HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-07 Item 2B, Five Year CIP Update
.
~
~~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 22,2007
AGENDA ITEM 2.B
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator ~~
Work Session Discussion: 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Attached is an update from Civil Engineer Kris Giga. Council saw several drafts of the proposed
five-year CIP during calendar year 2006. Staff has made a few adjustments to the PMP projects,
as outlined in Kris' memo. However, the balance of the five-year plan is consistent with earlier
drafts reviewed by the City Council.
The Council has not formally approved a five-year CIP since 2005. Staff is recommending that
we approve a five year CIP, for the years 2007-2011. This is an important step to take for a
number of reasons. The CIP is a plan, not a budget. As an approved plan, it serves as a guideline
for staff to focus planning efforts for upcoming projects. It is also a critical element for financial
and budget planning purposes. We need a basis on which to base projections, and an approved
capital program is that foundation.
Capital projects and purchases are always large enough that they will not proceed without
separate action by the City Council. However, by a approving a five-year program, we can work
toward these goals, with the flexibility to recommend and adopt changes along the way. As part
of the annual budget process, the current year of the CIP will be incorporated into the actual
budget.
One of the staff goals for 2007 is to incorporate the approved CIP into a software program and
create a more complete CIP document. This document will include project descriptions; maps
estimated costs (by category), proposed funding sources, and other information.
If there are no concerns raised by the Council during the Work Session, staff will proceed with
placing the CIP on the regular meeting agenda for Monday, January 29.
\\metro-inet\ardenhills\adrnin\City Administrator\Memo\2007\I ~22"()7 CIP Update.doc
~
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 18,2007
AGENDA ITEM 2.B
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator
Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer ~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Five-Year CIP Update
BACKGROUND
Staff has continued to review and revise the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) based upon
previous direction from Council and further financial analysis. Attached is the current CIP
worksheet. Staff is providing an update to Council prior to bringing the CIP forward for
approval, which is scheduled for the January 29, 2007 Council meeting.
DISCUSSION
The following narrative summarizes the changes made to the CIP since the last discussion with
the Council, which include updates to the proposed Pavement Management Program (PMP)
projects. For the benefit of the new Council members, the narratives from the CIP discussions
that occurred at May, July and August 2006 work sessions have been attached.
2007 Proiects
2007 PMP Mill and Overlay:
As discussed at previous Council meetings and in the feasibility report, the 2007 PMP
was expanded to include the streets proposed for the 2009 PMP. Some of the streets
originally suggested for mill and overlay are now being recommended for seal coats. Spot
utility repair has been incorporated into the projects, including items such as gate valve
repair, catch basin/manhole improvements, and sanitary sewer pipe repair. Funding
source: General Capital Fund, General Fund, Enterprise Funds (Watermain, Surface
Water, Sanitary Sewer), Assessments.
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PR&PW\Engineering\2007\Work _ Sessions\1-22-07 _Memo _ elP .doc
;
CIP Discussion
1118/2007
Page 2
2007 Seal coat:
The seal coat project has been listed as a separate line item in the spreadsheet. These
costs are not assessed to residents, and for easier tracking, staff separated the costs from
the PMP costs. Based on the feasibility report findings, two additional neighborhoods
have been added to the proposed seal coat project: the Chatham Avenue neighborhood,
and the Harriet Avenue/Pine Tree Drive neighborhood. The estimated costs for the 2007
PMP are lower than staff originally anticipated, and balance the increase in costs for the
seal coat project. Funding source: General Capital Fund.
2008 Proiects
2008 PMP Reconstruct:
The proposed project for 2008 includes the neighborhood south of County Road E and
east of Snelling Avenue. The streets include: Arden Place, Forest Lane, Skiles Lane,
Glenarden Road, Glenarden Court, and North Snelling Avenue. Utility work will be
incorporated into this project as needed. With' the continuing increase in stormwater
requirements, it is anticipated that the stormwater costs will be the highest of the utility
costs. Funding source: General Capital Fund, General Fund, Enterprise Funds
(Watermain, Surface Water, Sanitary Sewer), Assessments.
The City of Arden Hills has received a request from the City of Roseville regarding its
next area for street reconstruction, the Asbury A venue/ Ridgewood Road neighborhood
(Roseville's "Neighborhood 10"). City limits are midblock; some properties are even
divided by the border. Roseville would like us to consider the option of extending their
project up to Glenhill Road, which would include approximately 300 feet of Asbury
Avenue and 400 feet of Ridgewood Road located within Arden Hills. Estimated costs for
these segments are approximately $125,000, which includes some funding for storm
sewer improvements that will be needed. While the estimated costs for the 2008 PMP
exceed the $1 million guideline, 2007 and 2009 projects are estimated at less than $1
million, creating a balance over three years. Given the close proximity of this
neighborhood to the proposed 2008 PMP, this would be another good candidate for
combining projects in an effort to reduce construction costs by creating a more lucrative
proj ect for contractors.
2009 Proiects
2009 PMP Reconstruct:
Since streets previously proposed in 2009 were shifted to 2007, staff has shifted the
previously proposed 2011 project to 2009. Past practice has been to alternate
reconstruction and mill and overlay projects every year. Since staff is not recommending
mill and overlays on streets with no curb and gutter, there are more streets to reconstruct
than there are to mill and overlay in the City. Therefore, we are proposing reconstruction
projects in smaller neighborhoods in the "off' years to continue raising the City-wide
average PCL This change may affect the enterprise funds, as mill and overlay projects
CIP Discussion
1/18/2007
Page 3
typically don't involve major utility work. Funding source: General Capital Fund,
General Fund, Enterprise Funds (Watermain, Surface Water, Sanitary Sewer),
Assessments.
2009 Seal coat:
Based on changes to the 2007 seal coat project, staff has made some minor revisions to
the proposed 2009 seal coat project. Funding source: General Capital Fund.
2010 Projects
20 10 PMP Reconstruct:
No change has been made to the proposed improvements in 2010. Funding source:
General Capital Fund, General Fund, Enterprise Funds (Watermain, Surface Water,
Sanitary Sewer), State Aid Funds, Assessments.
2011 Projects
2011 PMP Reconstruct/Mill and Overlay:
Staff reviewed projects preliminarily identified for 2012-2016 and selected a mill and
overlay project to shift to 2011 in an effort to continue capturing streets before they
deteriorate to a point of needing reconstruction. The proposed 2011 project involves the
Wyncrest and Nursery Hi!] neighborhoods. Amble Road is the only road within these
neighborhoods that does not have curb and gutter, therefore, it is proposed as a
reconstruct as a part of this project. Utility repairs would be made as necessary. Funding
source: General Capital Fund, General Fund, Enterprise Funds (Watermain, Surface
Water, Sanitary Sewer), Assessments.
20 II Seal coat:
Staff has made some minor revisions to the proposed seal coat project for 20 I I. Funding
source: General Capital Fund.
CONCLUSION
Staff is requesting comments from Council so that any necessary revisions to the CIP can be
made prior to bringing it forward for formal Council approval. Staff will be requesting that
Council approve the CIP with the understanding that it is a working document, which will be
reviewed and revised as necessary when bringing each project forward.
" "
.Q 0 >-
13 n .!!!
.E .E 0;
> 1ii
~ ~ 0
" " 0
0 0 "" <..>
<..> <..> 1ii
Q) Q) ~ Q)
0 0:: 0:: (j)
ci
;; ;; ~ ~
a a
N N N N
~~~<
"
lNlfSlf3
",1I!ii
N3JlIfNOlfJNfXEIi
.
.
Q
~
.
~
.
,
Q
U
'if;
N3J\IfNO.HlNIX31
,
.
:
~
~CJ
"0
i
.
N1:l3~
""I' JsaoDAtWIB:I
~
d
,.t
;j
.
~
.
04f~q
"'...
o..~
.
~
c
c
~
c 1
<]z ~ ~'l
~.:
c ,0,
~ 5'~
,.'
g ;;8
i:
N "
NO HlJ3}I
I)j(m " "
>- 0 0
.!!! tJ n
0; 1ii 2 2 1ii
> 1;; 1;;
0 0 " " 0
<..>
~ rn 0 0 <..>
<..> <..> rn
~ Q) Q) &. Q)
(j) 0:: (j)
-
~
~
0
N
I
......
0
0
N
-
. a..
Q
Q
~ -
. 0
~
~
8 L-
ea
(I)
>-
I
Ii)
.t'
ea
L-
C
III 3,t1f ~NI7'13NS
a^laIfNNtfHOr~1tl
>
i
i
~
~
'"
..,/i;;JSj
all NOJ.H~nla ~N
>
,"''it,
1
i
'1&3.LIfJ.SI:l31NI
"
u
.
Q
.
