Update on the Pavement Management Program

Purpose:
The purpose of this case is to update the Public Works Committee on the Pavement Management Program.
 
Background:
Pavement Management:
The success of the City’s Pavement Management Program (PMP) is dependent upon many factors including but not limited to: planning and programming, design requirements and initial construction practices, pavement maintenance and rehabilitation, and economics. Failure in any of these key areas may result in pavement useful life being shortened. Many other factors affect the useful life of a pavement and the potential maintenance and rehabilitation actions required. These can include existing sub-grade conditions, drainage patterns, materials and previous maintenance practices to name a few.
 
Recent Achievements:
Over the last decade the City has reconstructed 27.2 miles (14.8-percent) of City streets and overlayed an additional 24.05 miles (13.1-percent) of City streets. The City has incorporated several techniques to cost-effectively rehabilitate failing pavement. These techniques include traditional reconstructions which remove and replace the entire pavement and aggregate base section, full-depth reclamations which recycle the existing pavement and aggregate base, stabilized full-depth reclamations which inject a stabilizer into the recycled base (gaining design strength), reclamation rehabilitations which recycle the pavement and build a slightly thinner pavement section (requires excellent sub-base material), and mill and overlay improvements which only replace the wearing course. Within this inventory of projects, specific site conditions can also influence the pavement reconstruction process (from existing utilities and drainage to existing sub-soil conditions); truly no two projects are the same.
 
Pavement Design Life:
The City’s goal is to have a 60-year design life for newly constructed and reconstructed pavements. Assuming a fully funded PMP and pavement maintenance the following process describes the anticipated 60-year design life:

• Year 0 – New Construction or Reconstruction
• Year 2 – Pavement Rejuvenator (Pavement Maintenance)
• Year 3 – Crack Seal (Pavement Maintenance)
• Year 7 – Crack Seal (Pavement Maintenance)
• Year 14 – Crack Seal (Pavement Maintenance)
• Year 20 – Pavement Overlay No.1
• Years 21 to 39 – (Pavement Maintenance)
• Year 40 – Pavement Overlay No.2
• Years 41 to 59 – (Pavement Maintenance)
• Year 60 Reconstruction

 
Pavement Rating:
The City evaluates the condition of the pavement on an annual basis, generally following the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) manual. PASER uses a visual inspection to evaluate pavement surface conditions with a 0 – 10 scale (0 equals a gravel street, 10 equals a brand-new pavement). The PASER manual recommends a number based on surface defects (raveling, flushing, polishing), surface deformation (rutting, shoving, settling, frost heave), cracks (transverse, reflection, slippage, longitudinal, block, alligator), and patches and potholes.
 
Based on experience with the City’s street system, and years of using PASER, Staff is able to associate a PASER value with a recommended pavement maintenance or rehabilitation treatment. Two things to note are that PASER is a subjective evaluation, and the PASER value alone is not sufficient to determine a pavement treatment. In general, Staff uses the following guidelines to assign pavement treatments:
PASER ≥ 7            Crack Seal is a cost-effective pavement maintenance treatment

• Below a 7, crack sealing becomes not as cost-effective due to the amount of material needed.

PASER ≥ 6            Pavement Mill and Overlay is a cost-effective treatment

• In general, reflective cracking will migrate through 1-inch of bituminous per year. Within 2 years, reflective cracking is expected to show. Streets valued below 6 typically exhibit block cracking and/or some alligator cracking which would reflect to the surface of new overlay pavement. The cracks allow water into the base, resulting in a shortened life of the overlay.

PASER ≤ 4            Pavement Reconstruction of some form is necessary.

• Any street segment with a PASER value of 4 or less is ideally included in the current Capital Improvement Program for reconstruction.

 
City-wide the goal is to have an average PASER value of 7. This would represent the majority of streets being above the desirable condition. Based on the 2024 PASER evaluation, the overall city street average value was 6.59. MSA collector streets had an average of 7.70 and neighborhood streets had an average of 6.34. What this means is the City’s collector streets are generally in good condition. However, there is catch up work to be done on the neighborhood streets.
 
Proposed 2025 – 2034 Capital Improvement Program:
Staff is proposing the following modifications to the CIP for existing projects:

• Move part of the Sunwood Drive and Rhinestone Street Concrete Repairs from 2029 to 2025
  • This includes Sunwood Drive Pedestrian Crossing Repairs (MSA Funded)
• Remove Beaudry’s 2^nd subdivision from the 2025 Neighborhood Overlays Improvement
  • 2024 PASER values fell to 5. Further Staff review found an overlay no longer cost-effective
• Move Bunker Lake Boulevard (Jackal Street to Armstrong Boulevard) Reconstruction from 2032 to 2027
  • This segment of road is to be funded using approximately 50-percent MSA funds and 50-percent development fees. During the Oppidan development, TIF 18 District was created. Any TIF 18 funds must be spent by 2027 and may be used to offset MSA funds for this project.
• Move Deerwood Street Reconstruction from 2032 to 2027.
  • 2024 PASER Values for this subdivision fell to mostly 3 with some 4’s. Staff has observed pavement reveling and alligator cracking, and believes significant pavement patching would be required to maintain this pavement until the previously proposed 2032 reconstruction.

