151
2008 1,241,538 652,996 1,623,166
2009 1,285,664 572,681 1,659,353
2010 1,428,319 403,975 1,685,404
2011 1,514,397 324,159 1,679,143
2012 1,505,304 271,588 1,740,807
2013 1,484,720 265,396 1,767,584
2014 1,445,379 289,504 1,782,816
0-49
10
9
9
8
V
7
7
6E
6
5T
S
10
7
Cr
4
3
3
2
2
IE
1
2005 2006 2607 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
j0-74
5-100M
F't
s "
71
M
2005 2006 2607 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
j0-74
5-100
Expenditures per CIP for first 5 years, then remain at 4,150,000.
Construction mix Is 85% reconstruction, 10% ml0•and overlay, 5% maintenance 6 other
Street Reconstruction Levy Increase Scenario (Alt 2).x1s
Percent Recon Assessment 30.00%
Percent Mill 8 Overlay Assessment 0.00%
Percent Street Recon Total
Sheet Recon Street Recon Levy Levy Increase Surplus Total Total Needs Recon Overlay Mill &.Overlay Recon Recon B Overlay Beginning Ending
Levy Increase Levy Increase Average Home Oehl Levy Levy Inc. Sealooel Funding Needs Funding Needs Assessments Assessments Funding Needs Cash Balance Levy Fxpendlum interest Cash Bafanca
2005 1,200,700 1,288,700 3,499,960 2,821,460 401,160 0 1,306,000 1,916,620 4,300,000 1,288,700 1,916,620 110,162 3,672,086
2006 19.00% 1,533,553 244,853 9,49 1,533,553 4,454,355 3,842,620 395,830 0 1,152,766 3,085,664 3,672,086 1,533,553 3,005,664 63,599 2,119,981
2007 19.00% 1,024,928 291,375 11,29 1,824,928 4,228,520 3,550,440 397,630 0 1,065,132 2,882,938 2,119,981 1,824,920 2,082,930 31,059 1,061,977
2008 19,00% 2,171,664 346,736 13.44 2,171,554 3,540,000 2,864,410 398,100 0 659,323 2,403,187 1,061,977 2,171,664 2,403,187 24,914 630,460
2009 19,00% 2,584,281 412,616 15.99 2,554,261 4,905,010 4,227,980 398,510 0 1,268,394 3,358,096 830,460 2,584,281 3,358,0% 1,699 56,551
2010 19.00% 3,075,294 491,013 19.03 410,000 3,465,294 4,150,000 3,469,370 399,630 0 1,00,011 2,828,189 56,651 3,485,294 2,828,189 21,413 713,762
2011 0.00% 3,075,294 0 0.00 690,000 3,765,294 4,159,000 3,465,590 409,230 0 1,039,677 2,835,143 713.762 3,765,294 2,835,143 49,317 1,643,919
2012 0.00% 3,075,294 0 0.00 690,000 3,765,294 4.150,000 3474,010 400,610 0 1,042,203 2,632,417 1,643919 3,765,294 2,832,417 77,304 2,576,802
2013 0.00% 3,075,294 0 0.00 699,000 3,765,294 4,150,000 3,466,660 406,710 0 1,039,998 2,633,372 2,576,802 3,765,294 2,833,372 05,262 3,508,730
2014 0.00% 3,075,294 0 O.CO 1,295,000 4,370,294 3,927,663 3,472,690 400,890 0 1,041,607 2,831,773 3,508,730 4,370,294 2,831,773 151,418 5,047257
2015 0.00% 3,075,294 0 0.00 1,295,000 4,370,294 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,047,257 4,370,294 0 282,527 9,417,557
2015 0.00% 3,075,294 0 0.00 1,295,000 4,370,294 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,417,557 4,370194 0 413,636 13,787,657
2017 Opo% 3,075,294 0 0.00 1,295,000 4,370,294 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,787,857 4,370,294 0 544,745 18,158,157
2018 0,00% 3,075,294 0 0.00 1,295,000 4,370,294 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,158,157 4,370,294 0 675,854 22,528,457
2019 0.00% 3,075,294 0 0.00 1,295,000 4,370,294 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,528,457 4,370,294 0 806,963 26,899,757
2020 0.00% 3,075,294 0 0.00 1,295,000 4,370,294 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,898,757 4,370,294 0 938,072 31X9,057
Total 43,231,360 69 11,545,000 54,776,360 41,164,708 34,655130 4,008,300 0 10,656,131 27807,399
Street Reconstruction Levy Increase Scenario (Alt 2).x1s
Expenditures per CIP forfirsl5 years, then remain at 4,150,000.
Construction mix is 85% reconstruction, 10% mill -and ovedey, 5% maintenance 6 other
Sheet Reconsirudion Levy Increase Scanada j,wt 2).xls
Percent Recon Assessment 40.00%
Percent MTII 4 Overlay Assessment 40.00%
Percent Street Recon Total
Street Recon Street Recon Levy Levy Increase Surplus Total Tolat Needs Recon Overlay Mill d Overlay Recon Recon & Overlay Beginning Ending
Levy Increase Levy Increase Average Home DebtLevy Levy Inc. Sealcoat Funding Needs Funding Needs Assessments Assessments Funding Needs Cash Balance Levy Expenditure Interest Cash Balance
2005 1,288,700 1,288,700 3,499,960 2,821,460 401,160 150,454 1,306,000 1,756,156 4,300,000 1,288,700 1,756,156 114,976 3,832,550
2006 7.00% 1,378,909 90,209 3.50 1,378,909 4,454,355 3,842,620 395,830 158,332 1,537,048 2,543,070 3,832,550 1,378,909 2,543,070 60,052 2,668,395
2007 7.00% 1,475,433 96,524 3.74 1,475,433 4,228,520 3,550,440 397,630 159,052 1,420,176 2,368,642 2,666,395 1,475,433 2,368,842 53,250 1,774,992
2006 7.00% 1,578,713 103,280 4.00 1,578713 3,540,000 2,864,410 398,100 159,240 1,145,764 1,957,506 1,774,992 1,578,713 1,957,506 41,886 f,396,205
2009 7.00% 1,669,223 110,510 4.28 1,689,223 4,905,010 4,227,980 398,510 159,404 1,691,192 2,775,894 1,396205 1,689,223 2,775,894 9,286 309,539
2010 7.0014 1,807,468 118,246 4.58 410,000 2,217,468 4,150,000 3,469,370 399,630 159,852 1,387,748 2,321,400 309,539 2,217,468 2,321,400 6,168 205,614
2011 0.00% 11,507,468 0 0.00 690,000 2,497,468 4,159,000 3,465,590 409,230 163,692 1,386,236 2,324,692 205,614 2,497,468 2,324,892 11,348 378,196
2012 0.00% 1,607,468 0 0.00 690,000 2,497,468 4,150,000 3,474,010 400,610 160,244 1,389,604 2,324,772 378,198 2,497,468 2,324,772 18,527 550,899
2013 0.00% 1,607,468 0 0.00 690,000 2,497,468 4,150,000 3,466,660 406,710 162,584 1,386,664 2,324,022 550,899 2,497,458 2,324,022 21,730 724,351
2014 0.00% 1,807,468 0 0.00 1,295,000 2,102,468 3,927,853 3,472,590 400,890 160,356 1,389,076 2,324,148 724,351 3,102,458 2,324,148 45,080 1,502,677
2015 0.00% 1,607,466 6 0.03 1,295,000 3,102,468 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,502,677 3,102,458 0 138,154 4,605,152
2016 0.00% 1,807,468 0 0.00 1,295,000 3,102,468 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,505,152 3,102,458 0 231,229 7,707,626
2017 0.00% 1,807,466 0 0.00 1,295,000 3,102,468 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,707,626 3,102,468 0 324,303 10,810,101
2016 0.00% 1,807,466 0 0.00 1,295,000 3,102,468 a a o a 0 0 10,810,101 3,102,458 0 417,377 13,912,575
2019 0,00% 1,807,466 0 0.00 1,295,000 3,102,458 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,912,575 3,102,468 0 510,451 17,015,050
2020 0.00% 1,807,466 0 0,00 1,295,000 3,102,458 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,015,050 3,102,468 0 603,526 20,117,524
To1at 27,293,130 20 11,545,000 38,838,130 41,164,708 34,655,230 4,008,300 1,603,320 14,039,508 23,020,702
Sheet Reconsirudion Levy Increase Scanada j,wt 2).xls
ft ff A&( K '?
Budget vs Backlog Report
Scenario: 50%150% A 1 3
Year Budget ($K) Backlog ($K) Avg Cl
2005 3,499.94 66,267.35 67
2006 4,507.76 69,283.01 66
2007 3,980.27 69,972.53 65
2008 4,950.72 72,100.91 64
2009 5,912.42 72,218.41 64
2010 7,204.95 70,647.86 65
2011 8,282.05 66,978.50 66
2012 8,497.53 63,319.62 67
2013 8,460.86 61,932.86 69
2014 8,426.41 60,142.43 69
2015 81430.80 58,635.32 70
2016 8,366.63 55,031.15 71
2017 8,366.93 55,177.94 71
2018 8,367.56 56,996.47 71
2019 8,409.06 59,391.61 71
2020 8,350.12 62,082.05 71
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
IBudgetK
BacklogKAvgG
Budget Analysis Report
Scenario: 50%150%
Year Strategy Name Total Cost $K % Of Budget
2005
Construction kC (local) 2,824.54 80.70%
Crack Seal 48.88 1.40%
Mill & Overlay 398.94 11.40%
Seal Coat (collector) 53.54 1.53%
Seal Coat (local) 174.05 4.97%
Unused Funds 0.06 0.00%
2006
Construction AC (local) 3,646.25 80.67%
Crack Seal 273.58 6.05%
Mill & Overlay 517.83 11.46%
Seal Coat (collector) 1.59 0.04%
Seal Coat (local) 68.51 1.52%
Unused Funds 12.24 0.27%
2007
Construction AC (local) 3,394.20 80.55%
Crack Seal 44.56 1.06%
Mill & Overlay 480.71 11.41%
Seal Coat (collector) 1.63 0.04%
Seal Coat (local) 59.17 1.40%
Unused Funds 233.73 5.55%
2008
Construction AC (local) 2,402.91 47.23%
Crack Seal 25.00 0.49%
Mill & Overlay 2,480.43 48.75%
Seal Coat (collector) 4.89- 0.10%
Seal Coat (local) 37.49 0.74%
Unused Funds 137.28 2.70%
2009
Construction AC (local) 2,882.17 47.50%
Crack Seal 33.48 0.55%
Mill & Overlay 2,943.00 48.50%
Seal Coat (collector) 16.81 0.28%
Seal Coat (local) 36.96 0.61%
Unused Funds 155.58 2.56%
2010
Construction AC (local) 3,431.28 47.12%
Crack Seal 55.54 0.76%
Mill & Overlay 3,552.60 48.79%
Seal Coat (collector) 28.56 0.39%
Seal Coat (local) 136.96 1.88%
Unused Funds 77.05 1.06%
2011
Construction AC (local) 4,032.44 47.44%
Crack Seal 61.11 0.72%
Mill & Overlay 4,126.10 48.54%
Seal Coat (collector) 32.77 0.39%
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Construction AC (local) 7,554.40 88.88%
Crack Seal 61.55 0.72%
Mill & Overlay 775.49 9.12%
Seal Coat (collector) 15.12 0.18%
Seal Coat (local) 90.98 1.07%
Unused Funds 2.47 0.03%
Construction AC (local) 7,555.48 88.89%
Crack Seal 9.91 0.12%
Mill & Overlay 773.20 9.10%
Seal Coat (collector) 31.16 0.37%
Seal Coat (local) 91.10 1.07%
Unused Funds 39.14 0.46%
Construction AC (local) 7,542.62 88.74%
Crack Seal 12.44 0.15%
Mill & Overlay 775.15 9.12%
Sea[ Coat (collector) 30.25 0.36%
Seal Coat (local) 65.96 0.78%
Unused Funds 73.59 0.87%
Construction AC (local) 7,535.79 88.66%
Crack Seal 19.74 0.23%
Mill & Overlay 783.80 9.22%
Seal Coat (collector) 18.36 0.22%
Seal Coat (local) 73.11 0.86%
Unused Funds 69.20 0.81%
Construction AC (local) 7,534.13 88.64%
Crack Seal 11.48 0.14%
Mill & Overlay 786.47 9.25%
Seal Coat (collector) 5.39 0.06%
Seal Coat (local) 29.15 0.34%
Unused Funds 133.37 1.57%
Construction AC (local) 7,551.35 88.84%
Crack Seal 4.06 0.05%
Mill & Overlay 776.98 9.14%
Seal Coat (collector) 0.00 0.00%
Seal Coat (local) 34.54 0.41%
Unused Funds 133.07 1.57%
Construction AC (local) 7,549.33 88.82%
Crack Seal 11.64 0.14%
Mill & Overlay 774.50 9.11%
Seal Coat (collector) 9.11 0.11%
Seal Coat (local) 22.98 0.27%
Unused Funds 132.44 1.56%
Construction AC (local) 7,562.57 88.97%
Crack Seal 13.94 0.16%
Mill & Overlay 763.28 8.98%
1 •. ... .- .1 0 nn 4n n')A 01
2020
Construction AC (local) 7,564.13 88.99%
Crack Seal 14.43 0.17%
Mill & Overlay 760.73 8.95%
Seal Coat (collector) 7.53 0.09%
Seal Coat (local) 3.28 0.04%
Unused Funds 149.88 1.76%
Percentage of Budget Spent in Different Rehabilitation Type
20D5 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2074 "LUIS ZUIb Zuir Zuin ZuIa zuiu
0 Unused ® Seal Coat (local) M Seal Coat (collector) 0 Mill & Overlay
0 Crack Seal ® Construction AC (local) .
Predicted Condition Report
Scenario: 50%150%
Total: 3517699,01 square yards have been analyzed each year.
Total Square Yards in Different Condition Index Intervals.
2005 966,716 1,036,944 1,514,039
2006 1,067,285 921,460 1,528,955
2007 1,151,198 786,324 1,580,177
2008 1,198,162 653,292 1,666,245
2009 1,189,728 572,978 1,754,993
2010 1,241,910 403,975 1,871,814
2011 1,214,877 316,837 1,985,985
2012 1,147,936 290,169 2,079,574
2013 1,066,317 280,121 2,171,261
2014 1,003,076 299,328 2,215,296
2015 942,299 363,105 2,212,295
2016 914,464 420,060 2,183,175
2017 914,642 467,847 2,135,210
2018 926,198 546,652 2,044,849
2019 964,315 418,586 2,134,798
2020 1,017,218 265,999 2,214,482
10 il0 0-49
i N 50-74
75"100
0
2UU5 2UUb 2UU7 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Expendllures par CIP for first 3 yens, then Increase by 20% per year from 2008 to 2011, remain at 8,500,000 there a her.
Conslrvction mix Is 81% recon, 11% mda, 8% maint & other 2005-2007 - 47.5% ratan, 47.5 m&o, 5% mains 8 other 2008-2011 -89% recon, 9% m&o, 2% ma)nt d other 2012 to 2020.
Street Reconslructian Levy Increase Scenario (All 3).xls
Percent Recon Assessment 30.00%
Percent Mil 8 Overlay Assessment
Percent Street R6con Total
Street Rewn Street Rewn Levy Lavy Increase Surplus Tetal Total Needs Recon Overlay Mill 8 Cveday Reran Recon d Overlay Beginning Ending
Levy Increase Levy Increase Average Home Debt Levy Levy Me. Seal,=t Furding Needs Funding Needs Assessments Assessments Funding Needs Cash Balance Levy Expenditure Interest Cash Batance
2005 1288,700 1,288,700 3,499,950 2,824,540 398,940 0 1,306,000 1,917,480 4,300,000 1,288,700 1,917,460 110,137 3,671,226
2005 36.00% 1,752,632 463,932 17.98 1,752,632 4,520,000 3,646,250 517,830 0 1993 875 3970,205 3 6711,226 1.752,S32 3,070,205 70,610 2,353,659
2007 36.00-A 2,383,5110 630,940 24.45 2,383,580 4214,000 3,394,200 480,710 0 1916,260 2,6515,1350 2,353,659 2,383,580 2,856,650 56,418 1,880,595
2008 35.00% 3,241,668 858,089 33.26 3,241,668 5,448,000 2,402,910 2,840,430 0 720,873 4,522,467 1,880,595 3,241,668 4,522,467 17,994 599,802
2009 35.00% 4,408,669 1,157,001 45.23 4,408,669 6,068,000 2,882,170 2,943,000 0 864,651 4,9E0,519 599,802 4,4CB,669 4,960,519 1,439 47,957
2010 35.00% 5,995,789 1,587,121 61.51 410,000 5,405,789 7,281,990 3,431,280 3,552,600 0 1,029,384 5,954,496 47,957 8,405,769 954,496 14,978 499,257
2011 0.00% 5,995,789 0 0.00 690,000 6,685,789 8,500,000 4,032,440 4,126,100 0 1,209,732 6,948,808 499,257 6,685,789 8,948,808 7,087 236,244
2012 0.00% 5,995,789' 0 0.00 690,000 6,685,789 8,500,010 7,554,400 775,490 0 2,266 920 6,063,570 236,244 6,685789 6,053,570 25,754 858,470
2013 0.00% 5,995,789 0 0.00 590,000 6,685,789 8,500,090 7,554,480 773,200 0 2,268,344 6,061,336 58,470 0,665,769 6,OB1,336 44,486 1,482,929
2014 0.00% 5,995,789 0 0.00 1295,000 7,290,789 8,500,000 7,542,620 775,150 0 2,262,786 6,054,984 1,482,929 7,290,789 6,054,984 81,562 2,718,740
2015 0.00% 5,995,789 0 0.00 1,295,000 7,290,789 8,500,000 7,535,790 783,800 0 2,260,737 6,058,853 2,718,740 7,290,789 6,058,853 118,520 3,950,653
2016 0,00% 5,995,789 0 0.00 1,295,000 7,290,789 8,500,000 7,534,130 788,470 0 2,260,239 6,060,361 3,950,583 7,290,789 6,060,361 155,433 5,151,117
2017 0.00% 5,995,789 0 0.00 1,295,000 7,290,789 8,500,000 7,551,350 776,980 0 2,265,405 6,062,925 5,181,117 7,290,789 6,062,925 192,269 6,408,988
2018 0.00% 5,995,789 0 0.00 1,295,000 7,290,769 8,500,000 7,549,330 774,500 0 2,264,799 6,059,031 6,408,988 7,290,789 6,059,031 229,222 7,640,752
2019 0.00% 5,995,789 0 0.00 1295,000 7,290,789 8,500,000 7,562,570 763,280 0 2,268,771 6,057,079 7,640,752 7,290,789 6,057,079 266234 8,074,458
2020 0.00% 5,995,789 0 0.00 1295,000 7,290,789 8,500,000 7,564,130 760,730 0 2,269,239 6,055,621 8,874,468 7,290,789 6,055,521 303,289 10,109,643
Total 79,028,932 182 11,545,000 90,573,932 116,031,950 90,562,590 21,829,210 0 27,627,415 84,764,385 90,573,932 84,764,385
Street Reconslructian Levy Increase Scenario (All 3).xls
Expenditures per CIP far Brit 3 years, then Increase by 20% per year from 2008 io 2011, remain at 8,500,000 thereafter.
