Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - November 12, 2013 SSLODI CITY COUNCIL SHIRTSLEEVE SESSION CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2013 A. Roll Call by City Clerk An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday, November 12, 2013, commencing at 7:00 a.m. Present: Council Member Hansen, Council Member Mounce, Mayor Pro Tempore Katzakian, and Mayor Nakanishi Absent: Council Member Johnson Also Present: City Manager Bartlam, City Attorney Schwabauer, and Assistant City Clerk Robison B. Topic(s) B-1 Receive Information on the City of Lodi Street Maintenance Program (PW) Deputy Public Works Director Charlie Swimley provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the City of Lodi Street Maintenance Program. Specific topics of discussion included overview, street infrastructure, street classifications, pavement types, pavement condition vs. time, signs of pavement stress, treatment types and costs, last ten years, where the City is going, funding, sidewalks and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps, 2013 sidewalk survey, ADA ramp survey and data, and ADA improvements. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Swimley stated the City averages ten ADA ramps a year at approximately $100,000 either in conjunction with roadway work or as part of a stand- alone ADA project. The Ham Lane project will exceed that average this year. In response to Mayor Nakanishi, Mr. Swimley stated that road construction is generally done the same way, however the design will vary based on the traffic index. In response to Council Member Mounce, Mr. Swimley stated that the type of road application used is based on a combination of type of soil underneath and anticipated load. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Swimley concurred that portions of the Ham Lane project were base failure repairs prior to the overlay and the total project cost was $1.2 million. Council Member Mounce questioned why the recent alley reconstruction projects no longer include striping the alleyways, to which Mr. Swimley responded he would look into the matter. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Swimley stated the cost of asphalt materials had been increasing due to the rising cost of oil and petroleum, but prices are starting to stabilize. In response to Mayor Nakanishi, Mr. Swimley explained that the maintenance project cost was significantly higher in 2005 due to the Lower Sacramento Road widening project and he anticipated another high year for the forthcoming grade separation project. In further response, Mr. Swimley stated he expects the Citywide inspection of each street to be completed in spring. In response to Council Member Hansen, City Manager Bartlam stated the gas tax fluctuates based on how much gas is sold, not on the price of gas. Public Works Director Wally Sandelin added that the City did see a slight dip during the recession, but it appears to be on the rise. In further response, Mr. Sandelin assured that staff, with assistance from San Joaquin Council of Governments, is aware of all available funding sources for street projects. In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Katzakian, Mr. Sandelin stated that State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding has a federal and a state component, however over the past six to seven years the City has not received state STIP funding, only federal. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Swimley explained that the yellow tactile strips on handicap ramps became a requirement for all ADA ramps installed after 2007. Mr. Bartlam added that the requirement is part of the building code, the strips are expensive to install, and they are for the visually impaired to warn of upcoming traffic conditions. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Swimley stated that the Lockeford Street project has been pushed out a couple of years and instead the focus will be on Turner Road improvements between Loma Drive and Pleasant Avenue because the road conditions are much worse and there is a heavier traffic load. The projected time line for this project is design phase this year with construction taking place in 2014. In response to Council Member Mounce, Mr. Sandelin stated that the traffic signal project for the Lockeford and Stockton Street intersection has also been pushed out, however staff could have plans ready to bid in a few months. There could be some delay due to right-of-way negotiations with the railroad. Mr. Sandelin added that staff is currently performing an analysis of traffic signal intersections, both signalized and non-signalized, and will come back to Council in spring with a prioritized list. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Swimley stated all traffic signals have either a traffic loop or camera to handle timing. Mr. Bartlam added that the City does not control Caltrans signals. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Swimley stated citizens can report poor street or traffic signal conditions by calling Public Works or the 24-hour service number. Mr. Bartlam added that there is an on-line reporting function as well. Mr. Sandelin pointed out that the design standard for streets changed approximately 15 years ago to account for the increase in trucks, buses, and fire engines and many of the older streets have yet to be brought up to the current standard. In response to Mayor Nakanishi, City Attorney Schwabauer stated some communities have passed ordinances to make homeowners responsible for sidewalks but Lodi does not have such an ordinance. In Lodi, responsibility for a sidewalk would fall on the City because it owns the right of way; however, if a homeowner's tree roots uplift the sidewalk or the sprinklers cause the sidewalk to be slippery, then the homeowner would have primary liability. Should a homeowner be sued and unable to pay, the City would most likely make up the difference. There is no obligation to have a sidewalk and the lack of a sidewalk would not be cause for liability. Myrna Wetzel questioned why some sidewalks are concrete while others are asphalt and what determines the speed limit on streets. Mr. Swimley responded that sidewalk is concrete in order to be ADA compliant, and Mr. Bartlam added that some areas may have asphalt on the surface to make the area more walkable, however they are not considered sidewalks. Mr. Swimley explained that residential speed limits are 25 miles per hour and arterial and collector street speed limits are subject to speed surveys every seven years and are based on the 85th percentile. Mr. Schwabauer added that the City must adhere to the 85th percentile rule in order to enforce speed limits. None. Comments by Public on Non -Agenda Items Adjournment No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 a.m. ATTEST: Jennifer M. Robison Assistant City Clerk AGENDA ITEM Z at CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION • TM AGENDA TITLE: Receive Information on the City of Lodi Street Maintenance Program MEETING DATE: November 12, 2013 PREPARED BY: Public Works Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive information on the City of Lodi Street Maintenance Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Lodi maintains nearly 400 lane miles of streets, 360 miles of sidewalk, 66 traffic signals and numerous other traffic control devices. Managing the City's street maintenance program requires balancing many resources including in-house design and construction staff, outside consultants, general engineering contractors, technology, and multiple funding sources. The purpose of this presentation is to provide an overview of the City's street maintenance program, alternatives for pavement maintenance, a ten-year history of pavement maintenance activities, planning for future maintenance, the 2013 sidewalk survey, and Americans with Disabilities Act improvements. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable. F. Wally S elln Public Works Director Prepared by Charles E. Swimley, Jr., City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director FWS/CES/pmf Manager K:\WP\COUNCIL\2013\StreetMaintenanceProgram.doc 11/5/2013 The City of Lodi Public Works Street Maintenance Program November 12, 2013 Overview • Street Infrastructure • Street Maintenance (Past, Present, Future) • Funding • Sidewalk & ADA Ramp Surveys • Questions Street Infrastructure • Pavement and Striping — 396 Lane Miles — 88 Medians • Traffic Control Devices — 66 Signalized Intersections — 890 Stop Signs — 76 Yield Signs — 835 Crosswalks (Including School Sites) • Sidewalks — 360 Miles — 2,600 ADA Ramps • 2.3 Million Square Feet of Landscape Maintenance • 7,200 Street Lights (Electric Utility) Street Classifications • Street Classifications — Residential — Collector — Arterial — Highways (SR12— SR99) Caltrans Arterial (Hutchins Street) Flo Residential (Holt Drive) Collector (Mills Avenue) "Expressway" (Harney Lane) pavement I vne TYPICAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS Asphalt Concrete Surface N Aggregate Base Aggregate Subba, 771 Native Subgrade FULL DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE Asphalt Concrete Surface Native Subgrade RIGID PAVEMENTS Portland Cement Concrete 06130aiACement Treated Rase ." , "11Z11,0'111111 Native Subgrade pavement Condition vs_ Time es 80 75 % OF TIMI= 40% QUALITY DROP w.wwr�rr�rrw•w.�..ww........... SEAL. COAT HERE EACH 't 100 OF COST TO Z REHABILITATE HERE, EQUALS $4-5.00 Ix IF DELATED TO HERE V ...r..w..rs w. w... .......... oo........... «.............. [T O ITING CONDITION RATING F- U 40 40 % DUALITY DROP F- W 2 W 20- 15% OF TIME FAI LU RE O 5 10 15 20 25 30 TIME - YEARS Signs of Pavement Stress How do you know when the pavement is bad? 0 DthE RL Sr M.- Ah Ah ilii' Rov =12, I :w IV Ah ons of Pavement Stre 0 Ile, - i. 1 ;•ti r IL Signs of Pavement Stress What can you do about it? • Sealing — Crack Seal — Slurry Seal — Chip Seal — Cape Seal — Microsurfacing Treatment Types Crack Seal ? } Cape Seal 2 y r Slurry Microsurfacing Treatment Types • Repair — Base Failure Repair (Digout) — Thin Overlay — Thick Overlay — Full Reconstruction Overlay Base Failure Repair Full Reconstruction Treatment Costs Street Treatment Type Typical Cost per SF Crack Seal Varies ($3-$5 per pound) or $:/SF Slurry Seal $.13-$.18 / SF Chip Seal $.20- $.30 / SF Cape Seal Rubberized Chip $.33-$.45 / SF Microsurfacin $1.00-$2.00 / SF Base Failure Repair $5-$15 / SF Thin Overlay (< 3/4") $.75-$1.00 / SF Overlay 1 "4" $1.25-$3.00 / SF Reconstruct $4-$7 / SF Where We've Been ... Last Ten Years • Annual Crack Sealing Projects (City Forces and Contractors) • 7 Restriping Projects • 5 Cape Seal and Slurry Projects • 14 Thin Overlay Project (City Forces) • 17 Thick Overlay / Reconstruction Projects • 4 Alley Reconstruction Projects Street Improvement 2003-2013 LEGEND: >L711wt Reconsftuction Thick Oveday —Thin Ouy Rubberized C2pe Seat Slurry I ww 'le j"1 t- i 'QOM � '.' I i �i.> � -�'2M3 _ � �-, �14d �1� � � E r 1 I T �1 Pfnr 9t , ;�, � Plne �• i (.'aAilke:_I� LL WIN SL .- - ' 1 ��7 Nis ^ R I j_.'. i 1 � � Tar . j7 ����r __•-�. � fl" r} � r. - , -j .1— i !'-'� kk _ i ji* F i �i'!•i. �I �^!-1 ` -Awl s 77' I Z1! ZA 1-T7- rH Last Ten Years • Street Reconstruction: 7.0 Lane Miles • Thick Overlay: 18.5 Lane Miles • Thin Overlay: 6.5 Lane Miles • Rubberized Chip / Cape Seal: 49.5 Lane Miles • Slurry Seal: 25.5 Lane Miles Alley Improvements 2003-2013 LEGEND: Reconstructed Alleys 'i % —_._JJ L I��JJ-, �� IL_.