 
Staff identified 5 subdivisions for 2034 street reconstruction totaling 5.55 miles. Streets selected for reconstruction had PASER values of 4 within the subdivision. Staff feels these subdivisions will likely require patching in the interim years before the street reconstruction project and will continue to monitor. An additional 2 subdivisions and 4 MSA street segments totaling 3.00 miles were identified for pavement overlay in 2034. Additional information may be found in the 2025 – 2034 CIP Pavement Management Summary, attached to this case.
 
The proposed 2025 – 2034 CIP includes reconstructing 49.24 miles (26.8-percent) of City streets and overlaying an additional 27.36 miles (14.9-percent) of City streets. These street segments may be seen on the draft 2025 – 2034 CIP Map, attached to this case.
 
Potential Project not within the Capital Improvement Program:
Pavement deterioration rates can vary significantly for many factors which were previously discussed. In general, study has shown deterioration to be gradual for many years, and then to accelerate beyond the acceptable level in a short span. The goal of the PMP is to perform maintenance activities to minimize the gradual deterioration, and an overlay treatment before deterioration has hit the point of no return. As previously discussed, this would be to overlay a pavement when it’s still rated a 6 or higher. During 2024 PASER evaluations, Staff found several segments of streets with PASER values between 5 and 6, which are not included in the proposed CIP. It’s anticipated that a street rated a 5 in 2024 would fall to a 4 or below within the next 5 – 10 years, if not sooner.
 
Staff identified 26 subdivisions totaling 20.7 miles which had 2024 PASER values of 5 on at least one of the street segments within the subdivision. Staff anticipate these streets will need some type of significant rehabilitation (street reconstruction / full-depth reclamation / reclamation rehab.) project within the next 5 – 10 years, and/or require significant pavement patching. Assuming typical reconstruction or full-depth reclamation projects are appropriate for these streets, Staff estimates $18,600,000 in funding is needed for these potential improvements. These subdivisions are summarized in the map and spreadsheet attached to this case. It should be noted that all the street segments identified were neighborhood streets, any MSA collector streets rated 6 or below are accounted for within the proposed CIP.

Notification is not required for this case.

Timeframe:
Staff estimates up to 30 minutes will be needed to present this case and respond to questions.
 
Observations:
It’s important to keep in mind that the CIP is a funding planning tool and no projects are authorized until City Council approves them. Staff recommends street reconstructions and overlay improvements with two main goals in mind; replacing pavement sections in poor condition, and proactively maintaining pavement sections in fair to good condition so they don’t deteriorate below acceptable conditions. The timing of projects is necessarily based on available funding and realistic Staff workload. 

Funding for the Pavement Management Program primarily comes from Pavement Management Funds (General Tax Levy) and Municipal State Aid Funds. Additional sources of funding come from Public Improvement Revolving Funds, TIF District funds, and developer / assessment funds in some circumstances.
 
Pavement Management Cash Flow:
The Pavement Management Cash Flow spreadsheet is attached to this case for reference. Starting in 2022, annual dollars, from the General Tax Levy, are placed into the Pavement Management Fund. Additionally, in 2022 $11,903,744 bond dollars were placed into the fund to help catch up with necessary street reconstructions and overlays. The bond dollars are proposed to be used up by 2026. In 2026, approximately half of the proposed $5,420,000 PM budget will be bond dollars and half will be built up general tax levy dollars. The cash flow is anticipated to break even at 2027, then begin running an increasing deficit starting in 2028. By 2034, the proposed deficit is $3,762,000 per the attached 2025 – 2034 CIP Breakdown. Please keep in mind this document is a draft and still in need of review by the City’s finance director.
 
PMP Funding Annual Needs:
Over the past 3 – 4 years, the construction industry has seen the same high levels of inflation as others, generally resulting in costs increasing 25 to 40-percent. For comparison, in 2021 Staff estimated a $200,000/mile cost for a typical overlay, whereas in 2024 the same project is estimated at $300,000/mile.
 
The City has approximately 189 miles of public streets, including existing gravel roads. During the 60-year design life, a street is anticipated to require 2 overlays and 1 reconstruction. In 2024 construction dollars, the City estimates that on a typical street the average overlay costs $300,000 per mile, and the average reconstruction costs $850,000 per mile. Please note the reconstruction cost is averaged over all the different project types the City uses, i.e. full reconstruction, full-depth reclamation, stabilized full-depth reclamation, and reclamation rehabilitation.
 
For the typical neighborhood street, the life cycle cost per mile = 2 x $300,000 + $850,000 = $1,450,000 / mi. / 60yrs. All neighborhood streets combined cost 152.73 mi. x $1,450,000 / mi. / 60 yrs. = $221,458,500 / 60 yrs. That makes the annual need for neighborhood streets $3,690,975 in today's dollars. This does not account for making up ground on existing streets which may require reconstruction ahead of the assumed life cycle.
 
For typical MSA collector streets, the streets have a thicker pavement section and usually extra width from parking lanes adding approximately 20-percent to per mile costs. This makes the cost per mile / 60 years equal to $1,740,000. For all MSA streets combined, the cost = 33.81 miles x $1,740,000 / mi. / 60yrs. = $58,829,400 / 60yrs. That makes the annual need for MSA streets $980,490 in today's dollars. This is approximately the amount of MSA funding the City receives, so we can say in general the MSA street funding needs are close to being met.

This case is intended to update the Public Works Committee on the status of the Pavement Management Program.  Staff does not have a recommendation at this time. 

This case is to update the Public Works Committee on the status of the Pavement Management Program. Staff is not requesting action, but would welcome any direction given by the Public Works Committee based on the update.