Construclian mix Is 81% recon, 11% m&o, 8% mains 8. other 200&2007 .47.5% recon, 47.5 m8a, 5% maint 8. ether 2008-2011- 89% recon, 9% m6a, 2% maint 8. other 201210 2020.
Street Reconstrv'cron Levy Increase Scenario (All3).xls
Percent Recon Assessment 40.00%
Percent MITI 8 Overlay Assessment 40.00%
Percent Street Recon Total
Street Recon Street Recon Levy Levy Increase Surplus Total Total Needs Recon Ovariay Mill S Oveday Recon Recan 5 Overlay Beginning Ending
Levy Increase Levy Increase Average Home Oeb1 Levy Levy Ina Sealeoal Funding Needs Funding Needs Assessments Assessments Funding Needs Cash Balance Levy Expenditure frteresl Cash Balance
2005 1,288,700 1,288,700 3,499,950 2,824,540 398,940 159,576 1,306,000 1,757,904 4,300,000 1,288,700 1,757,904 114,924 3,630;802
2006 22.00% 1,572,214 283,514 10.99 1,572,214 4,520000 3,646,250 517,830 207,132 1,458,500 2,498,448 3,630,802 1,572,214 2498,448 87,137 2,904,574
2007 22.00% 1,918,101 345,887 1340 1,918,101 4,214,000 3,394,200 480,710 192,284 1,357,680 2,324,946 2,904,574 1,918,101 2,324,946 74,932 2497,735
2008 22.00% 2,340,083 421,982 16.35 2,340,083 5,448,000 2,402,910 2,840;430 1,136,172 961,154 3,146,004 2497,735 2,340,083 3,146,004 50,754 1,691,620
2009 20,00% 2,508,100 466,017 18,14 2,608,100 6,068,000 2,682,170 2,943,000 1,177,200 1,152,866 3,495,102 1,691,620 2,808,100 3,495,102 30,145 1,004,824
2010 20,)0°,6 3,369,720 551.620 21.77 410,000 3,779,720 7,281,990 3,431,260 3,552,600 1,421,040 1,372,512 4,190,328 1,004,624 3,779,720 4,190,328 17,826 594 22
2011 15.00% 3,975,178 505,458 19,59 690,000 4,565,178 8,500,000 4,032,440 4,126,100 1,650,440 1,612,976 4,895,124 594x22 4,565,178 4,895,124 7,926 284,282
2012 10,00% 4,262,696 367,518 15.02 690,000 4,952.696 6,500,010 7,554,400 775,490 310,196 3,021,760 4,997,934 264,282 4,952,696 4,997,934 6,571 219,050
2913 0.00% 4,262,696 0 0,00 690,600 4,952,696 6,500,000 7554,480 773,200 309,260 3,021,792 4,996,608 219,050 4,952.698 4,998,608 5,254 175,144
2014 0,00% 4,262,698 0 0.00 1,295,000 5,551,696 6,500,000 7,542,620 775,150 310,060 3,017,040 4,990,662 175,144 5,557,698 4,990,662 27,265 742,764
2015 0,00% 4.262.696 0 0,00 1,295,000 5.551.696 8,500,000 7,535,790 763,600 313,520 3,014,316 4,991,754 742,184 5,557,696 4,991,754 39,244 1,308,131
2016 0,00% 4,262,696 0 0,00 1,295,000 5,557,696 B.soo,000 7,536,130 766,470 314.508 3,013,652 4,992,360 1.3DS,t31 5,557,696 4,992,360 56,204 1,873,473
2017 0.00% 4,262,696 0 0,00 1,295,000 5,557,596 8,500,000 7,551,350 776,960 310,792 3,020,540 4,996,998 1,873,473 5,557,698 4,996,998 73,025 2,434,177
2018 0.00% 4,262,698 0 0.00 1,295,000 5,557.696 8,500,000 7,549,330 774,500 309,800 3,019,732 4,994,299 2,434,177 5,557,696 4,994,298 69,927 2,997,581
2019 0,00% 4,262.698 0 0,00 1,295,000 5,557,696 a,50o,000 7,562,570 763,280 305,312 3,025,028 4,995,510 2,997,581 5,557,696 4,995,510 106,743 3,559,773
2020 0.00% 4,262,696 0 0.00 1,295,000 5,557,695 8,500,000 7,564,130 760,730 304,292 3,025,652 4,994,916 3,559,773 5,557,696 4,994,916 123,877 4,122,558
Total 55,535,358 115 11,545,000 67,081,358 116,031,950 90,562,590 21,829,210 8,731,684 36,401,220 67,258,896 67,081,358 67,258,898
Street Reconstrv'cron Levy Increase Scenario (All3).xls
Scenario: 50%150%
A tf AA
Budget vs. Backlog Report
r
Year Budget ($K) Backlog ($K) Avg Ci
2005 3,499.93 65,813.38 67
2006 9,999.90 62,959.89 69
2007 4,213.96 63,760.77 68
2008 5,023.58 64,847.25 67
2009 5,895.71 63,616.92 67 .
2010 7,252.40 63,211.11 68
2011 7,330.86 60,009.76 69
2012 7,499.18 57,121.39 70
2013 7,990.51 57,547.45 71
2014 7,949.79 56,445.31 71
2015 7,926.81 53,026.17 72
2016 7,891.67 52,823.49 71
20i7 7,864.70 55,197.83 71
2018 7,868.16 57,715.46 71
2019 7,909.98 60,662.80 70
2020 7,866.45 64,463.67 70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020
m
Budget Analysis Report
Scenario: 50%/50%
Year Strategy Name Total Cost $K '/o Of Budget
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Construction kC (local) 2,824.54
Crack Seal 48.59
Mill & Overlay 399.21
Seal Coat (collector) 53.54
Seal Coat (local) 174.05
Unused Funds 0.07
Construction AC (local) 8,497.18
Crack Seal 131.86
Mill & Overlay 1,300.76
Seal Coat (collector) 1.59
Seal Coat (local) 68.51
Unused Funds 0.10
Construction AC (local) 1,995.17
Crack Seal 150.09
Mill & Overlay 2,007.90
Seal Coat (collector) 1.63
Seal Coat (local) 59.17
Unused Funds 0.04
Construction AC (local) 2,395.36
Crack Seal 122.35
Mill & Overlay 2,456.96
Seal Coat (collector) 11.42
Seal Coat (local) 37.49
Unused Funds 32.42
Construction AC (local) 2,871.34
Crack Seal 39.21
Mill & Overlay 2,952.13
Seal Coat (collector) 0.00
Seal Coat (local) 33.03
Unused Funds 172.29
Construction AC (local) 3,431.28
Crack Seal 57.90
Mill & Overlay 3,559.41
Seal Coat (collector) 41.33
Seal Coat (local) 162.47
Unused Funds 29.60
Construction AC (local) $3,548.14
Crack Seal $60.55
Mill & Overlay $3,644.62
Seal Coat (collector) $25.68
Seal Coat (local) $51.87
80.70%
1.39%
11.41%
1.53%
4,97%
0.00%
84.97%
1.32%
13.01%
0.02%
0.69%
0.00%
47.35%
3.56%
47.65%
0.04%
1.40%
0.00%
47.38%
2.42%
48.59%
0.23%
0.74%
0.64%
47.32%
0.65%
48.65%
0.00%
0.54%
2.84%
47.12%
0.80%
48.88%
0.57%
2.23%
0.41%
47.31%
0.81%
48.59%
0.34%
0.69%
Construction AC (local) 6,664.20 88.86%
Crack Seal 43.24 0.58%
Mill & Overlay 682.50 9.10%
Seal Coat (collector) 14.44 0.19%
Seal Coat (local) 94.80 1.26%
Unused Funds 0.82 0.01%
2013
Construction AC (local) 7,092.34 88.65%
Crack Seal 29.26 0.37%
Mill & Overlay 746.57 9.33%
Seal Coat (collector) 30.66 0.38%
Seal Coat (local) 91.69 1.15%
Unused Funds 9.49 0.12%
2014
Construction AC (local) 7,118.34 88.98%
Crack Seal 12.17 0.15%
Mill & Overlay 719.79 9.00%
Seal Coat (collector) 33.09 0.41%
Seal Coat (local) 66.40 0.83%
Unused Funds 50.21 0.63%
2015
Construction AC (local) 7,119.24 88.99%
Crack Seal 17.97 0.22%
Mill & Overlay 717.72 8.97%
Seal Coat (collector) 9.93 0.12%
Seal Coat (local) 61.95 0.77%
Unused Funds 73.19 0.91%
Construction AC (local) 7,103.05 88.79%
Crack Seal 14.59 0.18%
Mill & Overlay 736.22 9.20%
Seal Coat (collector) 5.39 0.07%
Seal Coat (local) 32.42 0.41%
Unused Funds 108.33 1.35%
2017
Construction AC (local) 7,113.46 88.92%
Crack Seal 5.61 0.07%
Mill & Overlay 711.61 8.90%
Seal Coat (collector) 0.00 0.00%
Seal Coat (local) 34.02 0.43%
Unused Funds 135.30 1.69%
2018
Construction AC (local) 7,115.41 88.94%
Crack Seal 10.28 0.13%
Mill & Overlay 717.61 8.97%
Seal Coat (collector) 2.97 0.04%
Seal Coat (local) 21.89 0.27%
Unused Funds 131.84 1.65%
2019
Construction AC (local) 7,112.32 88.90%
Crack Seal 13.40 0.17%
Mill & Overlay 716.17 8.95%
2 4 Cz r,'i rl 91 0/
2020
1
Construction AC (local) 7,118.84 88.99%
Crack Seal 15.27 0.19%
Mill & Overlay 720.34 9.00%
Seal Coat (collector) 7.53 0.09%
Seal Coat (local) 4.46 0.06%
Unused Funds 133.55 1.67%
Percentage of Budget Spent in Different Rehabilitation Type
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017 2018 2019 2020
Unused N Seal Coat (local) W Seal Coat (collector) p Mil & Overlay
ES Crack Seal 0 Construction AC (local)
Predicted Condition Report
Scenario: 50%150%
Total: 3517699.01 square yards have been analyzed each year.
Total Square Yards in Different Condition Index Intervals.
2005 966,945 1,036,704 1,514,050
2006 951,857 921,460 1,644,383
2007 1,005,980 786,324 1,725,395
2008 1,054,175 652,996 1,810,528
2009 1,045,909 572,385 1,899,404
2010 1,097,574 403,679 2,016,446
2011 1,092,881 324,399 2,100,420
2012 1,042,129 271,302 2,204,268
2013 975,604 315,075 2,227,020
2014 894,807 392,093 2,230,799
2015 902,351 401,120 2,214,228
2016 914,208 425,993 2,177,498
2017 927,353 471,671 2,118,674
2018 946,514 523,936 2,047,249
2019 994,762 397,487 2,125,451
2020 1,028,574 289,446 2,199,679
M 0-49
10
9
9
8
S
7
7
6
6
s 5
5
ro 4
N 4
3
3
2
2
1
Er
1
50-74
75-100
b
ff
9nn ;nna gnna Anna mn 2n1s 2n12 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
50-74
75-100
FEvenditures per CIP for year 1, 10,000,0001n ytar2, C1P In year 3, then increase by 20% per year from 260810 2010, remain at 7,500,000 2011 -2012, and 8,000,000 them a8er.
Construction mu is 83% recon, 12% m3o, 5% main & other 2005.2006.47.5% moon, 47.5 m&o, 5% maint 6 other 2007-2011 -89% moon, 9% m80, 2% mein R other 7012 to 2020.
Sheet Reconstrudion Levy Increase Scenado (Aa 4).tts
Percent Recon Assessment 30.00%
Pennant MIA S Overlay Assessment O.00%
Percent Street Recon Total
Street Recon Street Recon Levy Levy Increase Surplus Total TOMI Needs Recon Overlay Mill 6 Overlay Recon Recon 6 Ovedey Beginning Ending
Levy Increase Levy Increase Average Home Debt Levy Levy inc. Sealcaat Funding Needs Funding Needs Assessments Assessments Fundhlg Needs Debt Service Cash Balance Levy Expenditure Interest Cash Balance
2005 1,288,700 1,288,700 3,590,000 2,924.540 399,210 0 1,308000 1,917,750 4,300,000 1,288,700 1,917,750 110,129 3,670,956
2006 3600% 1,778,408 489,706 18.96 1,778.406 10.000,000 8,497,180 1,300,760 0 2.549.154 7,248,786 3,870,956 1,778.406 0 183,481 5,449,368
2007 38.90% 2,454,200 575,794 26.19 2,454,200 4,214.000 1,995,170 2,007,900 a 598,551 3,404,519 916,093 5,449,365 2,454,200 4,320,812 107,489 3,582,982
2008 38.00% 3,388,798 932,$96 36.14 3.386,798 5,956,000 2,395,350 2,456,950 0 718,608 4,133,712 916,093 3,582,962 3,388,796 5,049,805 57,599 1,919,960
2009 36.00% 4,673,779 1,288,983 49.98 4,673,779 6,068,000 2,871,340 2,952,130 0 861,402 4,962.068 916,093 1,919,960 4,673,779 5,878,161 21.457 715;584
2010 30.06% 6,075,913 1,402,134 54.34 410,000 6,485,913 7,281,990 3.431.280 3,559,410 0 1,029,364 5,961,300 916,093 715,$84 6,485,913 6,877,399 9,723 324,103
2011 0.00% 6,(Y75,913 0 0,00 690.000 6,765,913 7,500,000 3,548,140 3,614.620 0 1,064,442 6,128,318 916.093 324,103 8,765,913 7,044,411 1,368 45,611
2012 0.00% 6,075,913 0 0.00 690,000 61765,913 7,500,000 6,6B4,200 682,500 0 1.999.260 5.347,440 916,893 45,611 6,765,913 6.263,533 16,440 547,997
2013 0.00% 8,075,913 0 0.00 690,000 8,785,913 6,000,010 7,092,340 746,570 0 2,127,702 5,711,208 918,093 547,997 6,765,913 6,827,301 20,598 see,615
2014 0,00% 8,075,913 0 0.00 1,295,000 7,370,913 8,000,000 7,118,340 719,790 0 2,135,502 5,702,828 916.093 666,615 7,370,913 6,1118,721 43,184 1436,812
2015 0.01)% 6.975,913 a 0.00 1,295,000 7,370.913 8,000,000 7,119,240 717,720 0 2.135,772 5.701,186 916,093 1,439,812 7,370,913 6,817,281 65,773 2,192,458
21)16 0.99% 6,075,913 0 0:00 1,205,000 7,370,913 8,000.090 7,103,050 736,220 0 2,130,915 5,708,355 916,093 2,192,450 7,370,913 6,824,448 88,167 2,938,921
2017 0,00% 6.075.913 0 0.00 1,295,000 7,370,913 8,1100,000 7.113,460 711,810 0 2,134,038 501,032 2,935,921 7,370,913 5,691,032 138,564 4.61 It.=
2018 0.00% 6.075,913 a a.00 1,295,000 7,370,913 8.000,000 7,115,410 717.010 0 2,134,623 5,598,397 4,618,807 7,370,913 5,898,397 188.740 6,291,329
2919 0.00% 8,075,913 a 0.00 1,295,900 7,370,913 8.000.000 7,112.320 716,170 0 2,133,590 5,694,794 6,291,329 7,370.913 5,694,794 239,023 7,907,454
2020 0.99% 6,075,913 0 13.00 1,295.000 7,370.913 8,000,000 7,116,840 720,340 0 2.135,852 5,703,528 7,957,454 7,370,913 5,703,528 289,045 9,834,845
Total 80,418,922 186 11,545,000 91.961,922 115,120,000 89,120,210 22,769,520 0 27,194,701 84,715,029 9,160,930 91,981,922 88,627,173
Sheet Reconstrudion Levy Increase Scenado (Aa 4).tts
Expenditures per C1P for year 1, 10,000,000 h1 year 2, CIP In year 3, then Increase by 20% per yeas from 200810 2019, remain at 7,500,000 2011 -201Z and 8,000,000 thereafter.
