No preview available
Transmittal - 6/1/2022ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Jorge Chamorro Public Services Director -------- Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council Dan Dugan, Chair ------ SUBJECT: 2021 Updated Six Year Plan and Roadway Selection Committee Presentation STAFF CONTACT: Matthew Cassel, PE, City Engineer, 801-535-6140 DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only RECOMMENDATION: The information in the report should be helpful in future discussions regarding ongoing pavement conditions and projects in the City. City Council has requested this report be provided once updated and completed. BUDGET IMPACT: The report is not a specific request for funds; however, Funding Our Future Funding budgets are discussed within the context of the Six Year Plan. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The goal of the Six Year Plan is to: • Review previous pavement projects and successes. • Summarize the findings from the 2017 pavement condition report review pavement condition ratings (recently completed pavement survey will be incorporated into next year's update); • Provide project lists including those identified within the $87M Streets Bond which comprise part of Funding our Future project scope; and, • Make recommendations to address preservation methods and scenarios. PUBLIC PROCESS: Not applicable. EXHIBITS: 2021 Roadway Selection Committee Presentation 2021 Updated Engineering Six Year Plan Executive Summary PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT 451 SOUTH STA TE STREET # 135 PO BOX 145470 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-5470 www.slcgov.com FAX 801-535-7116 6/1/2022 6/1/2022 Lisa Shaffer (Jun 1, 2022 16:12 MDT) Engineering Six-Year Pavement Plan 2022 Proposal for Street Reconstruction and Pavement Preservation Engineering Division Department of Public Services Salt Lake City Corporation Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 3 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Responsibilities ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Past Pavement Projects ................................................................................................................................ 5 2016 .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 2017 .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 2018 .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 2019 .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 2020 .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 2021 .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Pavement Condition Report Summary ......................................................................................................... 7 Automated Data Collection and Equipment ................................................................................................. 7 Decision Trees and Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 9 Updated Decision Tree ............................................................................................................................ 10 Remaining Service Life ................................................................................................................................ 11 Project Prioritization ................................................................................................................................... 12 Maintenance ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Rehabilitation and Reconstruction ......................................................................................................... 13 Review -Asphalt Pavement Management and Maintenance Strategies ................................................... 14 Pothole Filling ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Patching and Crack Sealing ..................................................................................................................... 14 Slurry Seal and Chip Seal Surface Treatments ........................................................................................ 15 Asphalt Pavement Mill and Overlay ........................................................................................................ 15 Pavement Reconstruction ....................................................................................................................... 15 Project Plan and Budget Methodology ....................................................................................................... 16 Budget Strategy ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Project Breakout ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Plan Implementation .................................................................................................................................. 18 Reconstruction Plan Map-.......................................................................................................................... 19 Current Proposed Streets Maintenance Plan ............................................................................................. 20 Proposed Street Listing by Year and Reconstruction Type ..................................................................... 21 Appendix A: Descriptions and Photos of Pavement Condition Classifications ........................................... 28 Overall Pavement Condition (OCI) Ratings Examples ...................................................................... 28 Appendix B: Descriptions and Photos of Pavement Activities .................................................................... 32 April 2022 Page I 2 List of Figures Figure 1 -Laser Profiler and Van Survey Equipment... ........................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2 -Sample Preservation and Maintenance Tree ..................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3 -Optimal Pavement Treatment Timing .................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 4 -Preferred Asphalt Pavement Maintenance Strategy ...................................................................................... 13 Figure 5 -Fund Distribution Scenario ....................................................................................................................................... 17 List of Tables Table 1 -Overall Condition Percentages from the 2017 inspection ................................................................................ 9 Table 2 -OCI Maintenance Method Framework .................................................................................................................. 14 April 2022 Page I 3 Executive Summary Salt Lake City's transportation network includes 1830 lane miles of Class C streets . Class C streets are maintained by the City. Engineering continues surveying the extensive alleyway network throughout the City which include a vast network of public and privately-owned alleyways. There are over 1400 alleys in the City comprising over 92 miles of alleyways. 