Q
i'
3
~
~
N3AttONIry<lA,nO
c
z
w
Cl
W
...J
r-: r-: as m al~
o 0 a a 0
000 a 0
$~~~~
.. ,~~<
11111II!
jrl~HH
~~~hiH
htmH
Hh~ih
~Hiiri!fl:
....i.I..
I
.
,
~
~.l"
~ ~ E ~ ji
_ 8-,11
r&zBi
fj~rlf&
~:lq,~
~~H,:;i
~Hn"
,H~i~~
-l!.~.a'lio
<'I ~ ~ &: ~~
~
~~
i
c
.'
>-.~ g
"ON
~.~ ~
g.~ii
<i:.!!!g
~-,
.
~
u
ProjectOescrfption
ARDEN HilLS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 2006-2011
REVISION DATE: January 13,2007
TolaiPmjectCost Gc""ralCapitaJ SpectalRevea.e General Fund Pub!Ocs"lety MnOOT Stale_Aid Ulilil Funds , Comm.nts
Fundl'l Pa<l<.fund '" Cap;lalFund Coop Ag<""",en! Funds (4) Storm Water Wale< Sanilary
2006 {Workinn CanJ Fund Balance Jan 1 - 2006 $ 6,213,340 $ 187,882 $ - $ 302,250 $ (95,550 $ 735,528 $ 416.012
2006 R;dg"""",dNeighoorhood R""onsl'u~I'on , i2.058.21ROO) , \'.000.58'.001 , (200.000.00) , 1551,026.001 , 230.54B..(0) , t89.3M.DO} Updaledtou.ofudeChaneOrde,;:Z
ReeonWucllrftSlabons""."11 :'12,#13 , '35.000.(0) , 35.000.00 , rea, CoS/SO
'00 Schmidt Park Under ass , 'n,"'~o 00 , 32.000,00 ~"" Pro'CI-lInlO: led EMieSIConslfl.oC:hon '"~
CSAH96laoosca Enhancem.nlS , "20.';()7.47) , 1120.407.47} , Tolal 0 I c.osls a o~"""lel SJ60.000.'remaind.. ., ,.- Count
Sanil,,, Sewer 181 Mil at",nWor~ ,C~ Forces) , i25.oo00{l) , 25.000.001 Need;n IhomO&Monacluallabo"etlorteoo,e-normalbu<lele<lreborandmalerialS
6as~etbaJFTe""<sCourtReha~"lalion_ Ro al Hills an<l Roral ; "2.000.00 , 112.000.00
3153Shorel;nelanBOr"ewa. ; I16000(l{}1 , 16.00000)
V, hn T""-""Access Road ; ,'7.60328l , 117.603.28
As==enlPa iEnlor ';se Fund Con" ..-MnOOT St~'"Aid estimate , ;".000 , ; , ; 200,000.00 , 501,917 , 6!1,8BG , 84.603 2005 PMP Slale Ai<! reimt...-sement of 52:<5.000 rr'lcllKled", S'orm Waler FundCr>nl"bulions
Totalsfor2006 , (2.316,2l19_75) , {843.591.75} , (32.oo0_(0) , 1212,000.001 , , 200.000.00 , l4!1.1DlI.oo) , 11tH.662.(0) , {64,761.(0)
2007 rworkinQ Cao.l Fund Balance Jan 1 - 2007 $ 5,369.748 $ 155,882 $ - $ 502.250 $ 1144.659 $ 573,866 $ 351,251
2007PMP_M,llaodOverlay , (7601.500oo! , (532.000.00) ; (200.00000) , 120.00000) , 12.50000) , 10.000.00)
2007 5oaleo~1 , "OO.OOOWj , 1100,000.00)
OklH' ~wa 10Sidewal~ 1m o,emenls,CPRaIIB,'" el , ;230000001 , 50.000,00 , 160.000.00) Cost for brid e WOf~ on! : trail eosls ;nctuded as aM of S""'I, A,enueReoronalTlol 0 sedin2010
S1o,m Pond Ma",'enance P'o , , i50.00000' , 150,000.00 Includes Remo,alol Sjl De ."s fOl h,.one C~ Pond.
Sanilar 5o"e,'8.1Mll' a"onWorl< ; 100.'0000, , 100.100.001
Basl<etl>all'IeMlisCourl ReNl~'~allon. Cumm, , ; r35.OOO001 , 135.000.00
Emerenc Veh;cIePree lionilema,nderof ooram, , i:l6(0000) , f26000.00
" ece1geO'fla'erTanl<er , ,105000.00\ , .'05.000.001 ,
AS<O$Smen'Pa.Ent nseFundC""lr.;I,lnOOISla'eArd=timale , 200.000 , , , , 190.076,00 , 281.508 , 96.675 ; 108,788
Totals for 2007 . (1.410,600_001 , {441.000.0DJ , {85,ooo.ool , (200.000.001 , , (15.924.00) , 211,503.00 . 94.175.00 . (1.-312_001
2008 IWorking Cap_I Fund Balance Jan 1 - 2008 $ 4,928,748 $ 70,882 $ - $ - $ 486,326 $ 66,849 $ 668,041 $ 349.939
200B PI.1P. Reconslruct , ,2.2~5.0~0001 , <1.330.000.00) , 1200.000.00) , 1500,000,00) , (200.000.001 , (15.000.00)
Counl RoadESKle.~a'klm o'.emenls,Bt , mentNmlhO MOl ; ,376700001 , 13270ooGo) , 149.70000 B'Id. menlSouIhO ion. 5J.tS.GOO,5299k Coo Ao'.S47I<SlaleAidJ
Count RoadESide"""lm e,pmenls'Nertl'lWal", ; i302.%000, , 30290000 So<llhWal.S148.300 Stal....d
SaMarySe"'er'&IU~ogal",n'ilio" , "00 1O~ iNl , 1100.10000
StormPond!.la,ntenano~PrOjOct , r50000oo1 ; 150.00000)
Scopebaseduponr""ullSof1nspechon~vKIA l,,'Of Inc ,O<><ember. 2005;. "",luOe.S24.30010,tence
" ir South Water To",.,. , 179.~40.00) , 79.440,00) and 20'll, fOf e inoor;n Screen and cadino wo'. oomol,'ed '~y 08M. not ,ncluded on 0051
Bas~ell>aln""nisCo",,Re~aO,I"al<on Hazelnul , '15.00000\ , 115.000.00l
Cil TrailS ~, , ,2~,00(lOO\ , 125.000,00
5.10 P",~u ; L:l5.000DO' , 25.000.00
A<<es<men'Pa ; Enler "seFundCon\f'-~lnOOT S'ateilid estimo'& , 440,000 ; , , ; 190.07600 , 295.340 , 150,651 , 164.073
Tolarsfo~2008 , 13.-219,140.001 , (915.000.(1(1) , (25,000.00) , (215.000.00) , , {162,524.(I(I} , 12S4,wn.00) , {128.789.00) , 48,973_00
2009 Workina Cao.! Fund Balance Jan 1 - 2009 $ 4,013,748 $ 45,882 $ - $ 323,802 $ /187.811 $ 539.252 $ 398,912
200!iPMP-ReconS\fvel ; "233.90000, ; 1683.90000) , (20G.000,00) ; 1250.000.001 , (50,000001 , (50.000.00)
20G9Sealcoat , ,77000.001 , (77.00000) Include<2.50Glorsealcoal<C>gofF;-eStelionli'p"'.">gtol
Storm Pond Ma""enance Pro'e<;t , '50000001 , 50,00000 IndudesRomovalofSltOe SMlromh'SI C;[ POn<l.