Construction mba is 83% remn, 12% m&o, 5% maim 8 other 200&2008 - 47.5% reran, 47,5 mL a. 5% melnt 8 other 2007-2011 - 89% moon. 9% m8o, 2% maim 6 other 2012 to 2029.
Slreel Reranslrudton Levy Increase Sanedo (AB 4).sds
Beginnln0 En6ng
Cash Balance
Percent Recon Assessment
Expenditure Interest Cash Balance
4,300,000
40.00%
1,758,068 114,919 3,830,648
3,830,640 1,572,214 0 162,086 5,402,850
Percent Mill 8 Overlay Assessment
1,918.101 3,144.793 125,285
40,00%
4,1711,174 2,340,083
Percent Street Recon Total
2,861,920 2,854,902 4,237,033 44,394 1,479,795
1,479,795 3,635,882 4,937,385 11,349
Street Recon Street Recon Levy Levy Increase Surplus Total Total Needs Remn Overlay Mill S Overlay Recon Recon 6 Overlay
5,150,911
Levy Increase Levy Increase Average Home Debt Levy Levy Inc, Sealraat Funding Needs Funding Needs Assessments Assessments Funding Needs Debt Service
2005
5,445,829
1,280,700
565.853
565,653
1,208,700 3.500,000 2,824,540 399,210 159,884 1,306,000 1,755,066
44,190
2000 22.00% 1,572.214 283,514 10.99 1,572,214 10,000,000 8,497,180 1,300,760 520,304 3,398,872 5,878,764
5.899.385
2007 22.00% 1,818,101 345,067 13.40 1,918,101 4,214,000 1,995,170 2,007,900 803,160 798,068 2,401,842 742,951
2006 22.00% 2,340,083 421,982 18.35 2,340,083 5.956,000 2,395,360 2,456,960 902,784 958,144 2,911,392 742,951
2009 22.00% 2,854,992 514,818 19.95 2,854,902 8,088,000 2,871,340 2,952,130 1,180,552 1,148,536 3,494,082 742,951
2010 2000% 3,425,882 570,980 22.13 410,000 3,835,862 7,281,990 3,431,280 3,559,410 1,423,764 1,372,512 4,194,414 742,951
2011 29.00% 4,111,058 685,176 28.55 690,000 4,801,958 7,500,000 3,548,140 3,844,620 1,457848 1,419,256 4,315,658 742,951
2012 12.00% 4,604,385 493,327 19,12 690,000 5,294,385 7,500,000 6,664,200 652,500 273,000 2,665;680 4,408,020 742,951
2013 0.00% 4.604.385 0 0.90 690,000 5.294.385 0,000,010 7,082,340 746,570 295,626 2,836,836 4,703,340 742,851
2014 0.00% 4,604,385 0 0.00 1,295,000 5,899,385 8,000,000 7,118,340 719,790 287,916 2,847,336 4,702,878 742,951
2015 0.00% 4,604,385 0 0.00 1,295,000 5,899,365 8,000,000 7,119,240 717,720 287,088 2,847,696 4,702.176 742,951
2018 0.00% 4.604,385 0 9.00 1.295,000 5.899,355 8,000,000 7,103,050 736270 294,486 2,841,220 4,703,562 742,951
2017 0.00% 4,604,385 0 0.00 1,295,000 5,899,385 8,000,000 7,113,460 711,610 284,644 2,845,384 4,695,042
2018 0.00% 4,604,365 0 0.00 1,295,000 5,899,385 8,000.000 7,115,410 717,810 281,044 2,840,164 4,699,612
2019 0.00% 4,604,385 0 0.00 1,295,000 5,899,355 8,000,000 7,112,320 716,170 286,468 2,844,928 4.697.094
2020 0,00% 4,604,385 0 0.00 1,295,000 5,899,385 6,000,000 7,118,840 720,340 288,135 2,847,538 4,703,508
Total 58,950,409 129 11,545,000 70,495,409 115,120,000 89,120,210 22,709,520 9,115,098 35.524.268 66.969,654
Slreel Reranslrudton Levy Increase Sanedo (AB 4).sds
Beginnln0 En6ng
Cash Balance Levy Expenditure Interest Cash Balance
4,300,000 1,288,700 1,758,068 114,919 3,830,648
3,830,640 1,572,214 0 162,086 5,402,850
5.402.860 1,918.101 3,144.793 125,285 4,176,174
4,1711,174 2,340,083 3,854,343 B5,851 2,881,920
2,861,920 2,854,902 4,237,033 44,394 1,479,795
1,479,795 3,635,882 4,937,385 11,349 378,318
378.318 4.891.058 5,058,807 3,623 120,775
120,175 5,294,385 5,150,911 7,926 264,195
264,196 5,294,385 5,446,297 3,369 112,290
112.290 5.8911,385 5,445,829 16,975 565.853
565,653 5,899,385 5,445,127 30,603 1,020,117
1,020,117 5,899,385 5,446,513 44,190 1,472,995
1.472,995 5.899,385 4,695,042 80,320 2,677,345
2,677,345 5,899,385 4,898,612 119,308 3,876,924
3,876,924 5.899.385 4,897.094 152,376 5,079.221
5,079,221 5,1199,385 4,703,508 188]53 0,275,105
70,495,409 88,520,400
Debt Service Debt Service
7,248,786 5,878,764
0.045 0.045
10 10
916,093.03) ($742,951.27)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Budget vs. Backlog Report
AScenario: 50%150% vT
Year Budget ($K) Backlog ($K) Avg C[
2005 3,499.94 66,267.35 67
2006 4,507.76 69,283.01 66
2007 3,980.27 69,972.53 65
2008 4,513.19 72,538.43 64
2009 4,967.99 73,740.17 63
2010 5,597.65 73,812.91 64
2011 6,030.58 72,769.70 64
2012 6,786.98 71, 777.13 64
2013 7,436.30 71,796.98 65
2014 8,125.46 70,689.87 65
2015 8,944.46 69,001.41 66
2016 9,731.33 64,340.31 67
2017 9,829.64 63,439.50 68
2018 9,840.09 63,354.38 69
2019 9,885.32 63,443.05 70
2020 9,828.54 62,427.50 70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Budget Analysis Report
Scenario: 50%150%
Year Strategy Name Total Cost $K % Of Budget
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Construction NC (local) 2,824.54 80.70%
Crack Seal 48.88 1.40%
Mill & Overlay 398.94 11.40%
Seal Coat (collector) 53.54 1.53%
Seal Coat (local) 174.05 4.97%
Unused Funds 0.06 0.00%
Construction AC (local) 3,646.25 80.67%
Crack Seal 273.58 6.05%
Mill & Overlay 517.83 11.46%
Seat Coat (collector) 1.59 0.04%
Seat Coat (local) 68.51 1.52%
Unused funds 12.24 0.27%
Construction AC (local) 3,394.20 80.55%
Crack Seal 44.56 1.06%
Mill & Overlay 480.71 11.41%
Seal Coat (collector) 1.63 0.04%
Seal Coat (local) 59.17 1.40%
Unused Funds 233.73 5.55%
Construction AC (local) 2,190.09 47.25%
Crack Seal 25.00 0.54%
Mill & Overlay 2,255.72 48.67%
Seal Coat (collector) 4.89 0.11%
Seal Coat (local) 37.49 0.81%
Unused Funds 121.81 2.63%
Construction AC (local) 2,414.68 47.36%
Crack Seal 27.89 0.55%
Mill & Overlay 2,471.64 48.47%
Seat Coat (collector) 16.81 0.33%
Seal Coat (local) 36.96 0.72%
Unused Funds 131.01 2.57%
Construction AC (local) 2,643.74 47.13%
Crack Seal 47.60 0.85%
Mill & Overlay 2,740.79 48.86%
Seal Coat (collector) 28.56 0.51%
Seal Coat (local) 136.96 2.44%
Unused Funds 11.35 0.20%
Construction AC (local) 2,924.96 47.41%
Crack Seal 45.32 0.73%
Mill & Overlay 2,997.89 48.59%
Seal Coat (collector) 32.77 0.53%
Seal Coat (local) 29.63 0.48%
Construction AC (local) 6,040.19 89.00%
Crack Seal 42.53 0.63%
Mill & Overlay 606.99 8.94%
Seal Coat (collector) 10.69 0.16%
Seal Coat (local) 86.58 1.28%
Unused Funds 0.02 0.00%
2013
Construction AC (local) 6,638.35 88.93%
Crack Seal 9.27 0.12%
Mil[ & Overlay 676.18 9.06%
Seal Coat (collector) 27.96 0.37%
Seal Coat (local) 84.53 1.13%
Unused Funds 28.70 0.38%
2014
Construction AC (local) 7,306.92 88.99%
Crack Seal 11.04 0.13%
Mi[I & Overlay 735.76 8.96%
Seal Coat (collector) 19.77 0.24%
Sea[ Coat (local) 51.97 0.63%
Unused Funds 85.54 1.04%
2015
Construction AC (local) 8,035.63 88.97%
Crack Seal 18.10 0.20%
Mill & Overlay 815.06 9.02%
Seal Coat (collector) 18.36 0.20%
Seal Coat (local) 57.31 0.63%
Unused Funds 87.54 0.97%
2016
Construction AC (local) 8,786.28 88.75%
Crack Seal 11.83 0.12%
Mill & Overlay 902.24 911%
Seal Coat (collector) 5.13 0.05%
Seal Coat (local) 25.85 0.26%
Unused Funds 168.67 1.70%
2017
Construction AC (local) 8,898.51 88.99%
Crack Seal 6.95 0.07%
Mill & Overlay 891.12 8.91%
Seal Coat (collector) 0.27 0.00%
Seal Coat (local) 32.80 0.33%
Unused Funds 170.36 1.70%
2018
Construction AC (local) 8,894.33 88.94%
Crack Seal 14.09 0.14%
Mill & Overlay 900.52 9.01%
Seal Coat (collector) 9.11 0.09%
Seal Coat (local) 22.04 0.22%
Unused Funds 159.91 1.60%
2019
Construction AC (local) 8,871.05 88.71%
Crack Seal 16.69 0.17%
Mil[ & Overlay 927.70 9.28%
2020
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65-
60
55.
tsr
0
50-
45-
40.
35-
30
25-
20.
15.
10.
5 -
Construction AC (local) 8,894.91 88.95%
Crack Seal 17.71 0.18%
Mill & Overlay 902.83 9.03%
Seal Coat (collector) 7.53 0.08%
Seal Coat (local) 5.55 0.06%
Unused Funds 171.46 1.71%
Percentage of Budget Spent in Different Rehabilitation Type
CCC
CCC
C B p C E!
Ills I W, I A I
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
E Unused EM Seal Coat (local) E Seal Coat (collector) p M11 & Overlay
0 Crack Seal N Construction AC (local)
Predicted Condition Report
Scenario: 50%150%
Total: 3517699.01 square yards have been analyzed each year.
Total Square Yards in Different Condition Index Intervals.
2005 966,716 1,036,944 1,514,039
2006 1,067,285 921,460 1,528,955
2007 1,151,198 786,324 1,580,177
2008 1,209,483 653,292 1,654,924
2009 1,224,449 572,978 1,720,272
2010 1,315,480 403,975 1,798,244
2011 1,341,064 316,837 1,859,798
2012 1,301, 976 290,189 1,925,534
2013 1,236,346 280,361 2,000,991
2014 1,177,811 299,328 2,040,561
2015 1,109,301 350,823 2,057,575
2016 1,061,642 393,404 2,062,653
2017 1,028,679 420,610 2,068,410
2018 1,005,747 488,429 2,023,523
2019 990,537 388,262 2,13B,900
2020 999,097 278,440 2,240,162
M 0-49
10
m Ai
50-74
75-100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2U1VLU1U
Expend8ures per CIP for 3 years - 10% per year Ihene28er with a 10,000,000 cop.
Canslrudion mgr Is 81% recon, 11% mho, 8% maim d ether 2005.2007.47.5% recon, 47.5 m&o, 5% main) S other 2008-2011 - 89% recon, 9% m&o, 2% maint 6 other
Percent Recor Assessment
Percent MIII 8 Overlay Assessment
30.00%
0,00%
Street Reconstruction Levy increase Scenario (A8 5).xls
Beginning
Percent Street Recon Total
Ending
Cash Balance Levy E pandBure Interest Cash Balance
4,300,000 1,288,700 1,917,480 110,137
Street Ratan Street Recon Levy Levy Ina+esse Surplus Total Total Needs Recon Oyoday Mill 6 Overlay Recon Recon 6 Ovedey
1,597,596
Levy Increase Levy Increase Average Home Debl Levy Levy Inc. 9ealcoal Funding Needs Funding Needs Assessments Assessments Funding Needs Debt Service2005
158,839
1,288,700
4,591,408 11,827 394,224
1,288,700 3,500 010 2,824,540 398,946 0 1,308,000 1,917,400
2005 30.00% 1,675,310 386,610 14.98
5,548,468
1,675,310 4,520,000 3,646,250 517,830 0 1,093,875 3,070,205
2007 30.00% 2,177,903 502,593 19,48
55,574
2,177,903 4,214,000 3,394,200 480,710 0 1,018,250 2.656.650
2006 30.00% 2,831274 653,371 2532
727,616
2,831,274 4,635,000 2,190,090 2,255,720 0 657.027 3,788,753
2009 30.00% 3,880,656 849.382 32.92
7,129,267
3,650,556 098,990 2,414,550 2,471,640 0 724,404 4,161,916
2010 20.00% 4,416,787 736,131 28.53 410,000 4,826,757 51609,000 2,643,740 2.740.790 0 793,122 4,591,408
2011 10.00% 4,8$8,465 441,679 17.12 690,000 5,548,455 6,169,990 2.924,960 2,997,890 0 877,488 5,045,352
2012 8.00% 4,858,456 0 0.00 8901000 5,548,466 6.787,000 6,040,190 606,990 0 1,812,057 4,835,123
2013 0,00% 4.658.466 0 0.00 690,000 5.548,466 7,454,990 6,838,350 676,180 0 1,991,505 5,323,025
2014 0.00% 4,050,466 0 0.00 1,295,000 5,153,466 8,211,000 7,306,920 735,760 0 2,192,076 5,850,604
2015 0.00% 4,858,466 0 0.00 1,295,000 6,153,466 9,032,000 8,035,630 815,060 0 2.410.059 6,440,001
2016 S.Oc% 5,191,389 242,923 9.41 1,295,000 6,396.389 9.900,000 8,788,280 902.240 0 2,835,884 7,052,636
2017 5.00% 5,356,459 255,060 9,89 1.295,000 6,651,459 10,000,010 8,898510 x91,120 0 2,569,553 7,120,077
2016 5.00% 5,624,282 287,823 10.30 1,295,000 6,919,282 10,000,000 6,894,330 900,520 0 2.668,299 7,126,551
2019 5,00% 5,905,495 281,214 10.90 1,295,000 7,200.496 10,000,000 6,871,050 927,700 0 2,661,315 7,137,435
2020 5.00% 6,200,771 295,275 11.44 1,295,000 7,495,771 9,999,990 8,894,910 902,830 0 2,668.473 7,129,267
Total 68,551,357 190 11.545.000 80,096,357 115,141,980 92.404.630 19,221,920 0 28,180,027 83.446,523
Street Reconstruction Levy increase Scenario (A8 5).xls
Beginning Ending
Cash Balance Levy E pandBure Interest Cash Balance
4,300,000 1,288,700 1,917,480 110,137 3,671.226
3,671,226 1,675,310 3,070,205 68,290 2,276,337
2,278,337 2,177,903 2,856,850 47,928 1,597,596
1,597,598 4831,274 3,788,783 19,203 640,093
640,093 3,680,850 4,161,916 4,765 158,839
158,839 4,826,787 4,591,408 11,827 394,224
394,224 5.540,456 5,045,362 28,920 891,334
897,334 5,548,486 4,835,123 48,320 1,610.683
1,610,603 5,548,468 5,323,025 55,084 1,830,130
1,836,130 6,153.466 5,850,804 64,170 2,138,998
2,138.998 6,153,466 0449,001 55,574 1,852,468
1,852,469 6,398,389 7,052,636 35,887 1,199,229
1,196,229 8051,459 7,120,077 21,826 727,618
727,616 6,919,282 7,126,551 15,810 520,353
520,353 7,200,498 7,137,435 17,502 583,420
583,420 7,495,771 7,129,267 22,498 949.930
80,095,357 83,446,523
Expenditures per CIP for 3 years- t0% per year Iherea6er w81r a 10.000,000 rap.
