The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN 02.11.2016 CC-SNotice of a Special Meeting Minutes of the Governing Body of the Z!� City of Georgetown, Texas Thursday, Februat~3,11, 2016 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, February 11, 2016 at 3:00 PM starting at City Hall, 113 E. Stn Street, Georgetown, Texas The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8`i' Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Sessiou (This Regular session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) 1 a-WK90MERM The City of Georgetown City Council will be meeting to take a driving tour of street maintenance projects. City Councilmembers were taken on a tour of street maintenance treatments in the City of Georgetown. The Summary Report is attached. Councilmembers in attendance included Tommy Gonzalez, District 7, John Hesser, District 3, Steve Fought, District 4 and Rachael Jonrowe, District 6. The meeting adjourned at 5.42 PM 1 Da e � —Mayor Se e Attest: City t tary Prepared By CITY OF GEORGETOWN KPA ENGINEERS FEBRUARY 2016 1.0 Executive Summary 2.0 Street Maintenance History 3.0 Street Maintenance Applications 4.0 Street Maintenance Application - Pictures 1.0 Executive Summary In 2005, the City of Georgetown implemented the use of a Pavement Management System (Cartegraph) for its Street Maintenance Program. This system was implemented as part of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 34. As required by the GASB 34 accounting standard, the system must be updated once every three years. The Pavement Management System process results in a pavement condition index (PCI) score for the City streets. The City adopted an overall PCI score of 85 for City streets. In order to maintain these roadways, the City has utilized various street maintenance treatments. The current street maintenance treatments consist of crack sealing, rejuvenator application, chip seal (single and double) with a fog seal, and hot -in-place recycled pavement (HIPR). Costs for the Street Maintenance Treatments for this report were calculated per lane mile. A lane mile is calculated at by multiplying a 12 -foot wide lane by 5,280 - feet. Below is the cost per lane mile for each street maintenance treatment utilized by the City of Georgetown: Street Maintenance Treatment Cost per Lane Mile ($/Lane Mite) Crack Sealing $0-1,000 per mile Rejuvenator $3,520 Single Chip Seal w/Fog Seal $25,000 Double Chip Seal w/Fog Seal $42,000 Hot In Place Recycled Pavement (HIPR) $110,000 Rehabilitation (Point Repair with Chip Seal or HIPR) $141,000 Located in Section 4 of this report are representative pictures of each street maintenance treatment completed in the City of Georgetown within the last five (5) years. 2.0 Street Maintenance Street Maintenance History: Street Maintenance prior to 1990 consisted of 90% Chip Seal, 10% overlays. The City provided approximately $75,000 to Williams County to perform Street Maintenance Work. Chip seals were performed on all Streets every 7 to 10 years. Chip seal projects were always quick and dirty but they were also very effective in protecting the town's 60 to 70 year old streets. As with most street maintenance applications, there were Citizen complaints. The last County contracted chip seals were performed in approximately 1990. From the 20's to the 70's, periodic overlays were performed without the use of engineering services resulting in drainage issues throughout old town. In the past, excavations from waste water projects frequently revealed old curb and gutter section under existing curb and gutters. The City purchased its own asphalt paver and distributor in approximately 1991. Maintenance budget in 1991 was approximately $500,000. Chip seals and overlays continued on residential streets on a limited basis until approximately 2000. (The projects drew some complaints) In-house overlays continued on failing pavements and chip seals were reserved for roads without curbs such as College St. and roads in San Gabriel Park. Micro -surface was utilized in lieu of Chip Seal from 2000 to 2012. The micro -surface application is primarily used to fill areas where rutting occurs and functions similar to a rejuvenator for asphalt protection. It does not provide protection from cracking, nor does it seal existing cracks. The applications that the City has experienced of micro -surfacing lasted approximately 2 to 5 years before the product would begin to unravel, exposing the surface course it was intended to protect. Chip seal use was expanded to protect the City's expanding roadway network. (The process continues to draw some complaints) The General Fund maintenance budget grew from $500,000 in 1991 to $875,000 in 2004. Additional pavement maintenance funds came with the 1/4 cent sales tax for street maintenance. This amount has slowly grown from approximately $1.7 million in 2005 to approximately $2.3 million in 2015. Spending $1 on _: 40% Drop in QU.