San~ar $ewer t.;Ll ~11l al<OnWor~ , "00.100001 , 100.'00.00
8as~el~a'l'Tef1fllS CourlRehaOMal>on C,' alLa'e ; "5.0.)00m , '5.000.0GI
F-2504~~ IruCK , '30.000001 ; 130,00000)
GroundsMasler.".'Broom , 13000000' , 30000(0)
HeelsldePickuoOneTonw'He",' , 3500000, , (35.000.001
" ee .!<liter T,uc~ , <130.000.00\ , 1130.000.001
Assessmen,Pa '0' ".~FundCOnlr l..1nOOTSre'eAld ostimate , 341.000 , , , , 190.076,00 , 310,319 , 180.Q15 , 200.065
Totals for 2009 , {1.7111.110\l.001 , (~B.9011.00) , , 1215,000.001 , . 190.076.00 , 10.319.00 , 130.015.00 , 5\1.-265.00
2010 IWorkina Cap.} Fund Balance Jan 1 .2010 $ 3,374,848 $ 45,882 $ . $ - $ 513,878 $ f177,492 $ 669,267 $ 449,177
2Ql0PMP-Reco""trucl , i2 Igs00V~Ol ; (700.000.00) , j200.OOO.(0) , (BOO.OOO.OO) ; j 350,000.00~ ; 130.000,001 , (15.000.oo) 5100.000 of Slate ,,"Kito I>e applied <0 StormSe"er Ces,"
SneDi ,,"vanueRe ",,,,,'Irail ; 1800.000.001 , .800.000.00 Resea'chposs;blityol ranIs to fun<tlhis ptOjecl: candKla'efo,tederal!ur.ds~
Saniteoy$ewe, 13.t ~li, a,",nWorl< ; 1100.100001 , (100.100.00)
Baskell>alL-Tenn,<CouctRchab'lllallon, Co atlore ; .bOOO.)OI , 15.000.00
F.3500nB ton Prckup w. Oump , ;52.000.001 ; 16200000)
IoroGroundsmasl"",'Sroom , ,n.oocoo, , 132,00000)
T'aclor",;621 Plow ; 'IOO.OOove' ; 150.000.(0) , (50.00000)
SkodS1eerLoade';SnowBlo"er ; ,noooool , 'Z8_000.00)
Asses<menlPa Enl'" nseFundCo""'t..lnOQTS'"leA'd es1;matod , ~:lg,OOOoo , , 190.071;'00 ; 300.000.00 , 175.000.00 , 175,000.00
Totalsfor2010 03.332.100.00) ; (1.143.00000) , , 1215.000.001 , , , (609.924,00) ; \50,00(00) ; 15.0OQOO) ; 59.900.00
2011 fWorkina Cao, Fund Balance Jan 1 . 2011 $ 2,231,848 $ 45.882 $ - $ - $ 103,954 $ 1227,492 $ 664,267 $ 509~077
2011PMP-Reconsl!UoL'UllandOv.~a , IB1'0i)i)00J , 496.000.00) , 200.000.001 , 150.000.00) , 50.00000 , 15.000.00)
2011 5o.lcoal ; "20<lrJ.) 00, , ;'20.000.00
San,la, Se"or'IlJ;1 r.1~oga""n'Nork. ; ,'Oil 100.00' , jl00.1oo.001
BaSkelball.Tennls Coun Rehab'[<lal<on C,' .'lar , .I5UOOOOi , 15.000.00)
Groundsmaslerw,B,oom , <34000 CO, , <34.000.00
8n.shCh, , ;50000.00, , <50.OOO.OQ
F.250 O,osel Truc" , 30. Oa- 0 00 ~ , ,30,00000,
F.4S00neTonPlow , '6200000' , ,62,000.00)
A.....menIPa Enl'" nseFundCon1f.MnDOTSlaleA.~ ..~"",ate , 35~.000.00 , , '90.076.00 , ~OO.OOOGO ; 175_00000 ; 175.000.00
Totalsfor2011 , '.222 'WOO, , \431"000,00) , ; i215.0OQ.OOI ; , , 190.076.00 , 250.000.00 . 125.000.00 , 59.900.00
2012 fWorkinq Cap.' Fund Balance Jan 1 - 2012 $ 1.793,848 $ 45,882 $ - $ - $ 294,030 $ 22,508 $ 789,267 $ 568.977
Unassi nedPro'ects
West Round laM Road Reconslrue',on , ,'500'J!)00o-. ; ".'00.000.001 , , i200.0oo.001 ; /50.000.00) , (bO.OOOoo\ PolenlialtobeFul1 Funded ~ O<>velo r?i\mount'nGene,aIFund,nc'"","s$350000tromT1F
West Rountl l.ke I'M ; ,120.00000, , lZ0.0011.00
Counl Road 0 Tra~ ; ,'50000001 , '50,000.001 T;mewithRamsa ~"rn Road 1m 'ovemen,.
Co. Ion Avenue Iralllesurlao,n ; '~O iH.H OOi ; {50 000 001 CoSlsunknownallhtsl;me
San~ar S~we' Sa " and;<oessRoadallS,*7 ; 'ISQ.OOOOOi ; 1'50.000.00
leshrnaled cost lor "Onstrve,",,,.n<l inspeclion", 2G09. 620K ,n 21106 dolt"'SI, ~ d-one as 2 p<ojOcts
Reconstrucllrft:>tations=l "".'''2''13 ; ,rOO.GOO.OOl ; , 1700.000.001 118.13forst'&'2.e<;ond
SCi\DAS s1emll'lS\aIIOl,on , ,200.000001 , 25.GOOW ; J17S.000.00
" ceP'a SlruClure.'falenlOnePalk ; '55.00000' , 55.000,00
Valent;nePar~lm ovements Costs un~nown.t '''''' ,ime
Galewa 50 n"Q~voland.CoRdO.l..", lon.:95 Ius 2_3 add,toonal Icoa';en , "90.00000; , 180,000.00 ClevelaOOiCounl R""dDs neslirnatedatS30.oo0
So~lpWalel Io"", Exte,iarCoal, andLo ; 150,000000 ; 1150.00000 Basedv neslimalef'omKTATalor.lnc ,Qe<;embeL2005! r>eednot anlici ledbetore20'2
FundingSoorce
NOles
General Caj><laJ Fund Incl~de. PIR Fund. Nona.sessabie SO.... F..."" .j, CaOl;aj E~U'''''''N Ih'" lUfl(].s mawn down to< ln~",) project disbu,semenls 10"9;""""1'19 and censlructioncontractor) aM Futided bV resldenl and bu.iness assessment paymenls
Assumedlt'\a15200.00il""lltle~'awntromlhegenB'aJlundan""a1lytors".etlmpro'e''-'''''ls
IncludesIIFOJSI'l!:t2.RouMlakeBus,,,"ssO<slricn.,,,,,TIFO,.I,,cI',Conage'i'llas"AbculS20000QTlFbaFaf>Coavailabletorp'ejCC1S
S'ale Aid .un<! balan<~ as.umss annual d'5burs~m~n' from '.",DOT 01 Sl~O 076 "a.ell ,,,,on '''''''''' le,el. e'l'''' th~ pa<< 10 y..,t<. Fun';" 'ec.;ved loom SreleAid me applied 10 the G""",al Fund ~r the Slorm Water Fund. when appl,c.~I.
Uhlty Enlmpro;e n..nd ""'ances assume a nel operal",,=! ;u'plus each year .""",h IS d.eeled lowards CtP Dloleotr. ~n''''p'<se fund balances do la~e inlO .cc<>unl the anhcipoted <evonue trom ,ncreas.d ul~~y ,ates whichw",e _ upon the .lUfiy The
Ulitity ratos "",ed'o bo r<H>um;n.d Or ,e-~'."ctured;1 we desiro fo ""~e a hi9hor fund balanoe tl>an;s cu"ently pfOj~etod_ A1lorn.a.'MtIV. WOO e;lher""ve 10 seek other fO~on... sou,eo 0' cut ""-"k on projects.
Currenl Utl~y 'ale study gees ""oug~ 2009 RaIQ~ lor ~iJ1G an(] 2011 ~re Ml'ma'~s Cnl~
Additional'eomm..n"':
It should he noled that fund bala"c~ will and can change radically it the p,oject eos'" change o. 'he C;ty fall~ 05""" on revenun c"Uection ,,' "P"nding mo,.. '''''namic;pat".; on 'epa;rs.
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
May II, 2006
AGENDA lTEM 2.C
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT:
CIP Discussion
BACKGROUND
Over the past several months, staff has provided Council with an overview of the ClP. Staffhas
continued to work on the various aspects of the CIP and is sharing the next pieces of information.
GoodPointeTechnology has computed and provided the City with several pavement
management budget scenarios. The following infonnation is attached for your review:
. Executive summary of GoodPointe report
. Figures from GoodPointe report
DISCUSSION
Street Maintenance Practices and Procedures
The following are brief descriptions of various types of street maintenance procedures.
Seal Coat
A seal coat is one of many types of surface treatments used in street maintenance. A seal coat is
an application of asphalt emulsion followed immediately with an aggregate cover. Seal coats can
waterproof the surface, provide low-severity crack sealing, and restore surface friction. Seal
coating can be performed at any time in the life of a pavement and lasts an average of three to six
years.
The primary purpose of seal coating a street is to protect the street from deterioration caused by
sun and water. A seal coat provides a waterproof membrane that keeps the pavement from
\\Metro-ineLus\ardenhills'.PR&PW\Engineering1006',Work Sessions,j-15-06 C1P-Goodpointe.doc
2006 PMP Update
1118/2007
Page 2
becoming brittle and cracking, and also helps keep the water from seeping through the pavement
and causing problems to the base material.
Mill and Overlay
There are several maintenance practices that involve milling. An edge mill typically consists of
grinding the old bituminous surface along the outer 8 feet of the street. This helps establish a
uniform cross-section, especially in instances where the crown in the street is relatively flat. A
full width mill, or resurfacing, is necessary when the upper surface layer of a pavement has
deteriorated considerably. Significant surface pavement distresses and more extensive "thermal"
cracking need to be removed and/or repaired with a full width and uniform depth milling
process. Both edge mills and full-width mills are typically 1.5 to 2 inches thick, but can vary on a
project by project basis.