Construction mlx Is 81% reWn, 11% mAa, 6% realm S other 20052007 - 47,5% recon, 47.5 m&o, 5% maim 8 other 2008.2011 - 09% recon, 9% mho, 2% maint 8 other
street Reconstructlon Levy Increase Scenario (At 5).xls
Percent Reran Assessmer t 40.00%
Percent Mill 8. Overlay Assessment 40.00%
Percent Street Recon Wal
Street Rewn Street Recon Levy Levy Increase Surplus Totar Tota! Needs Recon Overlay Mll 6 Overlay Recon Recon L Overlay Beglrnlng Ending
Levy Increase Levy Increase Average Home Oehl Levy Levy Ina Sealceat Funding Needs Funding Needs Assessments Assessments Funding Needs Debt Senho Cash Balance Levy Expenditure Interest Cash Balance
2005 1.288.700 1,268,700 3,500,010 2,824,540 398,946 159,576 1,306,000 1,757,904 4,300,000 1988,700 1.757,904 114,924 3,830,802
2006 14.00% 1,469,116 180,418 5.99 1.469,118 4.520,000 3,640,250 517,830 207,132 1,458,500 2,498,445 3,030,802 1,469,116 2,498,446 84,044 2.801,478
2007 14,00% 1,e74,795 205,677 7.97 1,574,795 4,214,000 3,394,200 480,710 192,284 1,357,880 2,324,946 2,801,478 1,674,795 2,324,046 84,540 2,151,333
2006 14.00% 1,909,266 234,471 9,09 1,909,266 4,635,000 2,190,090 2,255,720 902,268 676,038 2,667,488 2.151,333 1.909,268 3,867,486 41,793 1,393,118
2009 14.009. 2,178,563 267,297 10.36 2,176,563 5.098.990 2,414,880 2,471,640 988,656 965,872 2,931,792 1,393,110 2,178,563 2,831,792 19,137 637,895
2010 14.00% 2,481.202 304,719 11,81 410,000 2,891,282 5,609,000 2,643,740 2,740,790 1,096,316 1057,496 3,230,718 637,895 2,891,282 3,230,718 6,954 295,465
2011 14.00% 2,826,661 347,379 13.46 690,000 3,518,661 6,169,990 2,924,960 2,997,890 1,199,158 1,159,984 3,553,710 298,465 3.518,661 3,553,710 7,902 263,422
2012 14,00% 3,224,874 399,013 15.35 690,000 3,914,674 6,767,000 6,040,190 608.990 242,796 2,416,076 3,988,308 293,422 3,914,674 3,988,308 5,094 109,794
2013 12.00% 3,611,635 388,961 15.00 890,000 4,3¢1,635 7,464,990 6,638,350 678,180 270,472 2,655,340 4,3e3,71 8 109,794 4,301,835 4,368,718 3,081 102,717
2014 10,00% 3,972,796 381,163 14.00 1,295,000 5,257,798 8,211.000 7,306 920 735,760 294,304 2,922,765 4,825,608 102,717 5,207,796 4,825,608 111,347 544,913
2016 10.00% 4,370,078 397,700 15,40 1,295,000 5,665,078 9,632,000 8,035,630 815,050 326,x24 3,214,252 5,310,414 544,913 5,665,076 5.310414 26,987 899,583
2016 0.00% 4,370,078 0 0.00 1,295,000 5,665,078 9,900,000 6,796,280 902,240 360,899 3,514,512 5,613,112 099,563 5,605,075 5,613,112 22,545 751,555
2017 0,00% 4,370,078 0 0.00 1,295,000 5,065,076 10,000,010 8.898.510 891.120 356,448 3,559,464 5,873,778 751,555 S,Be5,078 5,873,778 16,286 542,861
2016 0.00% 4,370,078 0 0,00 1,295,000 5,665,078 10,000,000 6,894;330 900,520 360,208 3,557,732 5,870,910 42,861 5.665,078 5,876,910 9,931 331.034
2019 0.00% 4,370,078 0 0.00 1,295,000 5,665,078 10,000,000 6,871,050 927,700 371,080 3,548,420 5,679,250 - 331,034 5,665,078 5,879,250 3,508 116,668
2020 0.00% 4,370,078 0 0.09 1,295,000 5,085,075 9,999,990 6,894,910 902.830 361,132 3.557.964 5,878,844 118.809 5,665,078 5,878,644 2,901 96,692
Total 60.887,958 119 11,545,000 62,402.958 115,141,900 92,404 630 19,221,920 7,668,768 37,138,036 66,799,748 62,402,958 68,799,745
street Reconstructlon Levy Increase Scenario (At 5).xls
Attachment 10
Street Improvement Options
Alt 1 - Alternative 1 projects the expenditure of $2,5013,000 per year for street improvements which has heen the City's historical practice.
Beginning Rating 67
Ending Rating 51
Years to 70 Never
Alt 2 - Alternative 2 projects expenditures currently in the CIP for the first five years, and $4,000,000 per year thereafter.
Beginning Rating
Ending Rating
Years to 70
Initial Levy Increase
67
60
Never
Assessment
30% Recon - 0% Mill&Overlay
I9%
Assessment
40% Recon - 40% Mill&Overla
7%
Total Levy Increase Average Home $69 $20
Street Improvement Options.xls
Attachment 10
Street Improvement Options
Alt 3 - Alternative 3 projects expenditures currently in the CfP for the first three years, an annual increase of 20% from 2008-2011, and $8,500,000 per year
thereafter
Beginning Rating 67
Ending Rating 71
Years to 70 11
Levy Supported Expenditures (2005-2020)
Initial Levy Increase
Total Levy Increase Average Home
Assessment
30% Recon - 0% Mill&Overlay
84,764,385
36%
182
Assessment
40% Recon - 40% Mill&Overlay
67,258,896
22%
115
Alt 4 - Alternative 4 projects expenditures currently in the CIP for 2005, $10,000,000 (debt financed) in 2006, an annual increase of 20% from 2007-2010,
7,500,000 per year from 2011-2012, and $8,500,000 per year thereafter
Beginning Rating 67
Ending Rating 70
Years to 70 8
Levy Supported Expenditures .(2005-2020)
Initial Levy Increase
Assessment
30% Recon - 0% Mill&Overlay
86,627,173
38%
Assessment
40% Recon - 40% Mill&Overlay
68,520,400
22%
Total Levy Increase Average Home $186 $129
Street Improvement Options.xls
Attachment 10
Street Improvement Options
Alt 5 - Alternative 5 projects expenditures currently in the CIP for first three years, an annual increase of 10% per year from 2008 to 2015, and $10,000,000 per
year thereafter
Beginning Rating
Ending Rating
Years to 70
Levy Supported Expenditures (2005-2020)
Initial Levy Increase
Total Levy Increase Average Home
67
70
I5
Assessment
30% Recon - 0% Mill&Overlay
83,446,523
30%
190
Street Improvement Options.xls
Assessment
40% Recon - 40%.Mill&Overlay,
66,799,746
14%
II9
Attachment 11
Assessment Survey
Street Street Water Main Sewer Ma
Reconstruction Overlay Replacement Replacemi
Eagan
Low Density Residential 75% 50% 0% 0%
High Density Residential/Institutional/Parks 100% 75% 0% 0%
Commercial/Industrial 100% 100% 0% 0%
Edina
Local Streets—Neighborhood Reconstruction 100% 0% 0% 0%
Collector & Arterial 20% 0% 0% 0%
Brooklyn Park
Im roved Streets 70% 0% 0% 0%
Bloomington
Single -Family & Two -Family 25% 0% 0% 0%
Other Land Uses 50% 0% 0% 0%
Maple Grove
All Uses 50% 50% 0% 0%
Hopkins
Local Street 70% 70% 0% 0%
MSA Street 50% 50% 0% 0%
Roseville
Existinggaved roadways 25% 0% 0% 0%
Chanhassen
Improved Streets 40% 40% 0% 0%
Woodbury
Retail/Commercial 100% 100% 100% 1000/0
Non-Profit/Tax Exempt/institutional 75% 75% 75% 75%
Medium and High -Density Residential 33% 33% 33% 33%
Low-Density_Residential 33% 33% 33% 33%
Lakeville
Improved Street 100% 0% 0% 0%
Apple Valley
improved Street 0% 0% 0°/9 0%
Burnsville
Improved Street 40% 40% 0% 0%
Minneapolis
Improved Street 25% 25% 0% 0°/9
Special Assessment Survey.xls
1113/2005
Attachment 11
Brooklyn Center
Residential 40% 0% 0% 0%
Commercial/industrial 70% 70% 0% 0%
Eden Prairie
Improved Streets _ 0% _ 0%, 0%
Minnetonka
Improved Streets 0% 0% 0% 0%
Golden Valley
Improved Streets 20% 0% 00/0 0%
Inver Grove Heights
Local Streets 80% 80% 0% 0%
Collector/Arterial (percentage of local width 80% 80% 0% 0%
The average for cities with assessments, for local streets and residential properties, is 52.87%.
Special Assessment Survey.xls
1111312005
13.0 31C3
ppooaKsl I W X
The ABCs of Pavement
Preservation
The Right Treatment to the Right Pavement at the Right Time
There is nothing new about pavement preservation and preventive
maintenance. People have been filling potholes and repairing
cracks since the first asphalt pavement was laid back in the late
1800s. But have we been doing a good job? Probably not and
that's because our maintenance programs have been reactive
rather than proactive.
Smile: When the dentist fills a tooth, that's a corrective
maintenance technique. When the dental hygienist cleans your
teeth, that's a preventive maintenance technique. Regular visits to
the dentist combined with a "conscientious program of oral
hygiene" - that is a preventive maintenance program.
Preventive maintenance Is a strategy - an organized, systematic
approach that maintains or improves the condition of a road and
slows future deterioration. It saves money, improves safety and
rideability and puts a smile on the face of users and owners alike.
Pavement Preservation changes your approach:
A Look for and correct small problems before they
become big ones
A Eliminate the "worst first" syndrome
Pavement Preservation Is efficient, effective and economical.
save money
improve safety
reduce delays
help pavement last longer
improve the performance of the entire road network
The ABC's of Pavement Preservation
A. The Right Pavement
B. The Right Time
C. The Flight Treatment
ofU
c 1 Life Extension
CD
Ed
9
t1
Time or Traffic
Preventive
1 Maintenance
Reactive
Maintenance C $7.00 to Preserve
Q 40°% Drop in Quality Maintain Here
p 75% of Life
U
40% Drop in Quality
c $5.00
a) 12% Here! E
a) Terrninal5erviceafzliity """"""".....
0_
t4
TO Pavement Life Tt
Irtiillalr;
pesigni
The Ontario Hot Mix Producers Association
Doing it Right
A. The Right Pavement: Trying to keep track of several
hundred' kilometres of pavement Is no easy task but if your
maintenance program relies on public complaints to identify
defects, you are probably too late.
For the most efficient use of maintenance resources, you need to
look for early indicators of pavement distress - in other words, find
the right pavement for treatment.
An up-to-date pavement condition survey is the first step. The
survey will establish a comprehensive database that identifies the
type of pavement distresses in the road network and evaluates
those distresses based on severity and extent.
It's not as onerous a job as it sounds. The tools are already
available. Almost all municipalities in Ontario have a Pavement
Management System in one form or another that can easily
incorporate the information needed for a preventive maintenance
program in an organized and easily accessible fashion.
B. The Right Time- The right time for preventive maintenance
treatments is during the early stages of a pavement's life. You
need to apply preventive maintenance treatments before the
problem gets out of hand, not after. It makes sense, for example,
to rout and seal before a single crack spreads into multiple cracks.
In fact, spending a dollar on preventive maintenance in the tenth
year of a pavement's life can save up to five dollars in corrective
maintenance five years later.
Knowing when a pavement needs to be treated is one thing.
Carrying out the treatment on time and on schedule is another
matter. When money is tight, preventive maintenance is usually
well down on the priority list and often one of the first items
sacrificed in budget cutbacks. Knowing the right time to apply a
preventive maintenance technique is important. Having the funds
to apply that technique at the right time is essential, Dedicated
funding needs to be part of any preventive maintenance program.
C. The Right Treatment; There are a number of preventive
maintenance techniques, each of which has been specifically
developed to treat a particular type of distress at a particular level
of severity.
Picking the right treatment will depend on:
The type of pavement
The type, extent and severity of the pavement distress
The age of the pavement (or the time since the last
major rehabilitation)
A The type of the road - its use, volume, and traffic speed
The availability of qualified contractors, construction
technology; materials and qualified agency staff
A The time of year for maintenance
How long maintenance will take and the impact it will
have on drivers
The pavement quality needed after the pavement has
been treated.
Remember that selecting the right treatment is as much an
economic decision as a technical one. While the cost of
preventive maintenance generally pales against the cost of
corrective action needed if distresses are allowed to proceed
unchecked, the cost and benefits of preventive maintenance
treatments should still be analyzed. Estimates of benefits should
be based on the extension of the life of the pavement, not on the
expected life of the treatment itself.
A cost -benefit analysis compares the cost of the
preventive maintenance technique to the expected
benefit (usually the extension of life of the pavement)
Ranking adds less quantifiable benefits (user costs,
safety, rideability) to the cost -benefit analysis
Life cycle costing adds a degree of sophistication to a
cost -benefit analysis by introducing the concept of the
time -value of money.
Celebrating Over 25 Years cif Paving Excellence
dry;
A Stitch in Time
Pavement Treatment Selection Guide
Treatment
x
ti lC
a)
y N N
CD
T a
m N
b C
NPavementz 'vParameters
to um
Condition p LLv v N v a 0
Traffic (ADT)1 2 1000 r
1000 — 4000 • r
X4000 r C O O O O O O
5mm • r O
5mm --25mm 4) O O O O O ORuts
25mm O O O O O O C O 0
Low r O O O
Cracking Moderate • O O U' O O
Fatigue
High C O O O O O O r
Low r O
Cracking Moderate • O O C 41) r O
Longitudinal
High O O O O O O O C
Low • O r r
Cracking Moderate • O O f C O O
Transverse
High O O O O O O O r O
Dry • O O r O
Flushing • O O C O 4) r
Bleeding • O O O O r OSurface
Variable • O O O OCondition
Portland Cement •
O U O O
Concrete pavement
Low 0 r O O
Moderate • O O rRavelling
High • O O r O O
Low • O r r O O
Moderate • O O O C O O O OPotholes
Hi h • O O O O O O O O
Texture Rough • O O O C r O
Ride Poor • O O O O O O
Drainage Poor O O O O O O O O O
Snow Plow Damage High • O O
Skid Resistance Low • O O 1 1 1 r O O
Recommended
Q = Provisionally recommended (dependant on road conditions)
0 = Not recommended
This table provides general guidelines only. Each road should be assessed for the causes of distress and condition
before a specific treatment is selected. Chart recommendations assume good quality design and construction.
Developed by Ontario's Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturers)
1 Truck traffic as a percentage of ADT should be considered
2 When treatment used in conjunction with HMA overlay
TL— r)nt—;4 Wnt AAiv PrnriiiPnrC Accnr•intinn
Hot Mix Overlay
Placing a layer of hot mix over existing pavement. Thin overlays
are at least 40mm thick if conventional asphalt is used but thinner
overlays can be laid with specialized mixes. The most common
rehabilitation technique (as opposed to preventive maintenance
technique) is a similar form of hot mix overlay. Commonly known
as "Shave and Pave", the process involves the contractor milling
and replacing up to 80mm of asphalt. Thicker overlays can extend
the life of a pavement by between 15 and 20 years.
Benefits:
provides new waterproof surface
mitigates surface ravelling
seals small cracks
improves ride quality and corrects surface irregularitses
improves surface friction
Selection and Application: used on stable pavements with a
sound base, but have a surface which exhNs minor surface
distresses such as cracking, rutting, ravelling and roughness. Can
be used to strengthen pavements. Do not use on pavements
showing structural distress or pavement failure. Defects will
quickly reflect through the new surface.
Service Life: 8 - 14 years
Fog Seal
A light application of diluted slow -setting emulsion.
Benefits;
rejuvenates dry and brittle asphalt surfaces
seals very small cracks and surface voids
slows the rate of weathering and oxidation
Selection and Application: Use on structurally sound
pavements to improve surface conditions on pavements showing
signs of minor cracking, weathering, segregation or ravelling,
Service Life: 1 - 2 years
Crack Sealing
Routing, cleaning and filling the crack with sealant. Moisture
infiltration is the primary cause of pavement deterioration Crack
sealing prevents water and debris from entering a crack. 'Crack
Filling" does not Involve routing and does not fully seal the crack.
Benefits:
prevents moisture and debris from getting Into cracks
prevents water damage to the pavements structure
extends pavement life by 3 - 5 years
Selection and Application: use for cracks less than 25mm
wide, spaced uniformly along the pavement and with limited edge
deterioration, Use Crack Filling for older pavements with wider,
more random cracking. Best applied during cool dry weather
0°C - 15°C) when cracks are almost fully open.
Service Life: 3 - 5 years
Chip Seals
A uniform application of asphalt emulsion to a prepared pavement
surface followed by a rolfed aggregate cover (OPSS 304 Class 1-
6 Surface Treatments). Can postpone the need for heavier surface
treatments or resurfacing for 2 to 4 years.
Benefits:
improves surface friction
slows surface ravelling and oxidation
corrects minor deformations and seals small cracks
provide temporary cover for a base course until the
final asphalt courses can be placed
Selection and Application: Provides an economical all-
weather surface for light to medium traffic (polymer -modified
emulsions and high quality aggregates should be used for higher
traffic volume applications). Must be applied to structurally sound
pavements.