-slit y pteservation here,.. -eliminates or delays 1pending $6 to S 10 on rehabiliuAtion or 4M' Drop in Quality reconstruction Caere, --12% of Life—, Fig. 1: Pavement Preservation Graph (Typical) PAVEMENT PRESERVATION GRAPH (CURRENT STREET MAINTENANCE TREATMENTS) DEAN PIFL-VION RATE O=i 5% PCkYEAR. Fig. 2: Pavement Preservation Graph (Current City Street Maintenance Treatments) One of the goals of GASB 34 is to help public works departments go from the traditional dire -need maintenance approach to one of preventive maintenance and renewal. There are two methods allowed by GASB for tracking and reporting assets. Those methods are the Modified Approach and Depreciation Approach. r The Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement Number 34 depreciation approach depreciates the capitalized infrastructure assets. Under the depreciation approach, all assets must be inventoried, valued at historical cost, and depreciated. This creates some interesting challenges for many public agencies because the information on the original cost may no longer be available in the agency's files. All assets reported using the depreciation approach, including infrastructure assets, have to be assigned a useful life over which the depreciation will occur. It is difficult to utilize a standard list of useful lives for capital assets because of the wide variation in quality of materials, quality of workmanship, use patterns, climate, preventative maintenance received, and too many other variables to mention, it is nearly impossible to develop a single useful life or even a range of useful lives that are meaningful over the entire nation. Modified Approach As an alternative to the depreciation approach, which provides little useful information that operating departments can use to manage the assets, the GASB allows the use of a condition rating system for reporting infrastructure assets called the modified approach. In order for the modified approach to be utilized, the following conditions must be met: • The government manages the eligible assets using an asset management system to: o Keep an up-to-date asset inventory; a Perform condition assessments and report the results on a measurement scale; a Estimate the annual amount to maintain and preserve the eligible infrastructure assets at the condition level established and disclosed by the government. • The government must document that the eligible assets are being preserved approximately at or above the condition level established and disclosed by the government. The City of Georgetown elected to utilize the modified approach, and in February 2005 completed its first inventory for the basis of its pavement management information system. The initial assessment rated Georgetown's street condition as "good" with a 90.0 pavement condition index. The Council adopted an overall PCI score of 85. As required by the accounting standard, the system must be updated once every three (3) years. ZME M��Z The City currently utilizes five (5) different street maintenance applications. Pictures and descriptions of these applications can be seen in Section 4.0. The current applications utilized are crack sealing, asphalt rejuvenation, single and double chip seal with fog seal, hot -in-place recycled pavement (HIPR), and mill and asphalt overlay. The City has in past utilized the street maintenance treatment methods of micro -surfacing and asphalt mill and overlay. Micro -surfacing is no longer utilized due to performance issues and application costs in relation to a similar application of a single course chip seal. The City has utilized HIPR in place of the traditional asphalt mill and overlay due to the cost effectiveness of HIPR and similar performance results when compared to the traditional mill and overlay. The City of Georgetown contracted with KPA Engineers, who in turn utilized Fugro Roadware, Inc. to provide data collection for 100 percent of the road network currently maintained by the City of Georgetown. The road survey was conducted using an automated system that collects pavement distress information, ride quality measurements, and rut depth measurements mounted on a host data collection platform. The use of an automated system for data collection is an integral component of the City's ability to objectively compare conditions across the network. This information is converted to Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ratings for the City's roadway network. The distresses that are utilized in the pavement management system are pavement distresses (alligator cracking, block cracking, and linear cracking) and rutting. These distresses are reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to performing the first iteration of the PCI ratings. Though ride quality is measured, it is not included in the overall PCI rating. The PCI ratings are then provided to the City in a worksheet and map format for review and comment. City Staff reviews the data provided and identifies streets that may have been misread and/or misidentified that resulted in a lower or higher than anticipated PCI rating. City Staff, KPA and Fugro perform specific street site visits to evaluate any potential misidentified street conditions in relation to the PCI rating. A decision tree is prepared utilizing the pavement management system policies. The decision tree and subsequent recommendations for maintenance activities are based solely on the condition of the road segment or PCI score. The table below shows the decision matrix utilized when selecting street maintenance applications. EME saworgirs M1. WGIRTM I .. ..uvenator ingl6 Chip w/ F+g Seal 'Double Chip w/ Fog Seal LIN S GIVA 0610 N Kehabilitation (20% Patching + Mill & Overlay) EME Below is a description of each street maintenance treatment utilized by the City of Georgetown. Current Street Maintenance Treatments/Applications: Crack Sealing - • Cost of Installation - $0-1,000 per lane mile (12 -foot lane) • Restricts water penetration into underlying street base and subbase layers-, • Seals the pavement against contaminants; • Extends the useful life of asphalt-, • Can result in tracking depending on temperature a insta lation; • Does not leave streets aesthetically pleasing (spider web look); • Applied at various locations throughout the City. • Rejuvenator - • Cost of Installation - $3,500 per lane mile (12 -foot lane) • Replaces oils lost due to oxidation; • Revitalizes the asphalt binder; • Restores flexibility; • Seals