Milling creates an even surface to ensure a uniform overall thickness to the new overlay. An
asphalt overlay of 1.5 to 2 inches over the entire pavement width forms a smooth crown, renews
the street surface, restores structural capacity and proper drainage, and extends the life cycle of
the original pavement.
Afull depth mill can be used on a street that has already been reconstructed with a good base
section, but the pavement has deteriorated to a point where seal coating or a standard mill and
overlay is not effective. A pavement section with significant cracking will end up reflecting
through the new pavement. The full depth of the pavement is ground up and removed. This
process may also involve some subgrade soil corrections and some removal of aggregate base, if
it has been contaminated or is sub-standard. The street is paved with the same thickness of new
asphalt.
Pavement can also be reclaimed, where approximately 8 to ] 0 inches of the existing asphalt and
base are ground up in place. This forms a new more stable base without adding new material.
The road is then paved with new asphalt. This is only recommended where there is no curb and
gutter on the road, since the existing materials stay in place and a higher road elevation is created
once the new pavement thickness is added.
Reconstruction
When a street is fully reconstructed, the existing asphalt and base are completely removed and
replaced. Reconstruction may also involve subgrade soil corrections. For streets that do not meet
current design standards for width, curb and gutter, and drainage, an upgrade may also be
incorporated.
2006 PMP Update
1118/2007
Page 3
GoodPointe Analysis
GoodPointe Technology utilized the current pavement condition index (PCI) information as well
our historical data of street improvement projects to perform pavement management analysis of
the street system in Arden Hills. The budget analysis is based on current construction costs and
factors in an inflation rate of3%. Engineering costs, 20% of the estimated construction cost,
have been incorporated into the unit costs. It should be noted, however, that the analysis is only
an estimate, and does not include any utility (watermain, sanitary sewer or storm sewer)
construction costs, easement acquisition costs, or trail/sidewalk construction costs. Also not
included are additional costs that may be incurred for retaining walls, excessive driveway
replacement, right-of-way reestablishment or other costs for areas that may have extreme
situations such as significant grade changes. The reason for this is that these costs vary from
project to project and there is no reliable way to estimate them.
The maintenance strjltegy used by GoodPoin]S:!<:r this analysis is based on categorizing the PCI
ratings into adequat~IOO), marginal (31~, and poor (0-30). Streets that are adequate
receive seal coats, marginal streets receive a mill and overlay, and poor streets are reconstructed.
The type of mill and overlay used in the analysis is a 2" mill over the entire pavement section.
Streets that have PCI values bordering two categories would be individually evaluated to ensure
that the most cost-effective maintenance will occur for the condition of the street. A city street
map has been included in this report with the existing PCI ratings color coded to the above
mentioned categories.
Staff asked GoodPointe to evaluate the following four budget scenarios:
Scenario 1 is budget driven, designed to project the average pavement condition if$l million is
spent each year on street improvements for the next 20 years. The existing 5-year ClP has been
incorporated into the first five years of this model. Over the 20 year period, the average PCI
would increase from 64 to 77.
Scenario 2 is designed based on the current average PCl (64) and project the level of funding
needed to maintain this over the next 20 years. In a budget model that is driven by a benclunark
PCI, predetermined projects cannot be entered. The streets are selected by the program for
maintenance on a needs basis. The results of this scenario indicate that approximately $] 4.5
million will need to be budgeted for pavement management over the next 20 years.
Scenario 3 is based on the desire to increase the average PCI to 75 and determine the level of
funding needed to achieve this over the next 20 years. A PCI value of75 is an average
benchmark among several other cities in the metro area. Again, this model does not allow for
predetermined projects, and the program has selected streets on a needs basis. The results of this
scenario indicate that approximately $]6 million will need to be budgeted for pavement
management over the next 20 years.
2006 PMP Update
1/18/2007
Page 4
Scenario 4 shows the effect of the existing 5-year ClP on the average PCl values. The results of
this scenario indicate that the average PCI values would be 65 after the five year period, an
increase of one point from today's average PCL While this scenario is only a five year model, it
could be expected that if this model were extended, results would be similar to those described in
Scenario 2.
The graphs supplementing this report compare the average PCls and budgets for Scenarios I, 2
and 3 over the 20 year period.
Staff Observations:
. The results indicate that if the City were to select a management plan based on maintaining a
benchmark PCI, the difference between maintaining the current PCI of 64 (Scenario 2) and
increasing the PCI to 75 (Scenario 3) is only $1.5 million over a 20 year period.
. The results of Scenario I and Scenario 3 are similar in that at the end of the 20 year period
for a new average PCI (77 to 75, respectively). In Scenario], a consistent amount of money
is spent each year (approximately $1 million). However, in Scenario 3, more money would
be spent up front, in the first six years, and then spending would level off at a lower annual
amount, In Phase I (2006-2011) average spending would be approximately $].5 million, and
Phase 2 (2012-2025) would decrease and level off to just over $500,000 per year.
CONCLUSION
The scenarios completed by Goodpointe show the relationship between average pel and funding
levels. Staff is requesting that the Council review the scenarios and discuss how to move forward
with our pavement management program. Items to consider:
. Does the Council want to proceed with the current program (Scenario 4) and level of
funding?
. Would the Council like to pursue one of the other scenarios (Scenario], 2 or 3)?
. Would the Council like to evaluate other budget scenarios?
Feedback received at the work session will be incorporated into our continuing evaluation and
revisions to the5- Year CIP, and will be presented at a future work session.
Executive Summary
Studies conducted by a number of agencies indicate that as pavement conditions
decrease, the cost for the appropriate method of repair can quadruple. A graph of a
typical case taken from the American Public Works Association, The Hole Story, is
shown in the following figure.
City of Arden Hills
Budget Analysis Report
May 04,2006
Page 1
4 8 12 16
Years
(Time Varies for Each Road Section)
Figure 1
The City of Arden Hills contracted GoodPointe Technology to perform pavement
management consultation services including:
. pavement condition survey and data entry,
. historical maintenance project data entry,
. updating the pavement maintenance policies,
analyzing the pavement performance data,
. updating/establishing the network level designations,
. updating the ICON pavement management system to the current version, and
. linking the GIS Centerline Map to the ICON System.
GoodPointe Technology was also asked to perform a detailed, multi-year network level
budget analysis on the City's pavement network using the existing CIP projects for the
first five years.
This report summarizes the work accomplished in this project and focuses on the
budget analysis results for four budget analysis scenarios.
The first scenario, Scenario 1, demonstrates the long-term effects of applying $1 Million
dollars per year for 20 years on the pavement network. Scenario 2 shows the amount of
funding needed to maintain the City's current average PCI of 64 over 20 years.
Scenario 3 shows the amount of funding needed to increase the City's average PCI
from a 64 to a 75 over 20 years. Scenario 4 shows just the affect of the CIP list for the
first five years of the analysis.
The centerline length (linear distance measured along the centerline) of the Arden
Hills pavement network maintained in ICON contains 28.42 miles of asphalt-
surfaced pavement. The City ICON system also contains 0.04 centerline miles of
concrete roads for a grand total of 28.46 centerline miles of roadway.
In the summer of 2005, each of the asphalt-surfaced street blocks within the City of
Arden Hills jurisdiction was been visually inspected using the Paver-based Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) methodology. This methodology is based on a numeric rating
"
0
S 10
~
~
-8
"
0
0
co
~6
?; ..
.. u.
~ -4
0
<;
0
...
0=-2
0
0
...
~
~
75% Time
Each $1.00 of
Renovation
Cost Here
Will Cost $4.00
to $5.00 "
Delayed to
Here.
lowest Annual
Resurfacing Cost
~
40% I
Quality
Drop ________ Total Failure
12% Time
City of Arden Hills
Budget Analysis Report
May 04, 2006
Page 2
system ranging from 100 for a newly surfaced pavement to 0 for a failed pavement.
Based on the latest available survey data collected for each section, the average
PCI of the Arden Hills pavement network using the PCI resulting from the survey
is 67.9. The average PCI can also be calculated by projecting the surveyed
condition to today's estimated PCI using the decay curves in ICON. Using these
curves, the "current average projected" PCI for the network is a 64.
The results of Scenario 1 indicate that the current level of funding and funding
allocation will result in a higher average PCI each year and will decrease the backlog.
Over the twenty-year analysis period, the average PCI increases significantly, from 64 to
77.
The results of Scenario 2 indicate that a total of approximately $14.5 million will be
required over the next twenty years to maintain the City's current average PCI of 64.
Due to a significant amount of budget allocated in the first five years, the pavement can
be maintained at a lower budget.