Service Life: 5 - 7 years for chip seals; 2 - 4 years for sand
seals
Slurry Seal
A cold mix paving technique using a mixture of dense -graded
aggregate, asphalt emulsion, water, and mineral fillers,
Benefits:
improves surface friction
slows surface ravelling and seals small cracks
improves ride quality and corrects surface
irregularities
Selection and Application: use on stable pavements with a
sound base showing minor surface distresses such as
cracking, rutting, ravelling and roughness. Do not use on
pavements with structural distress, as cracks will quickly
reflect through new surface. Minimum thickness is 9.5mm.
Service Life: 4 - 7 years
Micro -surfacing
The application of a cold mix of dense -graded aggregate,
polymer modified asphalt emulsion, water, and mineral fillers.
Capable of filling wheel ruts up to 40mm deep when the
pavement has stabilized and is not subject to plastic
deformation.
Benefits:
improves surface friction
slows surface ravelling and seals small cracks
improves ride quality and corrects surface
irregularities
Selection and Application: Used on stable pavements
with a sound base that have minor surface distresses such as
cracking, rutting, ravelling and roughness. Can be used to
correct rutting. Do not use on pavements showing structural
distress or pavement failure. Defects will quickly reflect
through new surface.
Service Life: 5 — 7 years
Cold In -Place
Reprocesses existing pavements in-situ to a depth of 100 mm.
Typically overlaid with one or two lifts of HMA to produce a
sound pavement .structure, All cold in-place work should be
completed with an appropriate wearing surface.
Benefits:
uses 100% existing aggregates and asphalt
mitigates reflective cracking
corrects cross fall and longitudinal grades of
existing pavements
Selection and Application: use on stable pavements with
a sound base showing surface distresses such as cracking,
rutting, ravelling and roughness. For light to medium traffic, a
surface treatment such as chip seal is sufficient. For heavier
traffic, at least one overlay is recommended.
Service Life: 10 — 12 years
Hot in Place Recycling
Heating the existing pavement and reblending the asphalt.
Rejuvenators and virgin hot mix may be added. Typical
thickness: 25 - 50 mm.
Benefits:
provides new waterproof surface
slows surface ravelling
seals small cracks
improves ride quality and corrects surface
irregularities
improves surface friction
Selection and Application: used on stable pavements
with a sound base, but have a surface which exhibits minor
surface distresses such as cracking, rutting, ravelling and
roughness. Can be used to strengthen the pavement when
applied in conjunction with an HMA overlay. Do not use on
pavements showing structural distress or pavement failure.
Defects will quickly reflect through the new surface.
Service Life: 5 —12 years
Cold Planing or Milling
Removes bumps, ruts and irregularities, restores the profile
and leaves a uniform, textured surface.
Benefits:
improves ride quality and corrects surface
irregularities
improves surface friction _
Selection and Application: Cold plane before applying a
recommended resurfacing product. A tack coat should be
applied to all milled surfaces prior to paving the new riding
coarse
Service Life: Typically resurfaced within 46 hours. When
overlaid with HMA, service life is similar to mill and overlay
treatment.
Cape Seal
A chip seal followed by a slung sea[. Stronger than a chip seal
alone.
Benefits:
improves surface friction
slows surface ravelling, seals small cracks
improves ride quality and corrects surface
irregularities
Selection and Application: use on stable pavements with
a sound base showing minor surface distresses such as
cracking, rutting, ravelling and roughness. Do not use on
pavements with structural distress, as cracks will quickly
reflect through new surface.
Service Life: 5 — 7 years
The Ontario Hot INAix Producers Association
Developing a Preventive
Maintenance Program
When Canadian municipalities were asked In a recent survey 'how
do you select projects for preventive maintenance and
rbhabilitation", one-third said they use thb "worst -first" criteria,
That is a stunning admission. Preventive maintenance doesn't just
happen. Like all good programs it needs organization and it needs
structure.
i. Establish the management aspects of the program:
Preventive maintenance is a way of technical thinking, financial
planning and budgeting.
Use a simple goal to maintain focus and a sense of purpose.
2. Establish the technical aspects of the program:
A good preventive maintenance program should fold neatly into a
Pavement Management System. Develop guidelines for
evaluating pavement conditions, predicting pavement
performance and setting priorities. All maintenance and
rehabilitation actions must be co-ordinated and in sync.
9. Determine maintenance needs:
A condition survey shouldn't just tell you which pavements have
problems that need correcting today. It should also tell you which
pavements need treatment today to avoid problems tomorrow.
4. Provide a framework for treatment selection:
There is no shortage of preventive maintenance techniques,
Picking the right one at the right time and at the right cost is what
engineering is all about. Whether it is based on life cycle costing,
decision trees or any number of other analytical tools, make sure
that you use a consistent, logical framework to decide what to do.
S. Set priorities:
It you didn't have a budget, you wouldn't need to set priorities.
Life's not like that. Set priorities so that the most important tasks
don't get lost in the shuffle.
6. Monitor, Measure and Assess:
Is it working? There is only one way to find out. Monitoring and
measuring the program allows you to make sure that you are
picking the right treatments for your particular situation and
conditions and that those treatments are, indeed, meeting the
objectives. If they are, you have all the evidence you need to keep
the program (and the funding) going. If they are not, then make the
adjustments needed.
Measurable goals:
pavement condition
average rating
percent of pavements in condition category
cost savings
Celebrating Over 25 Years of Paving Excellence
Proving the case
Michigan's Department of Transportation established its
preventive maintenance program In 1992 with the express goal of
keeping good roads good."
In the first five years of the program, the Michigan DOT spent
US$80 million on preventive maintenance. Was it worth it? The
Michigan taxpayers think so. Without the preventive maintenance
program, according to one study, the state would have had to
spend $700 million on rehabilitation to bring the roads up to the
same condition.
Georgia spends between US$70 million and $80 million a year on
preventive maintenance. The state is committed to rehabilitating
10% of the network every year and resurfacing the entire network
every 10 years. A study showed that between 1992 and 1997, the
smoothness of asphalt pavements In Georgia improved by 300%.
Municipalities across Ontario such as Toronto and Ottawa that
have implemented preventive maintenance strategies are
anticipating similar benefits and are now documenting their
programs to help sell their strategies to the taxpayer.
Selling the Case
Just as it takes consistent preventive maintenance to keep roads
in good condition, it takes consistent funding to keep a preventive
maintenance program in good shape. And therein lies the
challenge.
Municipal engineers and road superintendents know how
important a pavement preservatton program is. They know that
treating small problems before they become big problems is a
smart and responsible way to spend taxpayers' money. But even
though the benefits are impressive (less expensive treatments,
longer pavement life, less user delays), they won't sell themselves.
Selling it to the Public: When it comes to roads, people tend
to think locally not globally, It is the pothole at the end of the
driveway, the rough pavement near the school and the ruts in the
nearby intersection that they are concemed about and that puts
municipal engineers on the spot.
Preventive maintenance is ali about fixing small problems before
they become big problems and small problems are not always
easy for the untrained eye to spot. People are understandably
sceptical when they see a crew working on a road that appears
to be in good condition while ignoring a rough patch of road right
outside their driveway. Faced with vociferous complaints, it's all
too easy to fall back on the "worst -first" syndrome.
Fortunately, the public is more than capable of being sensible and
sympathetic when presented with the facts. People know how
important a well-maintained road network is for their community
and they also know the Importance of spending tax dollars wisely.
Measuring and assessing the program provides the facts. Good
communication makes sure that the public understands them.
Continued on next page...
Selling it to the Administration: When budgets get tight (and
that's most of the time), it's easy to sacrifice long-term returns for
short-term needs. Easy but not ' necessarily wise. If a program
such as preventive maintenance that depends on continuity is
delayed or curtailed, it can nullify years of hard won success.
Preventive maintenance can only work if the program is applied
consistently and the program can only be applied consistently if
there is a sustained, predictable level of funding.
Can politicians be persuaded? Given the evidence that a relatively
small expenditure in preventive maintenance can save enormous
sums of money in a relatively short time, there is no reason why
they shouldn't be. Politicians make long term decisions all the
time and most are fully prepared to make the right choices. After
all, there is. always life after the next election.
Pavement Rehabilitation
Preventive maintenance is an essential toot for extending the life
of a pavement. Used early in a pavement's life, preventive
maintenance corrects small problems before they become big
problems, saves money, reduces delays and improves safety
and rideability.
Preventive maintenance is, however, only one of the tools that
municipal engineers have at their disposal for maintaining and
preserving the road network. Preventive maintenance corrects
small problems. It cannot be used to fix major problems that all
roads experience as they wear. For that you need pavement
rehabilitation.
All roads (other than those designed specifically as "perpetual
pavements') will require rehabilitation as they get close to the
end of their useful life and, as with preventive maintenance,
there are a number of techniques and strategies that engineers
and contractors can use to ensure that an asphalt pavement
provides the best possible value for the taxpayers and users of
the road network.
For the latest information on pavement rehabilitation, call the
Ontario Hot Mix Producers for the ABCs of Pavement
Rehabilitation.
The Ontario Hot Mix Producers Association
385 Brunei Road, Unit 4, Mississauga, ON L4Z 1Z5
1
Phone: 905.507.3707 • Fax 905.507.3709
web site: www.ohmpa.org s email: info@ohmpa.org
The Fine Print: This brochure is designed as a genera! guide to pavement preservation. It is not a design manual. Professional engineers
should be consulted to ensure that pavements are nor only designed functionally but also economically to fit your budget requirements.
Issue 1.0, February 2004
The Ontario Hot Mix Producers Association
Transportation
Synthesis Report
Hina McLawhorn
Research Administrator
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
608-266-3199
nina.mclawhorn@dot,state,W.us
Pavement Preventive Maintenance
Prepared for
Bureau of Highway Operations
Division of Transportation Infrastructure Development
Prepared by
CTC & Associates LLC
WisDOT RD&T Program
June 19, 2003
Transportation Synthesis Reports (TSRs) are brief summaries of currently available information on topics of interest to RSDOT
technical staff in highway development, construction and operations. Online andprint sources include NCHRP and other TRS
programs, AASHTO, the research and practices ofother state DOTS, and related academic and industry research.
REQUEST FOR REPORT
With the nationwide highway infrastructure largely in place and transportation budgets shrinking, state agencies are
focusing more of their time and money on highway maintenance and rehabilitation. One strategy for maximizing
these efforts is "preventive maintenance" or "pavement preservation," the periodic application of relatively
inexpensive pavement treatments to an existing roadway system in order to retard further deterioration and improve
the functional condition of the system. Preventivc maintenance has been recognized as a powerful tool to be used by
state transportation agencies, along with restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction (the federal 3R program). The
RD&T Program was asked to identify preventive maintenance programs around the country with a focus on their
cost effectiveness.
SUMMARY
Many states are investing significant sums for pavement preservation activities on the widely accepted assumption
that these efforts are cost effective. We found only a few studies specifically designed to track the cost effectiveness
of preventive maintenance treatments. A number of models, however, have been developed for states to use in
estimating expected savings from various preventive maintenance treatments. The best retrospective study we found
was completed for the Michigan Department of Transportation by an outside consultant hired to evaluate its
program periodically. The Michigan study, a TRB paper on cost effectiveness of three state programs (Arizona,
Montana and Pennsylvania) and other papers addressing cost effectiveness are cited below under Cost Benefit
Studies. In general, findings indicate that:
For every dollar spent on preventive maintenance, $4 to $10 was saved on rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation and reconstruction costs about 14 times as much as pavement preservation projects per lane mite
over the life of the project, according to Michigan engineers.
Preventive maintenance practices are gaining widespread popularity as states look for ways to preserve the existing
highway system and postpone more costly rehabilitation efforts. Michigan is a leader in pavement preservation,
devoting $73.5 million (a combination of both federal and state resources) in 2003 to its Capital Preventive
Maintenance Program. Information about Michigan's program, the newly formed Midwestern Pavement
Preservation Partnership and AASTHO efforts are provided at State DOT Preventive Maintenance Programs.
Research on the effectiveness of specific pavement treatments for extending•pavement life and improving road
quality is highlighted below under Preventive Treatments Research. An international scanning tour completed in
2002 is perhaps the most useful of these studies because it highlights innovative programs and state-of-the-art
treatments for pavement preservation in South Africa, France, and Australia—all international leaders in pavement
preservation.
We also found a number of articles describing the current state of pavement preservation programs, innovative
treatments, and other useful resources. These are identified below under Journal Articles.
Finally, the following points appeared repeatedly during our search:
Integration of a preventive maintenance program with a pavement management system is essential. This allows
for the sharing of data and the optimal timing of treatments. There is extensive information available on how
best to establish pavement management systems and how to integrate them with preventive maintenance
planning.
The timing of treatments is the key to extending pavement Iife and realizing savings.
COST BENEFIT STUDIES
Cost -Effective Preventive Maintenance Case Studies, Transportation Research Record Number 1795, 2002
Available in the WisDOT Library.
This paper discusses the state of the practice in pavement preservation through case studies of state highway
agencies in Arizona, Montana, and Pennsylvania. Results indicate that the main reason for the success and cost-
effectiveness of each state's preventive maintenance (PM) program is the heavy reliance on the pavement
management system distress data for the selection of sections to be treated, time of treatment, and type of PM action.
A few highlights:
Montana developed a new PM program in 1995, with $2 million of the $14 million maintenance budget used
for PM. The PM budget was increased to $7 million in 1996, and after two years at this budget, the pavement
management system data were analyzed to determine cost-effectiveness. The results showed that the PM
program had already provided effective alternatives to extend the pavements. On the basis of the results, the PM
program budget was increased to $55 million in 1998 and beyond.
The study found that for every dollar spent in the PM program, $4 to $10 was saved in the rehabilitation
program. In addition, program success was proved to depend heavily on the optimum time window. The earlier
the PM action was applied, the lower the cost and the higher the benefits.
Effectiveness of the Capital Preventive Maintenance Program, prepared for the Michigan Department of
Transportation by S.T. Bellner & Associates, November 2001
Available on CD ROM in the WisDOT Library.
In 1992, the Michigan Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration,
initiated the Capital Preventive Maintenance (CPM) Program in an effort to protect and preserve pavement
structures. The program focuses on highways under the jurisdiction of MDOT with a remaining service life of more
than two years. Pavements are selected for preventive maintenance using MDOT guidelines first developed in 1999.
These guidelines are designed to insure that treatment selection is consistent with the overall pavement strategy.
Funding for the CPM Program is provided by both federal and state transportation dollars and will reach $73.5
million in 2003.
The effectiveness of the CPM Program is evaluated every year by independent consultants hired by MDOT. Over
three years (1999-2001), CPM projects were evaluated to determine the life extending value to the original
pavement. In 1999, 37 projects were evaluated for work done in I994 and 1995. In 2000, 41 projects were evaluated
for work done in 1995, 1996, 1997. In 2001, 45 projects were evaluated for work done between 1995 and 2000. This
study by B.T. 8ellner & Associates, available on CD, is a synthesis of all of these evaluations performed between
1999 and 2001. The goal of the study is to assure that funds are properly spent on preventive maintenance activities
for the right roads and that the treatments used do, in fact, extend the life of Michigan pavements. Researchers used
MDOT's Pavement Management System data and the warranty threshold criteria for the CPM Program for
evaluating the projects.
2
The following treatments for flexible and composite pavements are included in the CPM Program and were
evaluated in this study: bituminous overlay, surface milling and bituminous overlay, ultra thin overlay, crack
treatment, overband crack filling, micro surfacing, chip seals, bituminous shoulder ribbons, and shoulder seals,
The study determined that the CPM Program has been successful in extending pavement Iife and that the projects
are cost-effective.
Insights into Pavement Preservation. A Compendium, FHWA, January 2000
h ://www.fhwa.dot, ov/infrastructure/asstm t/com end. df
This compendium provides a compilation of articles on pavement preservation from 1997 to 2000 that highlight
state experiences with preventive -maintenance programs.
One of the articles, "Preventive Maintenance Yields Huge Savings, Says Michigan Study," is from the September
1997 issue of Focus, and highlights the results of a study of the Michigan Department of Transportation's pavement
maintenance program. Since Michigan adopted its preventive maintenance program in 1992, preventive
maintenance treatments had been applied to about 4,260 km (2,650 mi) of asphalt and portland cement concrete
pavements, at a cost of $80 million. Had they not applied the treatments; MDOT would have needed to spend $700
million in 1997 on rehabilitation and reconstruction projects to bring pavements up to their current condition -more
than eight times as much money as had been spent on preventive maintenance treatments.
Optimizing Pavement Preservation: An Urgent Demandfor Every Highway Agency, International Journal of
Pavement Engineering, 2001
Available in the WisDOT Library.
This paper presents a step-by-step procedure for selecting the appropriate preventive maintenance treatment for
asphalt pavement and evaluating the optimal timing for that treatment under different pavement, traffic, and climatic
conditions. it also provides a model for analyzing the cost-effectiveness of a pavement preventive maintenance
program.
