City Council Work Session

Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City Police Facility 2360 McCulloch Blvd North Work Session Minutes - Final Lake Havasu City, Arizona 86403 www.lhcaz.gov City Council Work Session Tuesday, September 23, 2014 5:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Nexsen called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The mayor led in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Present 7- Mayor Mark S. Nexsen, Vice Mayor Dean Barlow, Councilmember Crystal Alger, Councilmember David McAtlin, Councilmember Don Callahan, Councilmember Donna Brister, and Councilmember Jeni Coke 4. CALL TO THE PUBLIC There were no requests to address the Council. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 ID 14-0488 Discussion and Possible Direction Regarding Roadway Maintenance (Pavement) and Roadway Shoulder Treatment Maintenance Services Division Manager Mark Clark said he was asked by the City Manager to provide an update on roadway maintenance as it is an important issue to the community. Mr. Clark said tonight’s presentation will provide answers to: why do we maintain the City’s roadways the way we do, how do we maintain the City’s roadways, and could we do something different and if so, what would it take. Roadway Maintenance Discussion Mr. Clark provided some history of Lake Havasu City roads: • Originally paved from mid-1960’s to 1970’s, different mixes over native. • Some rehabilitations were Thin Overlays (approximately 1”) used in early 1990’s (failed in late Lake Havasu City Page 1 City Council Work Session Work Session Minutes - Final September 23, 2014 1990’s). • Chip Seal problems in 1994 and 1995 related to construction techniques and temperature. • Chip Seal improved in 1996 in conjunction with Slurry Seal, which created a “Cape Seal” which was used from 1996 to 2008. • A few major projects in 1990’s on Lake Havasu Avenue, McCulloch, and Acoma. • Roadway Widening using IDD and Flood Control Funding from the 70’s to 1999 created 150 miles of widened roadways (425 overall miles), in response to storms of early 1970’s and continued problems to this day. • Sewer Project “repaves” 60% of the community. These roadways now average almost 8 years old and are in their “normal” maintenance cycle (fog seal, crackfill, chip seal) • Non-Sewer Area roadways can be 40 years old. Mr. Clark reviewed the following facts about general pavement: • Approximately 425 miles of streets (centerline) • 7,650,000 square yards of pavement (roadways) 1995 • 8,320,000 square yards of pavement (roadways) 2012 • $15 to $20 per square yard of value equates to between $124,800,000 to $166,400,000 in assets • Roadways have a 20 to 30 year design life (requires routine maintenance) • 400,000 square yards of non-HURF (Highway User Revenue Fund) eligible pavements including most parking lots, tank roads, facility roads, park roads (SARA Park roadway is the largest area). Mr. Clark showed a graph with the number of chip seal miles treated, Pavement Condition Index (PCI), and thresholds for chip seal from 1993 through 2014. He said when the ratings were first done in 1995-1996 the City had a rating of 69, with 0 being “bad” and 100 being “good.” He said the bottom of the graph shows the miles of chip seal that the City performed. He added that in 2004 it appears, from the graph, that there were very few miles of chip sealed roads; however, at this particular time the City was replacing many miles of roadway during the Wastewater System Expansion Program (WWSE) and the City was able to reduce maintenance during those years because of the roadway replacement. Mr. Clark said the yellow and orange lines on the graph represent the average or “goal” of roadway pavement and maintenance over the course of eight to ten years. He added that the City does not have to be at those levels; however, if the City is below the line, that it is an indication that we are not keeping up with roadway repair and maintenance. Mr. Clark said it is typical for PCI ratings to vary and added that what the graph does show is that the City is able to keep a PCI rating at a level that the community is comfortable with. Mr. Clark added that the City has increased funding for chip seal which has also increased the PCI. Mr. Clark reviewed the PCI ratings for Bullhead City (PCI 70-79), Glendale (PCI 70), and Goodyear (PCI 75). Mr. Clark noted that funding is the primary controlling constraint on a Pavement Management Lake Havasu City Page 2 City Council Work Session Work Session Minutes - Final September 23, 2014 System (PMS), and added that this City Council and organization has done a very good job recognizing the amount of funding needed to adequately maintain the roadways. He provided a graph showing the reduction in HURF for Lake Havasu City from 2007 to 2015. Mr. Clark reviewed a few general asset management facts: • Historically Lake Havasu City has been allocating approximately $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 