The results of Scenario 3 indicate that a total of approximately $16 million will be
required over the next twenty years to gradually increase the City's average PCI from a
64 to a 75. In comparison to Scenario 2, more budgets are spent in the first 10 years to
increase the PCI to a 75. Then the pavement can be maintained at a 75 at a lower
budget.
The results of Scenario 4 indicate that the current elP list will maintain an average
condition of 65 over the next five years.
It is important to note that these scenarios were generated at the network level and
were based on pavement repair and rehabilitation costs that may require additional
project-level costs such as curb and gutter replacement, water main replacement,
and/or right-of-way restoration. Also included in the cost is a 20% increase for
engineering fees.
City of Arden Hills
Budget Analysis Report
May 04,2006
Page 3
Budget Analysis
Develop a multi-year network level budget analysis
The City has requested that GoodPointe Technology perform a number of budget
scenario projections to obtain a general idea of how the City pavement network is
changing with time, given the best available information from the street condition survey,
Arden Hills pavement performance data, pavement maintenance, repair, and
rehabilitation unit cost data and general budget provisions of the City.
Process Summary
With the ICON softWare, GoodPointe Technology used the pavement performance data
to project the condition of the PCI into the future and to calculate the amount of deferred
maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation work (backlog) present in the network in each
year of the 30-year scenarios induded in this report.
From an engineering perspective, the correct application of future pavement projects
depends on the sequence of historical projects that have already been applied. The
budget module of the ICON program utilizes historical project-related data (seal coats,
overlays, reconstruct information) to qualify or disqualify certain projects from being
recommended in a given budget scenario run. For a particular alternative or strategy,
the user specifies:
1) The condition index (CI) score range for which the strategy will be considered;
2) The maximum number of applications the strategy can be applied successively
before a new strategy must be recommended;
3) The time interval (in years) between successive applications of the strategy; and,
4) The unit cost of the treatment and the category to which the strategy belongs.
At the start of a budget scenario, ICON will look for the most recent historical condition
surveyor project related information and will deteriorate the score from that historical
date to the date of the analysis. ICON then filters through the historical project
information to determine how many times each particular strategy has been applied
successively and what the time interval has been since the last strategy. With this
historical information in mind, ICON performs the life cycle cost analysis to determine
the optimum way to spend your budget in the future given the practical constraints of
how your strategies need to be programmed.
A practical constraint associated with running budget analysis scenarios involves the
amount of budget that is allocated to the different categories of pavement maintenance,
repair, and rehabilitation (seal coat, overlays, reconstructs). Care must be taken not to
allocate too much money to a given category (e.g. sealcoats), if it exceeds the realistic
amount of seal coat projects that the City is able to contract and manage, for example.
Development of Majntenance Strategies
The optimal combination of maintenance methods is the one that provides maximum
benefit for the least cost. The following figure illustrates an example of how the
maintenance benefit can be derived.
City of Arden Hills
Budget Analysis Report
May 04, 2006
Page 4
Pavement Management Pavement Benefit
100
Pel Afkr MainteWl.ce
x
~ 80
c
c
o
+' 60
'6
c
o
o
PCl before Main1enance
DeceyCurve Before Meintwllllce
Aru ofMain1enance 8eoefit
C 40 __m______
Q)
E
Q)
>
'"
(L
Decay Curve After Maintewmce
o
o
20 _m m -- --- -- --------__ ___. __ __.. __ ___
5
10 15 20 25
Age Since Construction
30
35
Figure 2
The shaded area is the benefit provided by the maintenance being done at some point
in time. Factors that influence the benefit are:
. type of pavement (determines which decay curve to use);
~ age of pavement (affects t'le PCI increase);
. type of maintenance proposed (affects the PCI increase); and
. cost of the proposed maintenance (affects the cost/benefit ratio).
In most cases, the maximum benefit or extension of pavement life may be provided by
some combination of maintenance procedures as opposed to using one type of
maintenance, since combining maintenance techniques often provides larger increases
in the PCI. The benefit of performing each type of maintenance is then divided by the
calculated cost to determine the cost/benefit ratio of each alternative. Note that there
are limiting conditions that may prohibit a procedure from being selected such as lack of
funding or minimal PCI increase for the selected maintenance procedure.
Prjoritized Work Plan
Maintenance and repair work can be prioritized in a number of ways. Pavements in the
worst condition can be fixed first. Pavements in the best condition can be fixed first. An
optimal prioritization method distributes funding between the preventive maintenance of
"good" to "excellent" pavements; the rehabilitation of "fair" to "poor" pavements; and, the
reconstruction of "very poor" or "failed" pavements. Pavement sections within the Arden
Hills pavement network were prioritized for maintenance and repair according to an
optimal prioritization plan.
City of Arden Hills
Budget Analysis Report
May 04, 2006
Page 5
The first step in defining a prioritized work plan for the City of Arden Hills is to define the
local and global pavement maintenance activities and their related costs. Local
pavement repairs are those repairs that are performed on a localized area of a given
pavement section (e.g., patching, crack sealing, etc.). A global pavement maintenance
activity is one that is performed on the entire surface of a given pavement section (e.g.,
reconstruction, seal coat, overlay, etc.).
Once the local maintenance policy has been established, the PCI is recalculated based
on these assumptions to determine the improvement in the PCI based on the
maintenance. For example, a street with an original PCI of 68 may increase to a PCI of
80 when all rutting has been patched. Every pavement section was analyzed in this way
in the first year of the budget analysis. The difference between the improved and
original PCI is a measure of the effectiveness of that particular type of maintenance.
The ICON program attempts to find the optimal combination for routine maintenance.
This may include seal coating, patching or crack/joint sealing separately or in
combination. A routine maintenance strategy, consisting of patching and crack sealing,
is assigned to pavements with limited amounts of low-severity cracking. Routine
maintenance on pavements that are still in very good condition will help preserve the
integrity of the base and prolong the life of the pavement. Overlays are used to repair
pavements where local repairs such as patching are not cost effective. These
pavements are in "fair" to 'poor" condition and may have low strength and/or other
problems such as poor drainage. The global repair of reconstruction is recommended
for pavements with extensive amounts of load-related distress.
Global Maintenance Strategy
The correct application of global (applied to the entire pavement section area)
maintenance, repair and rehabilitation strategies is difficult to develop due to the number
of variables that affect pavements. The optimum application of maintenance activities
depends on the current surface condition and subgrade strength of the pavement as
well as the pavement age, traffic loading and other factors. GoodPointe Technology
and City staff discussed the development and application of maintenance strategies on
a number of occasions to determine the analysis parameters used to derive the results
of this report.
Note: When a pavement section has a PCI that falls on an overlapping range between
two or more global maintenance activities, an additional Life Cycle Cost (LCG)
analysis is performed for each applicable strategy. The estimated amount of
pavement life for each particular maintenance activity is determined and is
divided by the cost to provide that life. The program then recommends
maintenance activity with the highest LCC value for the given pavement section.
City of Arden Hills
Budget Analysis Report
May 04, 2006
Page 6
Budget Needs and Scenarjos
The data collected from the PCI surveys was correlated to other City-supplied
information such as pavement age, functional class, and historical budget expenditures
to serve as the basis for multi-year budget projections. The following pages describe
the general process that GoodPointe Technology followed to develop the budget needs
and scenarios for the City of Arden Hills.
Introduction
Once the pavement network has been defined and each section has been inspected,
the condition of the overall network condition without maintenance or rehabilitation can
be determined by projecting the PCI into the future. Pavement sections are selected for
maintenance and rehabilitation during a multi-year analysis period if they meet the
decision criteria established based on PCI, functional class and surface type. When
they are identified for maintenance or rehabilitation, a network-level budget planning
maintenance strategy for pavements of that condition is used to determine the funds
needed for that section. Those funding needs are totaled for each year of the analysis
period to determine budget needs.
The first step is to identify the best maintenance strategy for each pavement surface
type - pavement condition group and develop decision trees. This requires a long-term
life cycle cost analysis of typical pavements from each group in different condition
categories. The following three general maintenance categories have been correlated
to the respective PCI ranges to provide a realistic maintenance and rehabilitation
treatment assignment.
Seal Coat At the high end of this range, pavements may have little or no distress. At
the low end of this range pavements may require intensive local repairs
and/or seal coats. A pavement in this category may be generally
described as "good" to "excellent" with a PCI between 65 and 85.
Overlay Pavements have a significant level of distress that mayor may not be
load-related. A pavement in this category may be generally described as
"poor" to "fair" with a PCI between 25 and 65.
Reconstruct Pavements have extensive amounts of distress. A pavement in this
category may be generally described as "very poor" to "failed" with a PCI
between 0 and 30.
Pavement Management Decision Tree
Each pavement section was analyzed according to its predefined global and local
strategy and processed through the following pavement management decision tree.