the pavement against contaminants; • Extends the useful life of asphalt indefinitely; • Can result in tracking depending on temperature and installation; • Applied in Sun City in 2015 by City Crews and by Contractors in 2014 in University Park Subdivision, Georgetown Crossing and various other locations. Single Course Surface Treatment w/Fog Seal (Single Chip Seal) • Cost of Installation - $25,000 per lane mile (12 -foot lane) • Cost effective application, utilized mainly for street maintenance; • Improved Skid Resistance-, • Effective Moisture Barrier; • Seals & prevents reflection of small surface cracks; • Fog Seal helps lock loose chips down and improves road noise; • Loose chip (rock) is present during application and can experience raveling at intersections; • Reduced speeds are necessary during application and cleanup. (2 to 5 days) • Though Fog Seals help road noise, the chip seal application has more road noise than traditional asphalt overlays, • Does not improve overall ride quality; • Trees along the project route must be trimmed approximately 12' above existing ground level; • Applied in Katy's Crossing Subdivision and Tallwood Dr., Norwood Dr., River Bow, Friendswood Dr., and various other roads in this subdivision off Leander Road in 2015. Double Course Surface Treatment w/Fog Seal (Double Chip Seal) • Cost of Installation —$4 00 per lane mile (12 -foot lane) • Cost effective application, utilized mainly for street maintenance,, • Improved Skid Resistance, • Effective Moisture Barrier-, • Seals & prevents reflection of small surface cracks; • Fog Seal helps lock loose chips down and improves road noise-, • Loose chip (rock) is present during application and can experience raveling at intersections; • Though Fog Seals help road noise, the chip seal application has more road noise than traditional asphalt overlays; • Does not improve overall ride quality; • Trees along the project route must be trimmed approximately 12' above existing ground level; • Applied to Rivery Blvd., of Ranch Parkway,Wood, NE inner Loop in 2014 and to Williams Dr. (Hwy 29 to Serenada) and Rockmoor Dr. in 2015 Hot In Place Recycled Pavement (HIPR) • Cost of Installation - $110,000 per lane mile (12 -foot lane) • Cost effective alternative to mill and asphalt overlay; • Provides a smooth rideable surface; • Two to Three times as expensive as Chip Seal; • Trees along the project route must be trimmed approximately 12' above existing ground level; • Due to the train process, machines give off extreme heat and will singe adjacent vegetation and trees. • Applied to Hutto Road, River Bend (Dawn to Williams), and Power Road (Portion) in 2014 and Williams Drive (Lakeway to Serenada), Power Road (Portion), River Bend, Mesquite Ln, Dawn Drive, Park Drive, and Booty's Crossing (Gabriel View to Williams Drive) in 2015. Rehabilitation (Point Repair with Chip Seal or HIPR) • Cost of Installation - $141,000 per lane mile (12 -foot lane) • Provide full depth street repair at specific points along the project route, • Utilize HIPR, Single Chip Seal or Double Chip Seat based off the remaining street conditions. • Utilized on streets that cannot be repaired under standard street maintenance methods. • Applied to a portion of Hutto Road (HIPR) *in 2014 and Dawn Drive (HIPR) in 2015-, The street maintenance treatments as described above are utilized in the following adjacent governmental entities: • Williamson Count] • Travis County, • TxDOT-, • City of Round Roe • City of Austin-, • City of Belton, • City of Temple; The City of Pflugerville is currently evaluating various street maintenance methods, including all of the methods described above. The City of Georgetown is currently evaluating a new Street Maintenance known as Thin Overlay Mix or TOM's. This process is similar to an asphalt overlay, but the thickness ranges from 3/4" to 1 1/2" thick. The typical asphalt overlay is 2" thick. The TOMS are a warm mix asphalt application that utilizes reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) material. The City applied the warm mix asphalt application on Railroad Avenue in 2010. TxDOT has installed this product throughout the State to determine the life cycle of the product. Cost of installation for TOM's range from $65,000 to $85,000 per lane mile. This cost range is based on the thickness of the TOM's when applied and initial roadway preparation required to install the TOM's (level up, micro -milling, etc...). Crack Seal/Rejuvenator Applicatiorg LOCATION: SUNFLOWER APPLICATION TYPE. CRACK SEAL AND REJUVENATOR APPLICATION DATE INSTALLED: AUGUST 2013 -COST • INSTALLATION: $3,000 PER LANE MILE wwmi=� b = M South Ridge Circle LOCATION: RIVER RIDGE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION TYPE: MICROSURFACING (NO LONGER UTILIZED) DATE INSTALLED: INSERT DATE COST OF INSTALLATION.- $30.000 TO $35,000 PER LANE MILE APPLICATION �� DATE INSTALLED: AUGUST 2014 +` omm i2mm Before Installation After Installation LOCATION: FRIENDSWOOD/NORWOOD DRIVES APPLICATION TYPE- SINGLE COURSE CHIP SEAL W/FOG SEAL I DATE INSTALLED: AUGUST 2015 COST OF INSTALLATION- $25,000 PER LANE MILE After Installation OOLIVE STREET;STREET APPLICATION TYPE: SINGLE COURSE CHIP SEAL W/FOG SEAL ATE AUGUST 2015 DCOST OF INSTALLATION- 0! ! + i PER LANE MILE Before Installation LOCATION -RANCH PARKWAY APPLICATIONf, MATE INSTALLED:t COST OF !!! PER LANE MILE Before Installation After Installation LOCATION. MESQUITE DRIVE APPLICATION TYPE: Hot in Place Recycled Pavement (HIPR) DATE INSTALLED: AUGUST 2015 COST OF INSTALLATION: $110,000 PER LANE MILE WOM LOCATION- RAILROAD AVENUE APPLICATION TYPE- WARM MIX ASPHALT (WMA) DATE INSTALLED- 2010 COST OF INSTALLATION: $65,000 to $85,000 PER LANE MILE