for this activity annually (20 Years). • Simple “Status Quo” Calculation – Total Replacement Value Divided by Lifetime – Repave the roadways when they “expire” • $124,800,000/30 years = $4,160,000 per year (best case assumptions) • Does not include routine maintenance “costs” • Does not factor in “savings” for good maintenance practices • Does not do much to the roadways for 20 or 30 years • “As Maintained” or “Its Worked So Far” Calculation • Chip Seal at $1.50 per square yard * 8,720,000 sq. yd./ 7 year cycle • $1,869,000 per year for Chip Seals • Roads are not new pavement, they are rough and rocky but preserved. • Cape Seal (1996 to 2008) Calculation • Chip and Slurry Seal at $3.00 per square yard at 8,720,00 sq. yd./7 year cycle • $3,737,000 per year for Cape Seal • Roads are a little smoother and blacker but require fog seals every couple of years Mr. Clark reviewed the pavement treatment costs as follows: • Fog Seal - $0.35 per square yard • Crackfill - $0.45 per square yard • Chip Seal - $1.60 per square yard • Slurry Seal - $2.00 per square yard • Micro Seal - $3.00 per square yard • Thin Overlay 1 ½” - $12.00 per square yard • Mill and Fill (2” minimum) - $17.00 per square yard Mr. Clark reviewed the pavement treatment lifespans as follows: • Fog Seal – 2 to 3 years, depending on quality of product • Crackfill – 3 to 5 years or more, depending on age of pavement • Chip Seal – 7 Years • Slurry Seal – 5 Years • Micro Seal – 6 Years • Thin Overlay - 10 to 15 Years • Mill and Fill - 15 to 20 Years He also discussed the pavement treatment costs (annualized) as follows: Lake Havasu City Page 3 City Council Work Session Work Session Minutes - Final September 23, 2014 • Fog Seal - $0.12 per SY per Year • Crackfill - $0.09 per SY per Year • Chip Seal - $0.23 per SY per Year (does not require fog seal) • Slurry Seal - $0.40 per SY per Year • Micro Seal - $0.50 per SY per Year • Thin Overlay 1 ½” - $0.96 per SY per Year (ADA updates required as well) • Mill and Fill (2” minimum) - $0.97 per SY per Year (ADA updates required as well) Mr. Clark said the City currently maintains the roadways using industry standards (crackfill, patch, chip seal, special projects), experienced crews, contracts, PMS, and using the “over arcing vision.” He explained that the City uses this “vision” to effectively and efficiently maintain the roadways to avoid catastrophic failure of pavements and maintains roadways in the “good” range because it is safer, cheaper, and easier. Mr. Clark stated that the PMS system was first implemented in June of 1996 and was used to assess pavement condition, evaluate pavement preservation needs, and prioritize street improvements. He added that it also provides a gauge (performance measure) for evaluating program efforts to meet and maintain a pre-determined service level over time. Mr. Clark explained that the City uses MicroPaver, a software program, to capture pavement data and compute the PCI, and noted that the City has always been on the leading edge of technology related to roadway maintenance. Councilmember McAtlin stated that he thought chip seal was the best treatment and most cost effective, especially since the warm weather helps push the chip seal down. Councilmember Alger asked about the treatment that often gets stuck on the bottoms of shoes, to which Mr. Clark said that is typically a chip seal that has a “scar” or ripple in the treatment from a tire, or something of that nature, turning over the treatment before it has properly set or “aged.” Councilmember Callahan said he was also in favor of using chip seal. Mayor Nexsen said being a car town, the biggest complaint he receives about the chip seal treatment is the loose gravel hitting vehicles. He asked how the City can do a better job cleaning up any loose gravel, to which Mr. Clark said sweeping is the best method, and added that there are a couple of extra sweeps included with chip seal treatments right now. Mr. Clark explained that chip seals are most effective on heavy traffic streets; therefore, the lighter traffic streets which are most residential areas tend to have more loose gravel. He said an additional sweeping after chip seal would be something the City could look at further as a follow up after chip seal treatment. Mayor Nexsen said he has also heard from many citizens that any loose gravel from chip seal treatment is difficult for motorcycles, and thought any additional sweeping that could be done Lake Havasu City Page 4 City Council Work Session Work Session Minutes - Final September 23, 2014 would be worth the cost. Mayor Nexsen said in regards to HURF funding, last year the cities and towns received $30 of the $120 million that is owed every year. He said this funding may also disappear very quickly because of the financial woes of the State right now. Mayor Nexsen said there will probably be more discussion about this next year during the City Council Retreat, and suggested that the City no longer rely on