ICON Budget Plan Process
Collect Information on Sections Selected for Analysis Budget Analysis Input Parameters
PevementSurface Type a from latest SUrveyor lateslProject Analysis Perioct(years) Plan $tart Yeer
Funclionai Class Historical Global Straleges Applied Inflation Rate (%.) AmualBudgel Allocation Quantities
sn (CalCUlated structural Number) if available Budget Overflow Priorities Predetermined Project Plan if available
Try All Possible and
App~cable strategies
Based On
Ufe Cycle Cost (LeC)
Ye
Add to
Annual Ust
of Recommended
Projects
CWI]UCl2IIIGWflIlollJ,nCllObgl{COrpol3l>>.
Decay Condition Index (0)
to Year of Budget Analysis Pkm
Yes Assigned to
Predetermined
roject Plan?
No
Yes
Y
No
Addlo
Annual
Backlog
List
The program did not sort pavements on the basis of structural information
(nondestructive deflection testing) in the budget analysis of this report, since this testing
was not included in the scope of work for this project.
For Each Maintenance Category, Sort Priority By.
1) Condilionlndex (el)
2) functional Class
3) structure! Number (Sn)
Figure 3
Deferred Maintenance Backlog
An important factor in evaluating budget scenarios is deferred maintenance. Deferred
maintenance is work that could not be done in a given year of the analysis period due to
lack of funding. It represents work that is delayed until additional funds can be found.
The monetary result of deferred maintenance is maintenance backlog. In the budget
analysis of this report, the maintenance backlog for a given year is defined as the cost
for the City to repair all the pavements in that year.
As the average network PCI decreases, the cost to repair pavements rises. As the
pavements approach the poor category, the cost of rehabilitation rises due to the large
amount of individual distresses that require repair. The following figure illustrates the
general relationship between the increasing cost of rehabilitation maintenance and
decreasing pavement condition for Arden Hills pavements. It is based on our
experience with urban pavements like those of the Arden Hills pavement network, but
does not use actual Arden Hills pavement data.
Typical City Streets
Maintenance Cost and Condition vs. Age
Pavement Condition
Pavement Rehab cost ($/sq. ft.)
100
80
60
40
20
o
o 10 20 30 40
Age of Present Surface (years)
Figure 4
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$-
As the pavements approach the poor category, the cost of rehabilitation rises sharply. If
preventive maintenance is not emphasized now, the bulk of the pavement network will
rapidly decline in condition. A considerable amount of heavy maintenance at a high unit
cost will be needed later to regain the original current condition of the pavement
network. The labor-intensive effort required for heavy spot repairs would most likely put
a burden on City staff. The actual cost of the deferred backlog would rise, resulting in a
decreasing annual average pavement condition.
Deferred maintenance has a negative impact for two reasons. The first is that by
deferring maintenance, Arden Hills is allowing streets to deteriorate down the pavement
life cycle curve. This will increase the cost to fix streets in the future. Streets that once
cost an average of $3 per square yard to fix will soon cost $32 per square yard or more
to repair at today's prices. The second reason is that as streets deteriorate, citizen
complaints about the condition of the streets will increase and emergency (or
necessary) repair costs will increase.
Developing A Budget Strategy For Arden Hills
The ICON pavement management program is designed to present strategies that will
shift the focus of a network repair program from rehabilitation to preventive
maintenance. This means moving the average network PCI higher into the upper end of
the "very good" condition range.
As mentioned earlier, today's estimated average PCI for the pavement network is 64, in
the "fair" condition category. The logical questions are "If the average PCI is in the very
good condition category, why does it cost so much to repair Arden Hills's pavements?",
"Why bother improving them at all?", "How much would it cost to improve the streets to
an accepted level of service?" These are questions that can be answered with the
ICON Pavement Management Program. First of all, the PCI of a pavement has a lot to
do with how much it costs to repair and maintain it. In the "excellent" condition category,
it costs very little money to apply treatments such as crack and surface seals, which
extend the life of a pavement. Treatments of this sort usually cost less than $0.11 per
square foot.
Pavements in the "good" to "fair" range show some form of distress or wear which
require more than a life-extending treatment. By this point, a well-designed pavement
will have served at least 75 percent of its life and the quality of the pavement has
dropped by about 40 percent. The road surface may require a chip seal application or a
thin overlay. These treatments range in cost from $0.11 to $0.33 per square foot.
Pavements in the "very poor" to "failed" range of the pavement condition index. These
pavements are near the end of their service life and usually exhibit major forms of
distress such as potholes, extensive cracking, and others. At this stage, a roadway
usually requires either a thick overlay or a reconstruction. The costs for these
treatments range from $0.44 to $10 per square foot.
One of the key elements of a pavement repair strategy is to slow down the deterioration
of the pavements in the "very good" to "good" condition categories. This is particularly
true for streets in the "good" range because they are at the point where pavement
deterioration accelerates if the pavements are left untreated; whereas, the cost to repair
pavements in the "fair" to "poor" range increases substantially if repair is delayed.
Graphical Comparjson Of Scenarios
Average PCI Scenario Comparison
100
90
80
70 -
{) .- -
Q. 60
"
C> 50
..
:;; 40
>
<(
30
20
10
0
'" on ... '" ill 0 N M .. on on ... '" '" 0 N N M .. on on
0 0 0 0 0 " ~ " ~ " ~ " " " " N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Scenario Year
I-Scenario 2 Avg CI -Scenario 3 Avg CI Scenario 1 Avg ell
Figure 13
BudgetScenario Comparison
$3,000.00 I
$2,500_00
$2,000_00
"
e $1,500.00
-
"
C>
" $1,000_00
"
In
$500_00
$-
0 on 0 on
" " N N
$(500.00) 0 0
Scenario Year
-Scenario 2 Budget ($K) -Scenario 3 Budget ($K)
Scenario 1 Budget ($K)
Figure 14
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
July 17, 2006
AGENDA ITEM 2.B
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT:
CIP Discussion
BACKGROUND
Staff has continued to review and revise the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) based upon
previous direction from Council and further financial analysis. Attached is the information that
was provided to you in August of 2005 when staff first began to review the ClP, as well as a
current CIP worksheet.
We anticipate some more revisions before formally submitting the proposed ClP for approval, as
staff is requesting additional inpnt and guidance from Council on a few items.
DISCUSSION
2006 Proiects
Several changes were made to the projects scheduled for 2006. Items that remain on the
schedule include the 2006 PMP project, CSAH 96 Landscaping, and the Tony Schmidt
Park Underpass. Items that were added include funds for sanitary sewer 1&1 mitigation
work and Emergency Vehicle Preemption for intersections shared with Shoreview
(Ramsey County has these scheduled for this year). The lift station project was removed
due to the higher project costs, with the exception of engineering costs already paid.
Also, after further review, O&M determined that the purchase of a backup generator and
of a Toro Ground Master can be postponed. An item still in the budget for 2006 is a
Gateway sign to be placed at Cleveland and County Road D. Staff is requesting further
direction from Council regarding the Gateway sign program in general, how/if to proceed
with the project, and source of funding.
\\Metro-ineLus\ardenhills\PR&PW\Engineering.-2006\ Work Sessions\ 7 -17-06 Memo CIP.doc
Pavement Management Program (PMP)
At the May Work Session, staff presented preliminary results from GoodPointe
Technology in relation to the City's pavement management and maintenance. Council
indicated that of the scenarios presented, scenario 3, based on the desire to increase the
overall PCI (Pavement Condition Index) rating to 75, was most desirable. Staff has
proceeded to determine PMP projects for the next five years that incorporates
GoodPointe's recommendations. Attached is a map with proposed improvements over
the next five years.
CIP Discussion
]11812007
Page 2
2007-201 I Proiects
Staff considered GoodPointe's suggestions for improvements in conjunction with the
following factors: whether the street has concrete curb and gutter, and the needs for
watermain, sanitary sewer or storm sewer improvements. Staff also visually inspected the
streets to confirm or revise the recommended maintenance strategy. Many of the streets
that were listed as mill and overlay candidates were streets that do not have curb and
gutter, are at least 30 years old and likely have thin layers of bituminous with an
insufficient base. If these streets were milled, it is likely that the milling procedure would
result in the removal of the asphalt in its entirety, exposing the insufficient subgrade,
requiring the scope of the project to change from a mill and overlay to a complete
reconstruct. These streets often were also found to have little to no storm sewer and poor
drainage due to the lack of curb and gutter. While staff felt that several of these streets
were not candidates for mill and overlay, the pavement condition was found to be
suitable for a seaIcoat. SeaIcoating these streets would extend the life of the pavement
long enough so that we could address streets that are candidates for mill and overlays and
do have curb and gutter and a sufficient subgrade. As with all sealcoats, some minor
maintenance would be required, such as crack sealing, patching, and leveling.
Historically, streets have been sealcoated one to two years after reconstruction or mill and
overlay. GoodPointe's analysis did not use this philosophy; recommendations for
sealcoating occurred when the PCI of a street indicated the need for minor maintenance.