Selecting a Preventive Maintenance Treatment for Flexible Pavements, June 2000
h ://ntl.bts. gov/data/FP2.pdf
Funded by the Foundation for Pavement Preservation, this study evaluates the types of pavements that are
candidates for preventive maintenance, the available treatments, where and when treatments should be used, and
their cost effectiveness. The report looks at chip seals, thin cold mix seals, thin overlays, fog seals, and crack sealing
and provides a methodology for determining the most effective treatment for a particular pavement. It provides
formulas for determining the most cost-effective treatment and emphasizes the need to look at each case
individually. The longer the maintenance is delayed, the more it will cost to repair. Alternatively, if a pavement is
maintained too soon, you spend unnecessarily.
Life -Cycle Evaluation of Highway Pavement Preventive Maintenance, January 2003, by Kathleen T. Hall,
Carlos E. Correa, and Amy L. Simpson
Available in the WisDOT Library on the TRB 2003 Compendium of Papers CD-ROM
This study develops models for understanding the cost effectiveness of various levels of preventive maintenance and
indicates the optimum levels of such maintenance for various pavement types and categories. The study also
develops models for determining the relative change in cost effectiveness in response to unit or specified changes in
life -cycle preventive maintenance levels.
Pavement Maintenance Versus Reconstruction Life Cycle Cast Analysis of Various Options, presented at the
Ninth International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, August 2002
Study available through the International Society for Asphalt Pavement for $15.
The study identifies preventive maintenance treatments and benefits and evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the
treatments versus major rehabilitation strategies. The findings indicate that preventive maintenance applied at early
stages in a pavement's life is cost effective in all of the scenarios studied.
STATE DOT PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
In the last several years, many states have begun investigating and implementing preventive pavement maintenance
programs in an effort to stretch shrinking transportation budgets. Michigan leads the country in innovative, proven
preventive maintenance programs. Established in 1992, Michigan's Capital Preventive Maintenance Program now
receives dedicated funding, on the order of $73.5 million in 2003, and is integrated with their pavement management
system. For a full description of their program, refer to the TR News article, "Strategic Planning for Pavement
Preventive Maintenance," which is highlighted below. The article includes a chart of extended service life for
specific preventive maintenance treatments.
The most comprehensive information available with regard to the effectiveness of a state's preventive maintenance
program is the 2001 study, Effectiveness of the Capital Preventive Maintenance Program, which evaluates
Michigan's program. A description of this study is provided above, under Cost Benefit Studies and the full report is
available on CD.
Pavement Preservation in the United States: Survey by Lead States on Pavement Preservation, AASHTO,
1999, h a/ieadstates.tamu.edu/ /surve /surve re art. df
The AASHTO Lead States Team on Pavement Preservation surveyed transportation agencies in 50 states in 1999 to
gain an understanding of the state -of -practice in preventive maintenance. Thirty-six states were found to have
established pavement preventive maintenance programs. The report describes the results of that survey, including
the nature and age of state preventive maintenance programs, specific preservation programs used, integration with
pavement.management systems, funding allocations, and more.
We spoke with the following individuals about their states' preventive pavement maintenance programs:
Larry Galehouse, founder of the National Center for Pavement Preservation at Michigan State University, formerly
of the Michigan Department of Transportation, 517-719-8556 (cell)
Jerry Gieb, Research Project Engineer, Minnesota Department of Transportation, 651-779-5937
Aric Morse, Pavement Engineer, Ohio Department of Transportation, 614-995-5994
Steve Bauer, former Pavement Engineer, Michigan Department of Transportation, 810-227-6123 ext. 301
Kevin Kennedy, Preventive Maintenance Engineer, Michigan Department of Transportation, 517-322-6043
John Galbreath, Pavement Forecasting Specialist, Michigan Department of Transportation, 517-373-2662
Additional recommended contacts:
Larry Orcutt, Manager of the Caltrans Maintenance Program, 916-654-5849
Jim Sorenson, Federal Highway Administration, 202-366-1333
The Midwestern Pavement Preservation Partnership, which kicked off two years ago in Michigan, will be a valuable
resource on pavement preservation programs and treatments in the future. Under the leadership of Larry Galehouse,
the group hopes to bring states together to identify specific treatments and application methods as the standards in
preventive maintenance. The group will also explore research needs in the field, the possibility of training agency
staff' and contractors on preventive maintenance, and establishing a certification program for contractors. About
thirteen states already participate in the organization. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for fall 2003.
In addition, Mr. Galehouse is working hard to establish the National Center for Pavement Preservation at Michigan
State University. Pieces of the funding are in place for this program, and the doors are expected to open in fail 2003.
The center will give states an opportunity to pool money for research, will provide an avenue for training and
continuing education in the field of pavement preservation, and will serve as an outreach program to counties and
cities.
The AASHTO Pavement Preservation Web Site at http://ieadstates.tamu.edu/ppiindex.stm was developed by the
Lead States Team on Pavement Preservation before transferring its duties to the AASHTO Subcommittee on
Maintenance. The Web site describes preventive maintenance strategies and provides a number of reports,
guidelines and articles about preventive pavement maintenance.
PREVENTWE TREATMENTS RESEARCH
Pavement Preservation Technology in France, South Africa and Australia, sponsored by the Federal Highway
Administration, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, and the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report ##FHWA-PL-03-001, October 2002.
hgp:#international. fhwa.doot.. og_vlpaveeprestech/index. htm#toc,
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) jointly sponsored this
international scanning study in an effort to document and evaluate innovative techniques, materials, procedures and
equipment used in other countries for pavement preservation for potential applications in the United States. The
scanning team visited France, South Africa, and Australia, which had been identified as nations with innovative
programs and state-of-the-art treatments for pavement preservation.
Representatives from four state DOTS, the National Association of County Engineers; FHWA; the National Park
Service; the American Public Works Association; Koch Materials Company and Kristen Betty and Associates made
up the scanning team, which met with government agencies and private -sector organizations involved with
pavement preservation, and visited sites to observe the results of pavement preservation techniques and strategies.
Each country visited recognizes the systematic method of programming, funding, and placing preventive
maintenance treatments as the most successful strategy for pavement preservation. The need to apply the right
treatment to the right roadway at the right time came up on several occasions during the study. Many of the agencies
deal with the same barriers facing AASHTO's member States, including dedicated funding, public and management
perception, and data management. The scanning team determined from its international observations that pavement
preservation in the United States is headed in the right direction and that many of the pavement preservation best
practices arc already in place, to some degree, in the United States.
Key Findings
The following actions taken in the host countries have had a significant impact on pavement preservation activities
and program success:
Focusing on maintenance activities on the surface to preserve the large investment in underlying layers. This
promotes the use of relatively low-cost seals and thin overlays as the primary maintenance techniques, instead
of more costly types of rehabilitation.
Using only quality materials for both bitumen and aggregate, ensured through the use of rigorous specifications.
Materials sources are specified and there is no inhibition to using sources a great distance away from the project
site.
Getting warranties on contracts, which cover friction, rutting, and smoothness. This has resulted in the
innovation of materials and mixtures by contractors and material suppliers.
In France, governments and industry share the risk in experiments to develop new and innovative products,
Successful products are then accepted nationally for inclusion in the preventive maintenance program.
Treatments and Techniques
The team identified the following innovative and successful practices in pavement preservation in the host countries:
Generally, crushed granite and proven polymer -modified asphalt binders are used. This is ensured through the
use of rigorous specifications.
In France, the primary preservation treatment on high-volume roadways is mill and inlay. Also, cold asphalt
concrete has been used extensively with good success on low-volume roads as a riding surface (75 to 100
millimeters). The cold asphalt concrete mix process focuses on achieving good coating of the aggregates and is
preferred over hot -mix asphalt for low-volume roads.
South Africa makes extensive use of chip seals. Their pavement management system has verified that surface
seals are effective treatments for preserving pavement life. In some instances, hot -mix asphalt overlays are
covered immediately with chip seals to provide sufficient surface friction and, at the same time, ensure a system
more impervious to water.
In Australia, all the states visited use a treatment called geotextile-reinforced sprayed seal. The construction
sequence involves spraying a tack coat, placing the geotextile, and then applying a chip seal on top. Data
showed that this treatment reduced reflective cracking. In Victoria, 12 to 15 years of performance is expected
from this treatment. Typically, a crumb -rubber bitumen or conventional bitumen is used for these seals.
The technique of pre -coating aggregates for chip seals is used throughout Australia. This practice prevents or
reduces the loss of aggregates on chip seals.
All the Australian states make extensive use of polymerized asphalts. Considering the heavy and large amounts
of trucks using rural roads, states believe there is a need for the best -performing bitumen possible. Styrene
butadiene styrenetype polymers are predominately used in their bitumens (at twice the rate used in the United
States) for both hot -mix asphalt and chip seal applications.
Crumb rubber modifier (15 to 20 percent) is used in bitumen for chip seals. This has been effective in reducing
reflecting cracking.
Even when using full -depth hot -mix asphalt pavements, a chip seal is placed on the base material (or subbase)
before the asphalt layers are placed. This prevents moisture infiltration or capillary action.
New South Wales has been successful in placing thin (40 -to -60 -millimeter) asphalt overlays on existing
concrete pavements by placing hydrocarbon curing and a tack coat before placing the overlay on the concrete.
The overlays on more recent plain concrete pavements are done primarily for noise control, while those on older
jointed reinforced concrete pavements are done for ride quality when large-scale diamond grinding equipment is
not available.
A chip seal system incorporating glass fibers is used in New South Wales to prevent reflective cracking. The
process involves spraying a coat of polymer -modified bitumen emulsion, followed by blowing chopped fibers
on the surface and spraying a second coat of polymer -modified bitumen emulsion, all in one operation.
In South Africa, a stress -in -motion device to measure contact stresses in vehicles has been developed and is in
regular use. Also, a crack activity meter has been developed to measure reflective cracking potential and the
need to restore the surface before placing an overlay. The meter can measure both horizontal and vertical
movement simultaneously and fits between the dual wheels of a test vehicle. Data is captured and processed
electronically,
In New South Wales, sandwich seals with two -coat geotextile reinforced treatment have resulted in an
acceptable performance (no reflective cracking) for I1 years on roadways with traffic volumes of 1,200 vehicles
per lane per day.
In New South Wales, a pavement condition survey vehicle called Road Crackd has been developed to detect
cracking on the pavement surface. This vehicle measures the full Iane width at 80 kilometers per hour with real-
time processing, measuring cracks down to a millimeter and classifying them as Iongitudinal, transverse, and
crocodile. Sawn joints are identified. Alternatively, at lower speeds, a full digital image of the road surface can
be retained.
South Africa and Australia have developed innovative design procedures and application techniques for chip
seals not normally seen in the U.S. Performance lives of up to 15 years are being achieved on sections with up
to 60,000 vehicles per day. This outstanding performance is due in part to the deep -strength pavement designs
employed.
LTPP Data Analysis: Effectiveness ofhlainteuance and Rehabilitation Options, NCHRP Project 20-50 (03104),
June 2002
littnT//gulliver.trb.orelpublications/nchm/nchm w47.pdf
This study assesses the relative performance of different pavement maintenance and rehabilitation treatments and
identifies the pretreatment conditions and other factors that influence treatment effectiveness. The research does not
provide an estimation of the typical lives of the treatments used. Instead it focuses on the relative effectiveness of
the different treatments as influenced by pretreatment conditions.
High Volume/High Speed Asphalt Roadway Preventive Maintenance Surface Treatments, South Dakota
Department of Transportation, December 2001
h :I/www.state.sd.usLAlications/RR19RcsearchProicets/Projects/SDI999 09 Final Re ort.PDF
This study investigates the use of chip seals in South Dakota for extending pavement life and makes
recommendations for improving their performance. The report includes guidelines for the design and construction of
chip seals and for selecting feasible surface treatments for a specific project.
Performance of Flexible Pavement Maintenance Treatments in the LTPP SPS -3
Available in the WisDOT Library on the TRB 2003 Compendium of Papers CD-ROM.
This paper presents the results of a study conducted to assess the relative performance of different flexible pavement
maintenance treatments, including the influence of pretreatment condition and other factors. Treatments used in
study are thin overlays, slurry seals, crack seals and chip seals. Thin overlays were found to be the most effective of
the treatments studied, followed by chip seals and slurry seals. Crack sealing did not demonstrate any beneficial
initial or long-term effect with respect to IRI, rutting, or cracking.
Field Evaluation of Pavement Surface Treatments, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2000
Available in the WisDOT Library.
This study evaluates the effect of aggregate and binder types on the performance of surface treatments in Wyoming.
The experiment included 23 test sections monitored over five years, with efforts made to eliminate the effects of
environmental and traffic variations on surface treatment performance. Results indicate that selecting the optimum
combination of aggregate and asphalt binder is important for insuring good performance of surface treatments. The
research revealed that frictional resistance was affected by aggregate type alone, with scoria yielding consistently
superior friction values as compared to limestone. Cracking is affected by choice of binder and skidding'is affected
by choice of aggregate.
Best Practices Handbook on Asphalt Pavement Maintenance, University of Minnesota Center for
Transportation Studies, February 2000
h ://www. 2.or dffilesIMNas hlt. df
This handbook provides an overview of pavement preservation, with a focus on preventive maintenance. The guide
discusses the most common flexible pavement distresses and provides best practices for the rehabilitation of each.
Maintenance treatments covered include: crack sealing, crack filling, full depth crack repair, fog seal, seal coat,
double chip seal, slurry seal, microsurfacing, thin hot mix overlays, and potholes and pavement patching.
RESEARCH IN PROGRESS
NCHRP 14-14, Guide for Optimal Timing of Pavement Preventive Maintenance Treatment Applications
hgp://www.fhwa.dot.gov////constniction/washtoO2/nehrp 14.htm
http://rip.trb.org/browse/dproiect.asp?n=4463
The goal of this NCHRP study is to develop a methodology and guide that will assist highway agencies in
determining the optimal timing for the application of preventive maintenance treatments for flexible and rigid
pavements. The researchers will also develop a plan for collecting data needed to support the methodology.
According to Amir Hanna, the project manager for this project, the study is somewhat behind schedule and should
be complete in July.
The Effectiveness of Maintenance and Its Impact on Capital Expenditures
littl2://rip.trb.org/browsc/dDroject.asl2?n=S 116
The objectives of this Indiana DOT project include the design and implementation of a methodology to evaluate the
cost-effectiveness of various maintenance practices, and the development of recommendations that would assist
highway agencies in selecting the optimal timing for appropriate maintenance treatments in order to maximize
overall cost-effectiveness. This project is complete and should be available for review soon.
JOURNAL ARTICLES
Prevention versus Repair—Managing Your Budget," Better Roads, June 2003, by Ruth W. Stidger
Available in the WisDOT Library.
This article provides a brief overview of how states are meeting the funding needs of their pavement preservation
maintenance programs. A few points to highlight:
According to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, every dollar spent on preventive
maintenance saves three to four dollars in future road repairs.
Michigan reports that it saves up to $10 for each preventive maintenance dollar spent.
85% of states have preventive maintenance programs and half of those have been in use for more than 10 years.
Michigan engineers say that rehabilitation and reconstruction costs about 14 times.as much as pavement
preservation projects per lane mile over the life of the project.
Pavement Preservation: A Call to Action," Focus, May 2003
htp://Www.tflirc.P-ov/focus/mayg3/03.htm
Representatives from state highway agencies, AASHTO, TRB, and FHWA met in February 2003 to discuss the
Iatest technologies in pavement preservation and the need for a shared commitment to preventive maintenance. This
article summarizes the discussions that took place and references an updated CD, "Pavement Preservation 2: State of
the Practice," containing technical manuals on pavement evaluation, and preventive maintenance treatments and
guidelines. Eight state departments of transportation contributed documents from their pavement preservation
programs to the CD. RD&T has ordered a copy and will forward it to BHO when it arrives.
Strategic Planning for Pavement Preventive Maintenance," TR News, March/April 2002, by Larry
GaIehuuse
Go to ht :II lliver.trb.or ublications/trnews/tmews219. df and select the report title from the table of contents.
This article is a valuable resource for learning about Michigan's Capital Preventive Maintenance Program, including
how the state combines reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preventive maintenance into a single comprehensive
strategy, what criteria are used to rate pavement conditions, how the program optimizes available funding, and how
data are collected and managed in the process. The article includes a table of expected life -extending benefits for
sixteen different pavement treatments.
New Practices for Managing Pavement Life," Better Roads, April 2002, by Ruth W. Stidger
hqp://www.betterroads.com/articles/at)ro2b,htm
This article provides a description and assessment of three effective treatments and practices that have gained
recognition for achieving pavement preservation goals: whitetopping, micro -surfacing, crack scaling. The article
includes an overview of performance -related specification models and the FHWA publication, Selecting a
Preventive Maintenance Treatment for Flexible Pavements.
Ohio: A Statewide Commitment to Pavement Preservation, Improved Construction and Maintenance
Technologies," U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, October 2001
hgo:l/www.fhwa.dot.govllllconstructior 1fsO2002.pdf
Ohio issued new Pavement Preventive Maintenance Guidelines in 2001, which showcase approved pavement
preventive maintenance treatments including crack sealing, ship seals, micro surfacing, concrete pavement
restoration, thin hot -mix asphalt inlays and overlays, and drainage preservation. This article provides a brief
overview of the guidelines, as well as the newly developed analysis queries that Ohio DOT is using to determine
candidate pavement preventive maintenance projects. The new guidelines are available at
www.dot.state.oh.us/pavementlpublications.htm.
Pavement Preservation: Toolbox Resources, Improved Construction and Maintenance Technologies, U.S.
Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, October 2001
http://www.fliwa.dot.zov/construction/fsO2Ol O.Vdf
This article features the new "Pavement Preservation Toolbox," assembled by the Federal Highway
Administration and Foundation for Pavement Preservation. The Toolbox contains a variety of materials
designed to assist agencies in understanding preventive maintenance, selecting roads for preservation, and
choosing the right treatments. The Toolbox includes the following items, some of which have been
highlighted in this report:
Pavement Preservation State of the Practice (CD-ROM)
Protecting Our Pavements: PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE (Video)
Pavement Preventive Maintenance Guidelines (Report)
Pavement Preservation Today (Newsletter)
Recommended Performance Guidelines for Micro -Surfacing (Report)
Selecting a Preventive Maintenance Treatment for Flexible Pavements (Report)
A Basic Asphalt Emulsion Manual (CD-ROM)
Pavement Preservation: The Preventive Maintenance Concept (CD-ROM)
Asphalt Emulsion Surface Treatment Descriptions (Pamphlet)
Micro -Surfacing, Quality Assurance and Use Guidelines for Micro -Surfacing (Report)
Asset Management: Preserving a $I Trillion Investment (Article in May 2000 Focus Newsletter)
States Make Major Strides in Adopting Pavement Preservation Strategies," Focus, April 2000
httT)://www.tfhrc.gov////////for,-aslaprOO/states,htm
This article provides a high level assessment of preventive maintenance programs in the United States, including the
prevalence of such programs, the integration of preventive maintenance with state pavement management systems,
the most commonly used treatments, and more.
A PP sw%vd I )r
NUMBER 219 MARCH -APRIL 2002
Strategic PIanning for Pavement Preventive Maintenance:
Michigan Department of Transportation's "Mix of Fixes" Program
Larry Golehouse
Michigan's pavement maintenance program uses a "mix of fixes" approach, combining
reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preventive maintenance—with the emphasis on preventive
maintenance—to meet public expectations of safe, smooth, and well-maintained roads. By
applying cost-effective treatments to correct minor pavement deficiencies before problems
become major, the state is able to extend pavement service life and optimize available Funds
to meet network condition needs.
9 Arkansas' Interstate Rehabilitation Program:
Research, Planning, and a Healthy Dose of Innovation
Farrell Wilson
Faced with the task of repairing 60 petrent of the state's Interstate highways, the Arkansas
State Highway and Transportation Department developed an innovative, comprehensive
approach. Research, planning, and best practices have been hallmarks of the Interstate
Rehabilitation Program, which has gained the necessary financing, improved rehabilitation
methods, and launched an award-winning public information campaign,
13 2002TRB Annual Meeting Highlights
With a program greatly expanded to include sessions spotlighting transportation security
and featuring news -making presentations on policy developments and directions by the
U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary and modal administration leaders, TRB's 2002
Annual Meeting drew a record number of attendees to Washington, D.C. Photographs and
brief reports offer a glimpse of the high-energy sessions and collegial interactions.
31 NewTRB Special Report
The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology:
Time for a Change of Direction
Walter]. Diewald
The Federal Highway Administration's research and technology program should focus on
fundamental, long-term research aimed at achieving breakthroughs in understanding
transportation -related phenomena, according to a TRB study. The Research and Technology
Coordinating Committee examined the FHWA program's focus and activities in the context of
Elie needs of the nation's highway system and of the toles and activities of other highway
research programs.
35 NewTRB Special Report
A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring
Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects
KrisA.14aelfen
Environmental windows are periods in which the adverse environmental impacts of dredging
a waterway and disposing of the dredged materials can be reduced below critical thresholds.
A joint study committee of the TRB–Marine Board and the National Research Council's Ocean
Studies Board has developed a template for a systematic process to achieve greater
consistency, predictability, and reliability in decision making about setting, managing, and
monitoring environmental windows for federal dredging projects.
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE
39 Research Pays Off
Cynthia Levesque
Improving Communications to Manage Incidents:
A Solution for Rhode Island
41 Calendar
42 Profiles
Professor, researcher, and consultant Clinton V. Oster, Jr, and Texas Transportation
Institute Deputy Director Dennis L. Christiansen
44 News Briefs
Free -flight too] takes oll', "beast out back" tests pavements, carpools thrive in Day
Area, historic bridge gets new life, intermodal initiatives in Europe, pavement
management in Thailand, and more; plus People in Transportation.
48 TRB Highlights
CRP News, 50
52 Bookshelf
TRB Publications, 52
C O R R E C T I O N
Jane E. Lappin of thcJohn A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center should have been
credited specifically as a member of the task force that deFuted, secured, and produced the
feature articles for the special issue on Intelligent Transportation Systems (TR News,
January -February 2002), under a charge from the TRB Committee on Intelligent Trans-
portation Systems. This task force included Steven Shladover, Partners for Advanced Transit
and Ilighways, as Chair; and William]ohnson, Consultant, Ottawa, Canada; and Jane Lappin,
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, as members. Richard J. Weiland, Weiland
Consulting Co., is Chair of the TRB Committee on Intelligent Transportation Systems.
C 0 M .1.WG ;
Strategic Planning
for Pavement Preventive
Maintenance
Michigan Department offTransportation's "Mu of Fixes" Prograrn
LARRY GALEHOUSE
he amount of travel on the Michigan state
highway system has increased more than
30 percent since 1986, yet the number of
lane -miles to support the traffic has
increased by only 3 percent. In the early 1990s,
demands on Michigan's highway network increased,
but the available resources decreased. Operating rev-
enues failed to keep pace with needs, and Michigan
Department of Transportation (DOT) staffing was
reduced substantially.
In 1992, the Michigan DOT developed a program
to preserve the highway networks pavement and
bridge structures. Department leaders committed
themselves to implementing the program and
pledged revenues and staffing for the initiative,
The exclusive purpose of the Michigan Capital
Preventive Maintenance Program is to preserve pave-
ment and bridge structures, delay future deteriora-
tion, and improve overall conditions cast effectively
and efficiently. This article focuses on the states pave-
ment preventive maintenance program.
Lane -Miles To Upkeep
Michigan DOT is responsible for a highway network
of 27,345 lane -miles (44,OOB lane -kilometers). The
roadway pavements are asphalt, concrete, and com-
posites of asphalt on concrete. The state highway
system represents about 8 percent of the state's lane -
miles of roads but carries approximately 55 percent
of all travel and 72 percent of commercial travel in
Concrete
freeways in
Michigan's
state
network.
Michigan—more than 50 billion annual vehicle -miles
of travel (AVMT) and more than 4 billion AVMT of
commercial travel.
In 1991, the Interniodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act made highway preventive maintenance
eligible for federal -aid funds. The National Highway
System bill, which became late in November 1995,
strengthened the provision: "A preventive mainte-
nance activity shall be eligible for federal assis-
tance -11 the state demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the Secretary that the activity is a cost-effective means
of extending the useful HE of a Federal -Aid Highway."
Mix of F.xaess" A-.pproach.
Michigan DOT satisfies public expectations by imple-
menting a comprehensive strategy for pavement
preservation. The Department initiated a pavement
preventive maintenance program in conjunction with
a pavement management system. In the last decade,
both programs have become integral in the Depart-
inents investment decision making.
The preventive maintenance program meets public
expectations for safe, smooth, and well-maintained
roads by applying cost-effective treatments to correct
minor pavement deficiencies before the problems
become major. The pavement management system
departs from traditional approaches that had focused
on reactive maintenance and reconstruction.
The strategy combines long-term fixes (recon-
struction), medium-term fixes (rehabilitation), and
s
4
short-term fixes (preventive maintenance)_ in this
mix of fixes" approach, each fix category has a crit-
ical role in improving the future condition of the
state highway network.
Reconstruction
Reconstruction involves the complete replacement of
the pavement structure with a new equivalent
a long-tenn action that is designed to last at least
20 years. Most favorable to the traveling public, recon-
struction is also the most costly fix. Like most trans-
portation agencies, Michigan DOT does not have
sufficient. funds to sustain the level of investment for
continual reconstruction of the highway network.
In addition, directing available funds to highway
reconstruction neglects the majority of the network.
Figure 1 illustrates the consequence of using a long-
term reconstruction strategy without rehabilitation
and preventive maintenance programs—the roads
remain predominantly in poor condition.
1997 2003 2009 2015 2021 2027 2033 2039
Poor 0 Fair 14 Good
FIGURE I Projected condition of Michigan's highway
network under reconstruction -only strategy over
40 -year period with funding of $400 million per year
1997 highway budget projections adjusted for inflation).
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation applies structural enhancements to
improve a pavement's load -carrying capability and
extend the service life. Most rehabilitation projects
are designed to last 10 to 20 years.
Although less costly than reconstruction, reha-
bilitation to improve the overall network condition
still requires a prohibitive level of investment. Com-
bined with a reconstruction program, rehabilitation
can provide a marginal increase in pavement perfor-
mance, but the results are not optimal, as illustrated
in Figure 2.
Preventive Maintenance
Preventive maintenance applies lower-cost treat-
ments to retard a highway'; deterioration, maintain
or improve the functional condition, and extend the
pavement's service life. With various short-term
treatments, preventive maintenance can extend pave -
m
L
E Poor l7 Fair M Good
FIGURE 2 Projected condition of Michigan's highway
network with combined reconstruction and
rehabilitation programs (10- to 30 -year fixes), at
funding of $400 million per year (adjusted for
inflation).
ment life an average of 5 to 10 years. Applied to the
right road at the right tinie when the padements are
mostly in good condition ---preventive maintenance
can improve the network condition significantly at a
lower unit cost.
Combining Components
Combining all three programs into a single compre-
hensive strategy achieves the most manageable high-
way network, as shown in Figure 3. The total funding
in Figure 3 is exactly the same as for the strategies in
Figures 1 and 2, but the roadway conditions are pre-
dominantly good and fair for the long term.
Preventive maintenance is perhaps the single most
influential component of the network strategy; allow-
ing the Department to manage pavement conclition.
Preventive maintenance postpones costly recoils true -
Lion or rehabilitation activities by extending the ser-
vice life of the original pavement. The challenge is to
ascertain the right time to applya treatment to achieve
maximum benefit or return on investment.
Routine maintenance is important for a highway;
but routine maintenance is a holding action, main -
1997 2003 2009 2013 2021 2027 2033 2039
N Poor 17 Fair N Good
FIGURE 3 Projected condition of Michigan's highway
network with combined reconstruction,
rehabilitation, and preventive maintenance programs
5- to 30 -year fixes), at funding of $400 million per
year (adjusted for inflation).
taining the service level without extending the pave-
ment life. Routine maintenance will not improve the
overall condition of a highway network.
Partnerships for Training
Many of the surface treatments and repair techniques
adopted for the new program were not familiar atGrst
to Michigan DOT personnel, For example, microsur-
facing had been applied only to a limited number of
locations in Michigan before 1992, and the benefits
were not well known. Similarly, the Department did
not have worldng knowledge and experience with
chip seals and certain kinds of concrete repairs.
Established contractors and suppliers were asked
to develop training workshops to educate Depart-
ment personnel about the new treatments. The
workshops have proved popular and successful. The
training partnership with contractors and suppliers
has continued and has contributed to improvements
in products and materials.
Surface Treatments
From the beginning, the program§ emphasis has
been on targeting pavement surface defects caused by
the environment and by deficiencies in materials,
not on deficiencies in the pavement structure caused
by traffic loading.
Surface treatments for flexible pavement surfaces
include microsurfacing, chip scats, slung seals, crack
sealing, 3/4 -inch (20 -mm) overlays of ultrathin hot -
mix asphalt, and 1.5 -inch (40 -ram) hot -mix asphalt
overlays. In some situations, it was cost-effective to
treat curb and gutter pavement sections by cold -
milling and resurfacing with a 1.5 -inch hot -mix
asphalt overlay.
Treatments for rigid pavements include full -depth
concrete pavement repairs, joint resealing, dowel -
bar retrofits, minor spall repair, crack sealing, and
diamond grinding. Inter, the removal and replace-
ment of narrow bituminous shoulders (less than 1
meter) were added as acceptable treatments.
Building Up the Budget
Since its inception in 1992, the Capital Preventive
Maintenance Program has had a dedicated budget,
assuring that funds are protected and, used for their
designated purpose. The fust year, the program was
funded at $12 million, with $6 million Ear pavement
preventive maintenance and $6 million for bridge
preventive maintenance. With federal -aid eligibility,
Michigan's funding obligation was approximately
20 percent of the programs total cost.
The pavement preventive maintenance budget
has increased steadily, reaching $25 million in 1997.
In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century revised the federal funding formulas,
and Michigan received a much needed revenue
increase.
In addition, GovernorJohn Engler obtained a gaso-
line tax increase to improve the states transportation
system. Michigan DOT leaders have demonstrated
commitment to the program by designating a greater
portion of funds for pavement preventive mainte-
nance. Today the pavement preventive maintenance
program has an annual budgetof $60 million, and the
budget will increase to $73.5 million in 2003.
Rating Conditions
The rating of pavement conditions on the state -
managed highway system is based on standard cri-
teria such as distress, ride quality, friction, and
rutting. Detailed dara are collected for the pavement
management system and used by pavement engi-
neers, butusually the data are translated into ratings
of "good" or "poor" for easier understanding by other
agencies and the public.
Chip seal operation
addresses pavement
surface defects on
flexible pavement.
Left: Applying sealant to a flexible pavement Right Continuous microsurfacfng,
applied to high-volume, flexible -pavement roads in Michigan, fills ruts, improves skid
resistance, retexturizes surface, and removes distortions.
Clockwise from above:
Dowel -bar retrofit eliminates
faulting in rigid pavements,
allowing load transfer from one
slab to another.
Diamond grinding improves ride
quality of concrete road surfaces.
Resealing joints on portland
cement concrete pavement.
In explaining the Michigan Road Strategy to the
public, officials made a distinction between freeways
and nonfreeways. Freeways referred to all Interstate
highways, as well as other limited -access state high-
ways. Nonfreeways represented all of the remaining
highways that are not limited -access, including all
two-lane roads.
Pavement condition data for 1996 indicated that
79 percent of Michigan's freeways and 56 percent of
dip nonfreeways were in good condition. In 1997, the
State Transportation Commission established a spe-
cific 10 -year condition goal—to have 95 percent of
freeways and 85 percent of nonfreeways in good con-
dition by 2007.
The only viable strategy was to implement a three -
tiered program of reconstruction, rehabilitation, and
preventive maintenance. The approach addresses the
worst highways through reconstruction, the poor
highways by rehabilitation, and die good highways
with aggressive preventive maintenance.
Optimizing Funds
The mix -of -fixes approach helps optimize avadable
funds to meet network condition needs. In estimat-
ing the outcome of a mix -ofFuses strategy, Michigan
DOT relies on the Road Quality Forecasting System,
which uses current condition data from the pave-
ment management system to predict future network
conditions at different levels of investment. The fore-
casting model has proved an invaluable tool.
Integrating pavement preventive maintenance
with reconstruction and rehabilitation produces dra-
uratic results in the network's condition. Even the
most skeptical traditionalist soon recognizes that
preventive maintenance is the only cost-effective
means to improve overall pavement condition. More
than a program of short-term treatments, preventive
maintenance is a management tool that optimizes
funding allocations.
Balancing Service Life
The bar chart in Figure 4 shows the remaining ser-
vice life of a typical pavement network that failed to
implement a mix-of-fixzs strategy. The unequal dis-
tribution of remaining service life represents a sig-
nificant ibnificantfutureproblemwhenthelargestgroup
approaches no remaining life. With no service life
remaining, the pavements are candidates only for
rehabilitation and reconstruction.
Large surges in construction can be devastating to
overall maintenance. First, large fluctuations in fund-
ing are required—an unpopular alternative for the
public. Second, the variation in construction activi-
ties from year to year creates staffing and logistical
problems for the highway agency and the contractor.
The practice of hiring and laying off personnel as
workloads change hurts employees and disrupts the
organization. Finally, contractors and suppliers need
a stable source of work to survive in the market-
place. Years of heavy workloads followed by years of
light workloads can force many contractors out of
business.
Preventive maintenance can alter the distribution
of a pavemcnL remaining service life. By targeting
large concentrations of pavements vvith.similar
remaining service lives, preventive maintenance
treatments can balance projected workloads before a
management problem develops (Figure 5). Balancing
the remaining life of the network pavements will
ensure manageable workloads at available funding.
50
E 40
a
v 30
Z 20
10
a
1 II III IV V VI
0-2) (3-7) (6-12) (13-17) (18-22) (23-27)
Years)
Pavement Remaining SeWce Life Categories
FIGURE 4 Remaining service -life distribution of
typical pavement network maintained without mix -of -
fixes strategy, based on current condition of
roadways.
B-2) (3-7) (8-12) (13-t7) (IB -22) (23-27)
Years)
Pavement Remaining Service Life Categories
FIGURE 5 Remaining service -life distribution of
pavement network that incorporates preventive
maintenance approach.
Managing the Process
Data Collection
Every year pavement condition data are collected for
half of the Michigan highway network, so that the
entire network is surveyed every two years, and the
cycle repeats. The survey collects information by
videotaping one lane, providing a record of all dis-
tress in the pavement surface. The videotape is
Lagged by location and analyzed in 10 -foot segments,
with each segment assigned a distress index number
that increases with the level of severity.