State funding but create a road budget, and any additional funding from the State would be a bonus. He said now that the City’s financial situation has improved it may be time to consider adding more money to the road budget. Roadway Shoulder Discussion Mr. Clark said approximately 20 years ago he developed one of the first comprehensive road widening manuals. He said tonight’s presentation will provide answers to: why does the City widen roadways/protect the shoulders, what has the City done, and could the City do something different, and if so, what would it take. Mr. Clark showed several pictures of streets with storm water damage, and mechanisms that homeowners have created to divert storm water runoff. Mr. Clark stated that the City has widened approximately 150 of the 425 miles in Lake Havasu City. He said the City has done a lot of work over the course of 30 years; however, there is still a lot of work to do. He said before the WWSE the City tried to go in and do areas of street widening such as in the Amigo Drive area. Mr. Clark provided some history of Lake Havasu City roadway shoulders and widenings: • Originally paved from mid-1960 to 1970 • Some widened or completed to “widened” status in Improvement Districts (Golf Course Area, Smoketree Area, etc) • Most widenings were in response to early 1970’s Flooding (initial) and subsequent damage • Roadway widenings using IDD and Flood Control Funding from the 1970 to 1999 and created 150 miles of widened roadways of 425 (35%) overall miles • Spot widenings in late-1980 and 1990 with Streets Crews and Local Contractor • 1995 to 2000 – IDD Funded Program $1 to $2 million per year • Cost to “Widen Roadways” as done in past was $500,000 per mile based on need to install water services, replace driveways, and widen 18’ (2 sides by 9’), driveways most expensive component, standard “W” section • Topic has been brought up many times over the last 15 years • Additional $50 million to widen roadways as a part of WWSE Program felt to be too expensive • Roadway crossings were a higher priority due to emergency services and safety concerns Mr. Clark said roadway shoulders and widenings have been a topic since the early 1980’s. He said a question he is asked all the time is, wouldn’t it be cheaper to widen the roadways rather than do storm cleanup each year, and the answer to that question is no. He explained that it costs between Lake Havasu City Page 5 City Council Work Session Work Session Minutes - Final September 23, 2014 $10,000 and $300,000 each year for storm cleanup; whereas the interest alone for street widening would be at least $500,000 per year. He said it is not practical to widen roadways as a cost savings measure. Mr. Clark said he is also asked why the City just can’t place curb at the edge of the roadway, to which the answer is that the City could; however, it would also create parking and adequate drainage issues, and maintenance issues behind the curbing. Mr. Clark said he is also often asked why the City did not change to a “V-section” during the WWSE Program, and the answer is that the City did do a few “V-section” roadways and found that the roadways may not carry adequate drainage and may also continually have “nuisance” water down the middle of the roadways with no infiltration causing damage to the pavement. He added that it is an option to consider in some cases. He said the City performed a “test section” on Silversaddle and Indian Land in September of 2013. He said the cost for this area was $183,363 and treated approximately 7,640 linear feet of treatment, which equaled approximately $24 per linear foot of roadway. He said there were some issues in this area with walkways, driveways, and mailboxes and certain sections were modified. He said the area of Aloha and Chemehuevi was also widened costing approximately $35 per linear foot, including two driveways and a curb. Mr. Clark listed several other areas where widening and curbing was done or is being considered, including: Greentree, Chesapeake, and Pacific and Tierra Vista. Mr. Clark listed the following general suggestions from staff: • Develop “new” reduced width roadway sections. • Consider a “V-section” standard design. • Develop a short list of roadway widenings to follow Chesapeake (i.e. Indian Land area, Palmtree area, Huntington/Shorewood Drive, Challenger/Highlander/Arizona area) Mayor Nexsen asked if putting large rock along the sides of roadways has been successful, to which Mr. Clark said it really varies because homeowners have the ability to make choices that the City does not really have the ability to do. He said after the Siversaddle Project the City realized that it is difficult to make specific choices for each individual because staff does not know what homeowners need when it comes to things like parking, access, and mailboxes. Mayor Nexsen asked if the treatment has helped with stopping homeowners yards from washing away, to which Mr. Clark said it has been difficult to assess