Staff utilized this information, as well as visual inspections, to determine which streets
were good candidates for seaIcoats.
During the visual inspection of the streets, staff found that some streets with concrete
curb and gutter that were listed as mill and overlay candidates had more distresses than
typically recommended for a mill and overlay. The cracks and distresses present would
reflect through the overlay within a few years after paving. Soil borings can be taken to
determine the presence of a sufficient base. If one exists, these streets are good candidates
for full pavement replacement. This is a procedure where the base and curb and gutter
remain in place, and only the existing pavement is removed and replaced. Streets
recommended for this type of improvement are shown as mill and overlay streets on the
attached map.
CIP Discussion
1/18/2007
Page 3
Staff also attempted to uphold a neighborhood approach when feasible. In order to
capture mill and overlay streets, staff developed a regional approach. The 2007 PMP
includes mill and overlay streets in the southern portion and seaJcoats in the northern
portion of the City. In 2009, the regions are reversed. The previous CIP listed Snelling
Avenue to be constructed in 2008 and the Glenarden neighborhood in 2010. The current
C1P has reversed these two projects. lf Snelling A venue was reconstructed first, heavy
truck traffic would drive over new pavement to access the Glenarden neighborhood,
which is not desirable. Postponing Snelling Avenue to 2010 also allows time to research
and apply for possible grant opportunities for the Snelling Avenue Regional Trail, as
Council expressed an interest in constructing this in conjunction with the street
reconstruction.
MSA Proiects
Based on the discussion from the April Work Session, staff has attempted to incorporate
the projects eligible for MSA funding into the 5-year CIP in the order of preference
indicated by the Council. Funds are available for a Cooperative Agreement with Mn/Dot
for the County Road E bridge project. Funding applications are due in October, and if
selected, the funds would be available for fiscal year 2008; meaning the project would
need to be completed by June 30, 2008. Staff would like to confirm that the Council
would like to pursue this funding. This project is currently shown in 2008, with the north
side option, since this was Council's most recent direction. The south side option costs
have been listed in the comments for informational purposes.
Parks and Recreation
Hard court surface improvements have been included in the CIP; the costs are currently
listed in the General Fund, based on the discussion at the last Council meeting and
pending further analysis of the Park Fund. Staff is currently researching and developing a
maintenance plan for City trails. Staff has postponed trail signage to 2008 to allow time
for research and the development of guidelines. Valentine Park improvements have been
listed with "unassigned" projects. More analysis is needed to determine a realistic scope
of the project, as well as estimated costs.
Sanitarv Sewer Fund- 1&1. Lift Stations and SCADA
Based on the preliminary surcharge indicated by Met Council, $100,000 has been added
to the CIP each year. Staff will apply for credit for work to be done each year to avoid
paying the surcharge to Met Council and allowing the funds to be spent directly on
projects in the City. This mitigation work would include manhole repairs (sealing and
raising), sanitary sewer pipe lining, and other related efforts to reduce 1&1.
The lift station replacement scheduled for 2006 and the possibility of acquiring SCADA
are both listed with "unassigned" projects. Roseville is still researching options for
SCADA upgrades, and still hopes to begin this work in 2006. Arden Hills would not be
required to commit at the same time, and would have the option to join in later, if we
choose to. The remaining four lift stations are still functioning and can be properly
CIP Discnssion
1/18/2007
Page 4
maintained until the fund is healthy enough to support these project costs. According to
O&M, lift stations I I and 13 should be replaced before I and 12. Therefore, staff feels
that the lift station project should be split into two projects; by replacing two lift stations
at a time, the sanitary sewer fund will be drawn down more gradually than if all four were
replaced at once.
Storm Sewer Fund- Storm Pond Maintenance
As part of the MS4 permit/Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), the City
needs to be monitoring and maintaining City ponds. This has not been done as needed to
date. Funds have been budgeted over the next three years to allow the City to get where it
needs to be with this program. Staff plans to develop and manage a maintenance program
in the future that will be incorporated into the City's annual operating budget.
Water Fund
An assessment of the South water tower was conducted in 2005, indicating the need for
some maintenance work. This work is currently listed with "unassigned" projects; staff is
evaluating the recommended maintenance and will schedule the work accordingly, so that
the level of maintenance does not increase.
Equipment
O&M has reviewed the equipment inventory and prepared a replacement schedule. Staff
is currently still evaluating the options for the water tanker. The Toro Groundmaster
scheduled for purchase in 2006 was postponed to 2009, and the purchase of a generator
was postponed indefinitely. Staff will continually evaluate the condition of all pieces of
equipment to prevent the purchase of equipment that does not yet need replacement.
CONCLUSION
Staff requests Council input and direction as outlined in this report. We will then fine tune the
CIP and bring it to a future work session.
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
August 17,2006
AGENDA ITEM 2.B
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator
FROM:
Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT:
ClP Discussion
BACKGROUND
Staff has continued to review and revise the City's Capital Improvement Plan (ClP) based upon
previous direction from Council and further financial analysis. Attached is the current CIP
worksheet.
We anticipate some more revisions before formally submitting the proposed CIP for approval, as
staff is requesting additional input and guidance from Council on a few items.
DISCUSSION
2006 Projects
Since the last Work Session, a few more revisions have been made to the 2006 budget.
The Emergency Vehicle Preemption work Ramsey County scheduled for this year does
not include any intersections in Arden Hills as was previously anticipated. The funds for
the intersections shared with Shoreview have been rescheduled and added to the
intersections already slated for 2007. Based on the Council's latest discussion on
Gateway signs and the wish to reevaluate the project altogether, this item has been moved
to the unassigned projects.
Additions to the 2006 budget are the construction of the access road for Vaughn tower
(estimated cost $17,603.28) and the replacement of the driveway at 3153 Shoreline Lane
(estimated cost $ 15,562.56). The 2004 PMP included the reconstruction of the concrete
alley of Shoreline Lane, located north of Edgewater Avenue. The alley is experiencing
\\Melro-ineLus\ardenhiJIs\PR&PW\Engineering\2006\ Work Sessions\8-17-06 Memo ClP.doc
CIP Discussion
1118/2007
Page 2
settlement, causing severe cracks in the concrete. This is likely due to settlement in the
trench that was dug for sanitary sewer installation. Although the warranty for this project
has expired, the contractor, Amt Construction, does plan to correct the deficiency. The
contractor has indicated he would like some assistance to pay for the corrective work;
early conversations indicated that the contractor would pay for the removal and
replacement of the concrete, asking for the City to pay for any additional base material
that may be needed in preparing/ensuring a proper sub grade. Staff is expecting estimated
costs from the contractor in time for discussion at the work session. These costs are
proposed to be funded through the General Capital Fund.
2006 PMP Update: As you know, construction has begun on the project. Utility work is
well underway- the forcemain and watermain boring has begun, as well as storm sewer
construction in various areas of the neighborhood. The general contractor is beginning
street work along Skiles Lane this week as welL A brief update will be provided at the
work session, as the contractor's schedule can change frequently depending on site
conditions or unexpected delays.
Easements: Staff has been diligently working to acquire the necessary drainage
easements. The Beach Club has signed a right of entry, allowing the City onto the
property for construction of the ponds. Once construction is complete, the actual
easement document will be signed. Staff has been working with Arlene Boutin at 1600
Lake Johanna Boulevard to construct another storm pond and enhanced wetland area. Ms.
Boutin has received documents prepared by the City Attorney, and is in the process of
reviewing them. Ms. Boutin has also submitted a preliminary plat for the September
Planning Commission meeting to reconfigure four lots to three. We have received a
signed easement for the construction of a boulevard catch basin along Lake Johanna
Boulevard. Staff is still working on three other easements over existing storm sewer that
the City does not currently have easements for. The worst case scenario for these three
situations is that the pipe will continue to exist with no easement over it.
Rain gardens: Staff is currently working on a memorandum of understanding to be shared
with each of the rain garden recipients. The memorandum will summarize the process
for constructing the rain gardens, indicate that the rain gardens will be planted by the
homeowners with guidance from City and URS staff, and that the rain gardens will be
maintained by the homeowners. We will ask that the homeowners sign this form as a
good faith understanding, indicating that the document is not binding to the property in
any way, but a form for everyone to understand the responsibilities of all parties
involved.
Assessments: The assessment hearing is scheduled for August 28, 2006. Two items have
been brought up that the Council may want to discuss in preparation for the hearing. The
first regards how the assessment is determined. The policy currently states that the
assessment is based on the engineer's estimate, but also states that City Council retains
CIP Discussion
1/18/2007
Page 3
the right to make adjustments to the policy as it deems proper. The assessment currently
being proposed is based on the contractor's revised bid.