--I�I-�..l.l—. ! _ -_J! -I :-I �.,_ F.[ �5 �. ; - •�.. TF I- 111 _II v II -- r IMII -- ------ _ - �r - ' t_ -L-o-ck-efa-dSk kef •S'1 _ -T--LockefSf _-- - - - - , 7,, -- I.II I i — � - .. - , I I I I `' � I�� jr+j II ,I - L I = • I - - I- i III �I ElmI st. I..- i t f ! Elm r -1 ILi St: l —I, TI.I.tl rI ilmSt- -!I I L,I� 4' y' r !I I I...i..l� t.l�`- t it fi L__� L4 -! ISI PinaS Pine 5t. r {i I -c - - I-• Pine St., I �I �rPineSt. r.�_ } I -JT_ _ y -- -. _ - - � i I I I. �I _J III PI a I Twp` I + I ill �h � �f_ , I �I j1 •_I I Li {Y -_ Ir 1 I- - - -- „_. I`^I• LodiAvlul f -I- = _ f _ Lodi Ave. r Lodi Air _II_I - [_ 4odii Av - _: - �, i- j - - ! 1 i �_ I �_i 4� L.- J r FTII j I I- '.I - Imo.' 1 _ V_• �l - -[--, 1111 _ �Li JL_,._�,I. f �_ ; L i L ! J I, I L - - - J - `7 I I.. _ 7 I m I_fJ �i1il"I 1-' O J - I 1 r -Ti {-_ _ 1 IL!L-'fIl r1rl" I L I Maintenance Project Costs $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 ■ Maintenance Project Costs $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Ap Where We're Going ... Where We're Going • New Pavement Management Program - StreetSaver • Developed by the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) • Used by over 400 Local Agencies in California • Uses a Standardized Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Rating System Where We're Going How it Works: — Inspection of Each Street • By city staff — Calculates PCI (67 in 2009) — Treatments Recommended Where We're Going • Why We Use it? — Project Prioritization — Tracks Pavement Condition Index — Compare Lodi to Other Cities — Budget Tool — Cost Savings Funding • Local — Measure K — Developer Paid (formally Impact Fees) • State — STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program) — RTIF (Regional Transportation Improvement Fund) — TDA Bike Ped — Prop 1 B /Prop 42 — Gas Tax — Gas Tax Swap (Formally Prop 42) • Federal — CDBG (Community Block Grant) TE (Transportation Enhancement) CMAQ (Congestion Management) RSTP (Regional Surface Transportation Program) Sidewalks & ADA Ramps From Streets to Sidewalks... {{ 7 •a% '�- � � y 'f%• „�,1 y, � - �tf � s � �• i � f Y r � r � 7'K $ «' r c � �: �Ji ' ;+:. � 7 / rr '+.�s •'� .. ,7:1�R .+ � F *�fal ... �jyyfa��, � �. PvZiL �r~FF S `� •J �4.fi N�,r M. Srx tv - ti:- a, �.•,�.. :•rte � ,. - nc • yy •t; l kY Z4 w� r r` c r h v X -_ '� Vii'. • 7 � = s Lower Sacramento Road Sidewalks & ADA Ramps • 360 Miles of Sidewalk • 2,600 ADA Ramps • Surveys — 2013 Sidewalk Survey • Identifying Potential Tripping Hazards — 2002 ADA Ramp Survey • Updated with New Projects 9 Both Inventories Managed Internally (GIS) 0 0 16 0 Sidewalk Survey Form IAdd Record District: 3 I1-1 Field Survey Date Address: 1937 S CHURCH ST E A P N: 062200G5 Sidewalk Damage Type Uplift/Depress Sidewalk Repair Width Sidewalk Repair Length Sidewalk Offset (inch) 0.5 Sidewalk Crack Conditic Mincrl%on_tripping C and G Damage Type C and G Repair Length Damage Caused 6y Tree? City/Private? Damage Caused by Utility Utility Owner: Note I EM■.3 611112013 Reverse Frontage? i ACSidewalk? Previously Repaired: Sidewalk Offset Type Uplift I- Repair Type: Grind IJ LJ IJ IJ 2013 Sidewalk Survey So How Bad is It? Aca&mr to O hlnatnl I nD CEII;m Ln. , 0O8 _ cun�^ra way. hMsswQnd Or D 0 O�n (iem 31 c Ga O k O � 9nkk wWes_? G (bayberry ur I� � Y • � O O sl C C�: O [1 00% �jcqu•A��in�ga Dr a D! 0 is'I D aa m tProreeyDr � � ° d . 61.a �80� Mcrray.�u Bmc*btafndi4m n Elan, m it � O Rallio°edrAv� 1 Lock ®� s�-L�] ! .." 