In addition, the survey collcas ride quality and
rut measurements for the pavement management
system. The new data are compared with historical
data to forecast future pavement conditions in terms
of remaining service life.
Michigan DOT seven regional offices are using
the pavement condition data to create long-term
strategies and projects to achieve the State Trans-
portaLion Comntissionk 10 -year condition goal. Each
regions strategy relies on the Road Quality Fore-
casting System to recognize needs and variability
within assigned budget targets.
Call for Projects
The Department annually issues a call for projects,
allowing the regions to introduce candidate projects
for roads and bridges. Projects involving recon-
struction and rehabilitation are planned for fiveyears
away. At the end of each construction season, new
projects for reconstruction and rehabilitation supply
the next fifth year. Preventive maintenance projects
are identified only for one year away, because the
projects must address pavement deficiencies early
on, before the problems become serious.
The annual call for projects assures that the pro-
grams are consistent with the state'; long-range plan
and its Transportation Improvement Program. The
Department gains an opportunity to make midcourse
corrections if program adjustments become neces-
sary. But the call for projects also emphasizes the
principle that preventive maintenance will improve
the overall highway network!; pavement condition
cost-effectively.
Evaluating'Performan ce
The value of pavement preventive maintenance is
anchored to the performance of the treatments—the
key is not how long the treatments last but the life -
extending value imparted to the pavetnent. Michigan
DOT annually assesses the life -extending value of the
different treatments. A team of independent engi-
neers, experienced and knowledgeable about pave-
ments, performs the evaluations.
Data Analysis and Field Tests
The evaluations concentrate on treatments that are
several years old. Before a Geld investigation of the
treatment, information is gathered, including details
about the original pavement section, construction
history; historical and current traffic counts, and
pavement management system condition data. The
condition data on distress, ride quality, and rutting
are of primary interest and include the years preced-
ing and following the treatment application.
After the data analysis, the field phase begins. A
representative number of segments are chosen to pro-
vide an accurate assessment of pavement surface con-
dition. Each segment measures 0.1 mile (160 teeters)
in length. All of the selected segments are surveyed
carefully and the extent and severity of each type of
distress are recorded. Performance curves are devel-
oped, and the life -extending value of the treatment is
extracted for each project.
Figure 6 provides a simplified depiction of the life -
extending benefit of a treatment The graph shows a
typical deterioration curve interrupted when a pre-
ventive maintenance treatment is applied to a pave-
ment in good condition. The preventive maintenance
Ver
Gaua
Goon
Faii
Pool
ver?
Goa
rime (Years) 3110
FIGURE b Life -extending benefit of preventive
maintenance treatment
1
b
7
improves the condition for a period, until the pave-
ment returns to the condition before the treatment.
The time the pavement condition was improved by the
treatment is the life extension given to the original
pavement, or the extended service life.
The pavement management system's measure-
ments of pavement condition over a period of time
before and after the application of preventive main-
tenance makes it possible to determine the extended
service life of a treatment.
Prescribing Treatments
Although evaluations continue, the extended service
life of a preventive maintenance treatment depends
TABLE I Extended Service Life Gains for Preventive Maintenance Treatments
NoTEs
The time range is the expected life -extending benefit given to the pavement, not
the anticipated longevity of the treatment
Sufficient data are not available to determine life -extending value.
Additional information is necessary to quantify the extended life more accurately.
on the pavements rate of deterioration. Pavement
condition is possibly the most important factor in
achieving the maximum benefit from a preventive
maintenance treatment
An engineer should evaluate a highway like a doc-
tor diagnosing a patient—each patient has different
physical traits, and the doctor prescribes a medica-
tion to fit the particular individual. Similarly, the
engineer must select a preventive maintenance treat-
ment that fits the unique condition of the pavement.
Michigan DOT prescribes treatments according
to pavement condition measures, not by schedules
for timely applications. The likely gains in extended
service life from various treatments applied to dif-
ferent types of pavement are indicated in Table 1.
Consolidating Gains
The mix -of -fixes approach provides the greatest
flexibility to the highway agency in enhancing
pavement performance, with a three-tier program of
reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preventive main-
tenance. An agency can address the worst highways
through reconstruction, improve poor highways by
rehabilitation, and preserve good highways with
timely preventive maintenance. Preventive mainte-
nance can improve pavement performance cost-
effectively and efficiently, as measured by such
attributes as ride quality, safety, and remaining
service life.
In Michigan, pavement preventive maintenance
is now integrated into a strategy designed to meet
long-term pavement condition goals. Funding for
the pavement preventive maintenance program has
grown steadily from $6 million to $73.5 million
annually. The performance of the preventive main-
tenance treatments and the extension of service life
imparted to the original pavements are evaluated
regularly.
Michigan DOT has a strong partnering relation-
ship with preventive maintenance contractors and
suppliers for improving products and materials. As
a result, even better -performing treatments are
expected in the future.
Resources
Asset Management Primer. Federal Highway Administration,
December 1999.
Five -Year Road and Bridge Progrant, Volume III: 200I to 2045.
Michigan Department of Transportation, January 2001,
Good News from MDOT: A Progixss Repart from the Michigan
Department of Transportation. Michigan Department of
Transportation, December 2000.
Agenda Number:
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager/(rt-
SUBJECT: Set Future Study Sessions
DATE: January 14, 2005, for Council study session of January 18, 2005
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Review the pending study session topics list and establish future
special meetings or amend the topics list if desired.
2. BACKGROUND: Attached is the list of pending study session topics, as well as calendars
to assist in scheduling.
Pending Study Session Topics
at least 3 Council members have approved the following study items on the list)
Review City Center concept, parking, downtown council, signage
issues (Council)
Review Development/Redevelopment Application Process — Jan.
Council)
Discuss development standards (NEMO) (Black, Stein, Johnson)
Other requests for study session topics:
Update with City Manager -- quarterly (next mtg. Apr.)
Discuss requests for City membership in organizations, such as
North Metro Mayors Assn., NLC, US Conference of Mayors
Johnson)
Paper Conservation "paperless agendas" (Slavik) Jan. or later
Campaign sign enforcement
Discuss Point of Sale Program (Stein)
Consider meeting with senators and congressman (Johnson)
2005 Legislative Priorities
Discuss prosecution philosophy with respect to City Attorney
services (Bildsoe)
City Manager evaluation (Johnson)
OFFICIAL .CITY MEETINGS
January 2005
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Feb 2005 1Dee2004
S M T W T F S S M T W T F 5 NEW YEAR'S
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 DAY
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
26 27 28 29 30 31 27 28
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL.Council
Chambers
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION
NEW MEMBER
ORIENTATION,
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
Medicine Lake
Room
Gleason Lake
Room, lower
level
9 10 11 12 13 14- 1.5
5:70 PMSPECl4L
COUNCILMELIING:
CITYM4NAGER
ANNUAL REVIEW,
Wft're lake Room
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALI YCOMMRTEE
EQC),Cound
Chambers
7:00 PM PARK &
REC ADVISORY
COMMISSION
FRAC), Council
Chambers
7,00 PM REGULAR
COUNCI4 MEETING,
Council Chambers
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
MARTIN
LUTHER KING
JR. BIRTHDAY
Observed -
City Offices
7:00 PM SPECIAL CITY
COUNCIL MEETING_
DISCUSS STREET
RECONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM, Cwnci
Chambers
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medlcne Lake Room
7.30 AM -9:00 AM FALC
REGIONAL
BREAKFAST, Plymouth
RadaxnHolel3
Cwf-m?n Center
Closed
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, Council
Chambers
11:45AMTlMNWEST
STATE OF THE CITY
LUNCHEON, Plymouth
Creek Center
7:00 PM
PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
7UOPMREGULAR
COUNCIL MEE-TVG,
Council Chambers
TRANSIT, Council
Chambers (this
meeting only)
30 31
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, Council
Chambars
modified on 1/1412005
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
February 2005
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5
7:00 PM 7:00 PM HUMAN 2:00 PM -7:00
PLANNING RIGHTS PM FIRE & ICE
COMMISSION, COMMISSION- FESTIVAL,
Council Chambers Medicine Lake Parkers Lake
Room
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5:39 PM SPECIAL CITY 5:0o PY PUBLIC HEARING 7;00 PM PARK &
CouNCILMEETlNG: ONNO-WAKE REC ADVISORY
DISCUSS CRAFT DRDa CE,Coum
PONDN(AINTENANCE
C b.. COMMISSION
IMPLEMENTATION;%P'
C
Ac7, Council
Lunch Room, katner 7-00 PM EN ONMEN7AL Chambers
level QUAD COMMITISE
EOC) Coad Chambers
7:00PM REGULAR ASK EDNESRAY _
COUNCILMEET .
Counc Chambe
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
6:45 PM YOUTH 7:00 PM 7 OD PMHOUSING &
PLANNING
REDEVELOPMENT
AOVISORY AUTHORITY (HRA).
COUNCIL, Council COMMISSION, CuunciChombem
Chambers Council Chambers
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
PRESIDENTS 7:00 PM
DAY -Clfy REGULAR PLYMOUTH AM MUNICIPAL SPECIAL
Offices Closed COUNCIL AD1lISORY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MEETING, COMMITTEE ON COMMISSION, MEETING -
Council
TRANSIT (PACT) - Plymouth SET 2005
Chambers
Medicine Lake Radisson GOALS &
Room PRIORITIES:
Plymouth Creek
Center
27 28 Jan 2005 Mar 2005
6:45 PM YOUTH S At T W T F S S M T W T F S
ADVISORY 1 1 2 3 4 5
COUNCIL, Council
Chambers 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 31
30 31
modified on 1/14/2005
OFFICIAL .CITY MEETINGS
March 2005
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
y 2
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
J
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
4 5
Feb 2005
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Council Chambers Medicine Lake
Room
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7:00 PM
REGULARENVIRONMFMAL
COUNCIL
MEETING,
Council
7:00PM
auALrrrcoMMrrr
E4c),Caand
chambers
7:00 PM PARK&
RECADVISORY
COMMISSION
PRAC), Council
Chambers
Chrmbers
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
6:00 PM YOUTH
TOWN FORUM,
PI oulhCreekYm
Center Chambers
7:o0PMHOUSING Q
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHneLzke oonMedicinelakeRaom
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
PALM SUNDAY 1:45AMPLYMOUTH
BUSINESS CGUNCk.
Sheraton Minneapolis
West MCI Fr.Jgedale
Ddu, Mnnelonka
7:00 PM
PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
Good Friday
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Medicine Lake
7 D PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETWG,
Coundl Chambers
Room
27
EASTER
SUNDAY
28
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, Council
29 30 31
Apr 2005
S M T W T F 5
1 2
Chambers 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 I5 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
modified on 1/14/2005
OFFICIAL .CITY MEETINGS
April 2005
Sunday Monday Tuesday I Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
I 2
Mar 2005 May 2005
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
27 28 29 30 31 29 30 31
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
DAYLIGHT
SAVINGS
COMMENCES-
set docks ahead 4
hour
7:00 PM BOARD
OF
EQUALIZATION,
Council
Chambers
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:D0 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
Medicine Lake
Room
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, CouncE
Chambers
7:00 PM
REGULAR
COUNCIL
MEETING,
Council
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QwumcommTTLe
EOC),Counc4
Chamhem
7:00 PM PARK &
REC ADVISORY
COMMISSION
PRAC), Council
Chambers
Chambers
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
8:00AM-1;00 PM
HUM4N RIGHTS
COMMISSIONSTUDENT
WORKSHOP, Plymouth
kx Center
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING&
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY(HRA),
Medicine Lake Roam
9.1D0AMCfYYAUCTION, City
Mahrtenanrs Garage,
1490023rd Avenue
PASSOVER
BEGINS AT
7110 PM 130ARD OF
EOUAU7ATION
MCOMIENED),
Cou'" Chambers
SUNSET
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, Council
6:00 PM YOUTH
SERVICEAWARDS,
Counal Chambers
7.00 PM
PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
Chambers COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Medicine Lake
Room
TOO PM REGULAR
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
Chambers
modified on 1114/2005
Plymouth Creek Center
2004
3rd Quarter Report
Grand Total Number of Bookings for 3rd Quarter: 858
3rd Quarter PCC Hours for 2004 Senior Programs (Sara M.)
July
PCC 2004 3rd Quarter Bookings
Totals
Fireside Rm A
July August September Totals
Senior Programs 100 103 134 337
Park & Recreation 82 72 124 278
Paid Rentals 18 15 15 48
Non -Profit 15 21 23 59
City 41 33 62 136
Tntnk 256 244 358
75
Grand Total Number of Bookings for 3rd Quarter: 858
3rd Quarter PCC Hours for 2004 Senior Programs (Sara M.)
3rd Quarter Grand Total Number of Hours for Parks & Recreation: 565.25
July August September Totals
Fireside Rm A 18 23 29.5 70.5
Fireside Rm B 11.5 11 17.5 40
Fireside Room 43.75 36.75 30.25 110.75
Black Box 5.5 12 23.25 40.75
Conference Rm 1 19 23- 19.5 61.5
Conference Rm 2 7.5 9 12 28.5
Meeting Rm 1 22.5 24.5 28 75
Meeting Rm 2 49 39.5 51 139.5
Meeting Rm 3 2.5 17 36.25 55.75
Plymouth Room 4 12 17 33
Plymouth Rm A 17 0 12 29
Plymouth Rm B 4 2.5 7.5 14
Plymouth Rm B&C 4 5.5 4.5 14
Plymouth Rm C 6.5 0 1.5 8
Food Court 0 6 11.5 17.5
Music Room 1 0 7 10.5 17.5
Lobby 6 0 0 6
Totals 220.75 228.75 311.75
3rd Quarter Grand Total Number of Hours for Sara M. (Senior Programs): 761.25
3rd Quarter PCC Hours for 2004 Park & Recreation
July August September Totals
Black Box 33 57 3 93
Fireside Rm 1 0 1.5 2.5
Food Court 9 3 3 15
Meeting Rm 1 23 32 15.25 70.25
Meeting Rm 2 8.5 7.5 13.75 29.75
Meeting Rm 3 24.5 15 51.25 90.75
Music Rm 1 33 9.5 97 139.5
Music Rm 2 16.5 5.5 49 71
Plymouth Rm A _ 14 12 10 36
Plymouth Rm B 2 2.5 0 4.5
Plymouth Rm B&C 6 0 0 6
Lower Lobby 7 0 0 7
Totals 177.5 144 243.75
3rd Quarter Grand Total Number of Hours for Parks & Recreation: 565.25
3rd Quarter PCC Hours for 2004 Paid Rentals
July August September Totals
Conference Rm 1 2 0 0 2
Fireside Rm 12 4 2 18
Meeting Rm 1 4 7 4 15
Meeting Rm 2 2 7 3 12
Plymouth Rm 56 49 34.5 139.5
Meeting Rm 3 0 3 0 3
Fireside Rm A 0 0 2 2
Plymouth Rm B&C 0 0 8 8
Plymouth Rm C
y
0 0 2 2
Totals 76 70 55.5
3rd Quarter Grand Total Number of Hours for Paid Rentals: 201.5
3rd Quarter PCC Hours for 2004 Non -Profit
July August September Totals
Conference Rm 1 6 4 10 20
Fireside Rm 2 0 0 2
Meeting Rm1 8 17 17 42
Meeting Rm 2 10 12.25 14.25 36.5
Plymouth Rm A 9 10 0 19
Plymouth Room 0 4 0 4
Plymouth Rm B&C 0 0 13 13
Totals 35 47.25 54.25
3rd Quarter Grand Total Number of Hours for Non -Profit Groups: 136.5
3rd Quarter PCC Hours for 2004 City Staff
July August September Totals
Black Box 18 29 118.5 165.5
Conference Rm 1 11.5 11.5 14.5 37.5
Conference Rm 2 12.5 13.75 57.5 83.75
Fireside 14.25 0 28.5 42.75
Food Court 7 2 4 13
Meeting Rm 1 12.5 1 3 16.5
Meeting Rm 2 7 2 2 11
Meeting Rm 3 24 13.5 47 84.5
Music Rm 1 6 0 0 6
Music Rm 2 7 0 45 52
Plymouth Rm A 7.25 3 0 10.25
Plymouth Rm B 11 0 0 11
Plymouth Rm C 13 3 2 18
Plymouth Room 3 7.5 56 66.5
Plymouth Rm B&C 0 7.5 8.5 16
Totals 154 93.75 386.5
3rd Quarter Grand Total Number of Hours for City Staff: 634.25
2004 Plymouth Creek Center 3rd Quarter Bookings
7%
6%--- ---1—) r-16%
32%
Senior Programs
Park & Recreation
IM Paid Rentals
Cl Non -Profit
City Staff
39%
2004 Plymouth Creek Center 3rd Quarter Bookings
140
120
100
of $0
Bookings 60
40
20
0
neo(
pcog
m &
eGCOati
ot
pa
dRe
a`5 \
40 '? , G
Stia
Se Pact
III July
August
September
50 2004: PI mouth.Creek Center Paid Rentals s6
4y
Ci July 3rd Quarter
40 ®August
30 September ss
20
12
1 {} 7 7 g .
2 4 2 4 4 2 3 3
2 20 -
e
e`e
R
F
tea
de
ee0\
q
ee%\
q
e0\9
Fi(
es1ae
o
t'N
m0
m
u
R
meUt
aem
C ?\0 ? Ply