The second item that Council should consider is how to address "through" lots as they
relate to assessments; nothing is stated in the assessment policy for such a lot. Several
residents in the Ridgewood neighborhood have expressed a concern on this issue, as they
have properties that front Ridgewood Court and either Siems Court or Ridgewood Road.
Properties abutting Ridgewood Court were assessed in 1996 for the mill and overlay of
the road and residents have expressed concern about being assessed twice for
improvements.
Both of these items will likely be brought up at the assessment hearing. The Council will
need to respond to these concerns; whatever is decided for this project may create a
precedent for assessments on future projects. Staff recommends a Council discussion at a
future work session to consider revisions to the assessment policy to more clearly address
the above-mentioned concerns.
2007 Pro j ects
The following projects are proposed for 2007; anticipated funding sources have been
listed with each project.
2007 PMP M&O/Sealcoat: As discussed at the July Work Session, staff is recommending
a regional approach to the mill and overlay and sealcoat projects over the next five years
to capture these streets before they slide into a more expensive maintenance category. A
revised 5-Year ClP map for 2007-2011 has been attached. No revisions were made to
streets proposed for 2007 from previous discussions. Revisions for other years are
discussed in the section describing 2008-2011 projects. Spot utility repair will be
incorporated into the projects, including items such as gate valve or hydrant repair
(watermain), catch basin/manhole repair (storm sewer), and manhole repair or pipe lining
(sanitary sewer). Funding source: General Capital Fund, General Fund, Enterprise Funds
(Watermain, Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer).
Old Hwy 10/CP Rail Bridge: As discussed previously, staff and Council have agreed that
while the railroad company is willing to cooperate on this project, it should be scheduled.
Funding source: Special Revenue Parks Fund.
Storm Pond Maintenance: Staff will evaluate and develop a maintenance program to
ensure that the MS4/SWPPP requirements are being met. Funding source: Storm Water
Fund.
1&1: Staff will continue to evaluate what needs to be done to reduce 1&1 and proceed
accordingly. This mitigation work could include work such as manhole repairs (sealing
CIP Discussion
II I 8/2007
Page 4
and raising), sanitary sewer pipe lining, and sump pump inspections/disconnections.
Funding source: Sanitary Sewer Fund.
Cummings Park: The hard court surfaces are proposed for reconstruction. Funding
source: Special Revenue Parks Fund. This is a change from previous discussions; and
explanation is described in the Parks and Recreation section later in this report.
Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption: As mentioned earlier, the signals at the intersections
shared with Shoreview were postponed by Ramsey County, therefore, all of the costs for
this project are now included in the 2007 budget. Funding source: State Aid Fund.
Water tanker: A separate memorandum has been attached with staffs findings and
recommendations.
Trail maintenance plan: Staff is working on creating a maintenance plan for the City's
trails. One option the City could consider to establish this is to use outside consultants for
trail evaluation and development of a maintenance plan. This could be accomplished by
expanding GoodPointe's services to include trails. They have evaluated trail systems in
other cities and have assisted in developing trail maintenance plans similar to pavement
management programs. GoodPointe has provided a cost estimate of just under $5,000;
approximately $2,250 for the field inventory and condition survey, $2,080 for a 40-hour
support agreement (which could also be used for street needs, if we have hours left over),
and a $500 data set maintenance fee. The data maintenance fee is usually $1,500, but
with the existing agreements between Roseville and Arden Hills, this data set would
qualify as an additional set, which is provided at a discounted rate.
2008-2011 Proiects
Pavement Management Program (PMP)
Staff continued to work with GoodPointe in evaluating street conditions and the
appropriate improvements to each street segment. An updated map of the 5-Year CIP
(2007-2011) has been attached. Based on further analysis and review, some street
segments were added to projects later in the 5-year cycle. Costs have been updated
appropriately in the CIP spreadsheet.
At the last work session, Council requested information streets that would be included
beyond the current 5-Year CIP. A map has been included in this report that summarizes
the recommendations from the ICON program for the years 2012-2016. The projects
have not been broken down year by year, but the map gives a general idea of the type of
maintenance that is anticipated for streets throughout the city. As with the 5-year plan,
staff reviewed GoodPointe's results and made some adjustments based on maintaining a
neighborhood approach for reconstruction projects, not recommending mill and overlays
for streets with drainage problems, lack of curb and gutter or lack of a sufficient base.
CIP Discussion
1/18/2007
Page 5
The program indicated that an average of approximately $1.2 million would be spent
annually on street maintenance (not including utility improvements).
MSA Proiects/County Road E Sidewalk Improvements
Based on discussions at the April Work Session, staff has attempted to incorporate the
projects eligible for MSA funding into the 5-year CIP in the order of preference indicated
by Council. No changes to the project order have been made since the July Work Session.
At the last work session, Council requested additional information from staff regarding
the County Road E sidewalk improvements. Attached are summaries of responses from
residents along both the north and south sides of the street. While not everyone
responded, three residents on each side of the street responded that they were against the
project being on their side of the street. One resident from the south side of the street
responded they were in favor of the project. No recent contact has been made with any of
the residents.
Another question raised at the last work session was Ramsey County's schedule for
construction. According to Dan Soler of Ramsey County, projects listed on the County's
spreadsheet become eligible for funding in that year; just because they are listed does not
mean that the projects will actually be completed. Ramsey County has indicated that they
currently have no funding available. If the county were to apply for federal funds for this
project, the earliest they would receive any is 2011.
Parks and Recreation
Staff has reviewed funding possibilities for the park and trail improvements. Park
dedication fees help make up the Special Revenue Park Fund; because of this, certain
rules apply to how these funds can be used. Minnesota State Statute 462.358 states that
park dedication funds can be used for reconstruction and new construction purposes, but
not for ongoing operation or maintenance purposes. Based on this information, staff has
made some changes regarding proposed funding of park improvement projects. The
funding for the hard court surface reconstruction at Cummings Park has been reallocated
to come from the Park Fund. The remaining hard court surface projects are currently
listed under the General Fund, as it is anticipated that these will be maintenance projects.
However, staff will reevaluate each project as it comes up to determine the appropriate
funding source.
As mentioned earlier in this report, staff is evaluating how to best create and develop a
maintenance plan for the City's trail system. Staff is also working on evaluating the
potential for future improvements at Valentine Park. Staff will report its findings back to
Council at a future date for both projects.
Equipment
Staff has reviewed the equipment inventory and prepared a replacement schedule. Staff
has described its findings on the water tanker in the attached memorandum. No other
CIP Discussion
1118/2007
Page 6
changes have been made to the schedule that was presented at the July work session.
Staff will continually evaluate the condition of all pieces of equipment to prevent the
purchase of equipment that does not yet need replacement.
Enterprise Funds
A utility rate study was performed in 2004, however, the information used in this study
was incomplete, which, in turn, did not provide the most accurate results. Based on the
factors described below, Council may want to consider updating the current utility rate
study in 2007.
Sanitarv Sewer Fund
1&1: The City was not aware of the surcharges Met Council would impose on
cities that had an excess flow of inflow and infiltration at the time of the utility
rate study. Staff will apply for credit for work to be done each year to avoid
paying the surcharge to Met Council. However, the City will need to allocate at
least $100,100 per year for the next five years until it is proven that 1&1 has been
reduced to an acceptable level.
Lift Stations and SCADA: These projects are still listed with the "unassigned"
projects. The remaining four lift stations are still functioning and can be properly
maintained until the fund is healthy enough to support these project costs.
Roseville is meeting with potential vendors in the very near future to discuss the
costs and technical logistics of incorporating Arden Hills into RoseviIle" s new
SCADA system. Staffwill report information to Council as it becomes available.
\
i
Storm Sewer Fund
This fund will continually be drawn down, even in "lighter" PMP years. The
requirements imposed by the Rice Creek Watershed District and the MS4 permit
(SWPPP) for treating stormwater runoff are constantly increasing. In turn, rising
construction costs are making these requirements more expensive as well.
Water Fund
The O&M Department did some of the minor repairs listed in the water tower report,
included the replacement of the screen on the overflow pipe and grading around the
tank's foundation. The report recommends the rest of the repairs be completed within
three years; therefore, these costs have been included in the project list for 2008.
Roseville and St. Paul recently renegotiated their water contract. In turn, Roseville and
Arden Hills renewed their contract as welL The rate increase that resulted from
renegotiations was not incorporated into the 2004 rate study.
CIP Discussion
1/1 8/2007
Page 7
CONCLUSION
Staff requests Council input and direction on the following items:
. Proposed 2007 Capital lmprovements- does the Council have questions or concerns
regarding what is proposed?
. County Road E Cooperative Agreement- north side vs. south side discussion
. Pathways/Parking lots inventory/maintenance plan- would Council be in favor of pursuing
outside consulting to assist staff in establishing a maintenance plan?
· Utility Rate Study- should the current rate study be updated in 200n