because the city has not had a large storm; however, the reality is that it is still a lot of money to spend for an area that still looks untreated and un-widened in the area, and is it worth doing the rock treatment for $16 per linear foot or spending $35 per linear foot for widened streets and curbs. Councilmember Callahan said he thought the City did a few trials in the golf course area with rock and concrete, to which Mr. Clark said he was not aware of any work done in that particular area. He said the City has performed work in a few areas where a small patch of concrete was done to improve an area or corner and the homeowner usually provided the materials. He reiterated that Lake Havasu City Page 6 City Council Work Session Work Session Minutes - Final September 23, 2014 there are a lot of things that a homeowner can do that the City cannot. Councilmember Alger said she thinks in certain areas the City should put in curbs and widen the roadways, such as the Shorewood and Huntington area, and then there are others that are similar to Silversaddle that may just need some treatment. She added that once curbs are put in it just pushes the water down the street a lot faster which causes more problems further down the road. Councilmember Alger said she would like to see the City look at certain areas that may require a little extra money and the areas where the City can save some money by using things like large gravel. Councilmember Barlow asked if a homeowner would need a permit to place large rock next to the roadways, to which Mr. Clark said typically as long as homeowners do not create something that is a safety hazard or that their neighbors might complain about then it is fine and they do not need a permit. Mayor Nexsen said the City does not use the sewer for storm drains but asked if it would be expensive to create a manhole grate in the ground for areas that receive severe runoff, to which Mr. Clark replied that the City cannot mix storm sewers with sewers; however, the City could try to intercept at areas that run into washes by creating storm sewers to divert the water. He said in some areas things like that would be appropriate, and in other areas there are perfect opportunities for short widenings and curbing, and added that in other areas there may be opportunities where the City is able to take advantage of City parcels and do some kind of retention basins to eliminate some of the water in the roadways. Mr. Clark said there really are a combination of things the City can do to improve the roadways, and could potentially also look into some sort of cost sharing program between the City and homeowners. Councilmember Alger asked about the costs to install storm drains, to which Mr. Clark said probably in the range of $50 per liner foot, and added that the manholes to install those features are several thousand dollars each. Mayor Nexsen asked if staff needed direction as this time, to which City Manager Charlie Cassens said this work session was just for information only. He said the City receives these types of questions all the time after storms, especially since the city does not have conventional storm drains and uses the roadways as the vehicle to carry storm water to the natural washes. Mr. Cassens said to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on things like storm drains, curbing and widenings, which are all tremendously expensive, staff felt it would be good to revisit this topic to re-educate and re-touch base on exactly what the costs are with these types of improvements. Mayor Nexsen asked if staff was still maintaining a list of critical areas, to which Mr. Clark and Mr. Cassens said yes. Mr. Clark said if the direction from the City Council is to be proactive then there are mechanisms that can be done now like adding rocks that can be very effective. He said if Lake Havasu City Page 7 City Council Work Session Work Session Minutes - Final September 23, 2014 the City continues to tackle the more critical areas and continues to widen a street or two every year then at least there is some progress being done. Mr. Clark said ideally he believes prioritizing small projects or spot improvements through an advisory board or the City Council would be ideal because it is the decision of the governing board or community on what that next step should be and where money should be spent. Mr. Cassens said the commitment, prioritization, and how this fits into the list of all the other things that the City needs, wants, and would like to do will come later at the City Council retreat in January 2015. 6. ADJOURN Upon motion by Councilmember Callahan and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full and true copy of the Work Session of the Lake Havasu City Council held on the 23rd day of September, 2014. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and posted, and that a quorum was present. ____________________________________ Kelly Williams, City Clerk Lake Havasu City Page 8