'e�5 p 5b 1�u Lao ke. smpD `9 [O 8 0 c �' rt r. ft D Do r5110 D 2101` u UUU ` tartare r1 � OIj16 Dr a' [A _ k�GYl5iR31 qq//rr��(( �SyIW7Dr. r# 42 �... ,. .00 E. O O O pu 5L'Av 5n Dr r5 �', rb ° MOX RM _ ° D---caldlnar v`� c •� ��sl +y D auin c P Megic Ln.I� 4 .... r> �� O ° D Tierde_LT P.arklAy 1 O Ch r. C90 + J a uiO4) DOS �I 01� � L 5t. — C1(elnPmanLnti Q Kartle�rtan Ln r• t2 f 666 l� �r Sra ° na �r W �Iu9cS. o'0 c .11 o4 npl or uVycl', a Clro O ° O a &4,0, pCm D ry et'd -cog.,. C3Q� 3t 9"d,mam OD 0 0 WY ; ue m Dr OS � $ '� Nsvrhtry Cir Qe Dr � � t rm {Rei9 ldie nC V S ° $ � g41D 41 � 0 1 �O C� D MaCC�` a•. O o OD.c to Ktisw Q 2 8 1NIm61e7un1iJr� a pt. S�,aRx ❑c Lw�cnrr Dr :' W qwm DDat 4lvon Dr t rI "'od C',D OS 0, Namey Lr.. y Sidewalk Offset O Other 0 112" O 3/4" O 1" O 1-1/4" 0 1-112" • 1-3/4" 2" 2-114" • 2-112" • 4" Loop. 00 Ib dD © 00 000 OW0900 �HllbornFSt? 0 O 0 o8p 0O{�DOCC� FloMsflj4 O Re Q 2013 Sidewalk Survey • Survey Results: — 10,988 Locations — 3,796 Grindable (0.5"-1.25" & Clean Edge) — 6,226 Patchable (0.5"-2" & Any Edge) — 643 Sidewalk Reconstruction Locations (>2" Offsets) — 258 Locations Missing Sidewalk 2013 Sidewalk Survey 1. '"Now - •What Are We Doing About It? — Sidewalk Grinding Contract • $150,000 Budgeted 13/14 — 14/15 — Misc. Concrete Replacement Contract (Starting at 4" + Locations) • $300,000 Budgeted 13/14 — 14/15 — Notifying Homeowners at Private Tree Locations — Streets Dept. Patching Item Description Locations Est. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1) Grind 3,796 18,980 Lineal Feet $6 $113,880 2) Patch 6,226 6,226 Each $25 $155,650 3) Reconstruct Sidewalk 643 22,640 Square Feet $18 $407,520 4) Reconstruct Curb & Gutter 328 4,807 Lineal Feet $75 $360,525 5) Construct Sidewalk (Gaps) 258 32,469 Square Feet $14 $454,566 6) lConstruct Curb & Gutter [Gaps] 29 1,099 Lineal Feet $60 $65,940 Total Cost for All Improvements: $ 1,558,081 Notes: 1 Grinding may only be performed at select locations with offsets less than 1.25". 2 Patching will only be performed at select locations with offsets less than 2". 3 Any offset greater than 2" is assumed to require reconstruction. 4 All AC paths are removed and replaced with concrete. 5 Assuming sidewalk replacement areas of 5' x 10' when not identified by the survey. 6 Assuming curb and gutter replacement lengths of 10' when not identified by the survey. 7 Some overlapping may existing to reconstruct / construct sidewalk and curb & gutter. 8 Unit costs include contract administration. ADA Ramp Survey 2002 ADA Ramp Survey Southeast corner of Turner and Laurel Y TurnorjRd, 07 0 Turner ®. ® r� t w � Y Lock rd St?® lnckefo� rd.Rt Som eiord Elm St Elm 6t, EhnSt. {r 14411111 o Elm St.'t> �Pfne_5t.�� C j a$�1 �Lodi'Av. LOINAV: � ®� m pad vine sr. • 1 HWY.12 . ®® ✓ Kettleman Ln,9 • C) Century Blyd. l �Century '� O r,,, -_Brvtl. '88 i 4? Har 0 No Ramp, with Catch Basin O No Ramp, No Obstructions O Ramp Significantly Out of Compliance • Ramp met ADA at Time of Survey • Ramp Constructed After Survey 2.3 $40 520 545 513 530 5305 5.17 815 P ® 540 525 © 54a Tokay 3�1. 00�`p ® G04 �ECD�z' 60 a 605 =� 6Y7$ 611 F}1 608 809 510 61g � o: 705 . Sprui�+ St_ 0 t`w 707 70D V' ADA Ramp Survey Data • ADA Ramp Inventory — 3,508 Total Locations that Should Have Ramps — 637: No Ramp, No Obstructions — 278: No Ramp, Catch Basin in Ramp Area — 200: Significantly out of Compliance — 1,935: New Ramp or Ramp that Met 2007 ADA — 458: Ramps Not Surveyed, Presumed To Meet 2007 ADA (Constructed with Newer Subdivisions) Quantity 637 278 200 1935 Imi\ IEM Description $110 No Ramp, No Obstructions No Ramp, Catch Basin in Ramp area Significantly Out of Compliance New or Met ADA at Time of Survey (Needs Detectable Warnings) Estimated Total Cost/ Ramp $5,000 $3,185,000 $10,000 $2,780,000 $5,000 $1,000,000 $400 $774,000 458 Ramp Constructed After Survey (Needs Detectable Warnings) $400 $183,200 Estimated Total to Bring All City Ramps into Compliance : $7,9221200 Questions