47 miles of those alleyways designated as public alleyways. The remaining alleyways are classified as private, mixed or unknown. These streets are a m ix of asphalt, concrete, and unsurfaced pavement types . The network of streets is further classified as Local/Residential streets (Local) and Arterial/Collector (Arterial) streets. The City's pavement assets are subdivided into administrative segments units comprising the City-wide network. A segment is a measurable portion of the roadway used for the analysis. The segments provide a means of tracking asset condition and work within the Cartegraph OMS asset management system. This plan's first iteration was produced in 2019 . This year's plan will include updates to several areas including updating project lists; an overview of the new pavement survey; and update review of strategies for funding. Management of a well-maintained street system requires a balanced program of pavement maintenance and preservation strategies. The objective of the ongoing six-year pavement management plan is to extend the functional life of the City's street network to the highest degree possible with available funds. This is accomplished through periodic pavement surface treatments (preservation and maintenance techniques) and major rehabilitation or reconstruction at appropriate times in the pavement life cycle . In summary, the goal of this management plan is to: • Review previous pavement projects and successes; • Summarize the findings from the pavement condition report and review pavement condition ratings; • Explore updated decision trees and suggested treatment types used for developing scenarios; • Update budget plan scenarios for various roadway type and construction methods; • Provide project lists including those identified within the $87M Streets Bond which comprise part of Funding our Future project scope; and, • Make recommendations to address preservation methods and scenarios. Responsibilities Engineering partners with the Transportation Division on the planning, design, reconstruction and day-to-day operations of the street and trail transportation system. The Streets Division, who are part of the Public Services Department, provide for the maintenance of the roadways through filling potholes, applying necessary preservation treatments, street sweeping and winter operational activities on City pavement assets. April 2022 Page I 4 Past Pavement Projects The following is a list, by year, of pavement reconstruction projects completed by Salt Lake City Engineering. Previous years, we reported reconstruction of 43 lane miles. Since 2020, GO Bond funding has allowed for reconstruction of approximately 29 more lane miles of roadway. A lane mile is a measurement of pavement area. It is calculated by multiplying the length of a road segment by lane width(s). The list of these projects follows: 2016 Street From 1300 South (phase 2) 400 West Rose Park Ln. 2000 North Regent St. 100 South Sunnyside Dr . Guardsman Way 2017 Street From 900 West 400 South 900 West North Temple Berkeley St . 2100 South Normandie Cir. Harvard Ave. 900 South/Indiana Ave . Surplus Canal East Capitol Blvd. 500 North 2018 Street From S Gladiola St . 500 South 2100 East 1700 South 1500 East 900 South 1200 East 600 South Simpson Ave . Wyoming St. Wilmington Ave. Highland Dr. Wilmington Ave . 2000 East 2019 Street From 1700 South 1700 East 2500 East Foothill Drive Downington Avenue 2500 East 2700 South Highland Drive 1000 West 700 South Post Street 700 South 900 South 950 East April 2022 To Treatment Type 500 West Concrete Reconstruction 2200 North Concrete Reconstruction 200 South Concrete Reconstruction Foothill Dr. Asphalt Reconstruction To Treatment Type 950 South 3" Asphalt Overlay 400 South 3" Asphalt Overlay Wilmington Ave Concrete Reconstruction Terminus Concrete Reconstruction 3600 West Concrete Reconstruction Ensign Vista Dr. 3" Asphalt Overlay To Treatment Type 900 South Concrete Reconstruction 2100 South 3" Asphalt Overlay 1300 South 3" Asphalt Overlay 800 South Asphalt Reconstruction Broadmoor St . Concrete Reconstruction 1300 East Concrete Reconstruction 2100 East Concrete Reconstruction To Treatment Type 1900 East Concrete Reconstruction 2100 South Concrete Reconstruction Foothill Drive Concrete Reconstruction 1930 East Asphalt Reconstruction 800 South Concrete Reconstruction 800 South Concrete Reconstruction 1300 East Concrete Reconstruction Page I 5 2020 Street From To Treatment Type 500 East 1700 South 2100 South Asphalt Reconstruction 2000 East Parley's Way City Limit Asphalt Reconstruction 700 West 1600 South 2100 South Asphalt Reconstruction 1900 E WILMINGTON AVE PARLEYS CANYON BLVD Concrete Reconstruction 500 North JORDAN RIVER REDWOOD RD Concrete Reconstruction ARIES CIR CULDESAC END NEW STAR DR Concrete Reconstruction BRIARCLIFF AVE AMERICAN BEAUTY DR AUTUMN AV Concrete Reconstruction COATSVILLE AVE 800 East 900 East Asphalt Reconstruction DUPONT AVE CAPISTRANO DR AMERICAN BEAUTY DR Concrete Reconstruction DUPONT AVE CAROUSEL ST 1500 West Concrete Reconstruction ELIZABETH ST CRYSTAL AV STRATFORD AV Asphalt Reconstruction ELIZABETH ST STRATFORD AV WHITLOCK AV Asphalt Reconstruction HASLAM CIR CULDESAC END GARNETTE ST Concrete Reconstruction KENSINGTON AVE 1400 E 1500 East Asphalt Reconstruction PARKWAY AVE ELIZABETH ST HIGHLAND DR Asphalt Reconstruction RAMONA AVE 900 East LINCOLN ST Asphalt Reconstruction RAMONA AVE LINCOLN ST 1000 East Asphalt Reconstruction TALISMAN DR 800 North 1200 W Concrete Reconstruction TALISMAN DR CULDESAC END CORNELL ST Concrete Reconstruction ZENITH AVE 800 East 900 E Asphalt Reconstruction Colors -Arterial/Collector Loca l Street 2021 Street From To Treatment Type 300 West -Phase 1 1300 South 2100 South Asphalt Reconstruction 900 East Hollywood Ave 2700 South Asphalt Reconstruction 900 South -RDA Phase 300 West West Temple Asphalt Reconstruction 100 South University Ave 900 East Asphalt Reconstruction 1500 South Redwood Rd Pioneer Rd Asphalt Reconstruction 1900 East SUNNYSIDE AV 900 South Asphalt Reconstruction 200 North 400 West W TERMINUS END Concrete Reconstruct ion ALTA ST* 2NDAV 3RDAV Asphalt Reconstruction ALTA ST* 3RD AV FEDERAL HEIGHTS DR Asphalt Reconstruction BLAINE AVE NEVADA ST FOOTHILL DR Asphalt Reconstruction CAMBRIDGE WAY* CHANDLER DRIVE TOMAHAWK DR Asphalt Reconstruction GREENWOOD TER 900 South SUNNYSIDE AV Asphalt Reconstruction FOLSOM AVE 900 West 1000 West Asphalt Reconstruction KENSINGTON AVE KEN REY ST 2100 East Asphalt Reconstruct i on L ST 7TH AV 8TH AV Asphalt Reconstruction L ST* 9TH AV 10TH AV Asphalt Reconstruction MST 3RDAV 4TH AV Asphalt Reconstruction NEVADA ST WILSON AV BLAINE AV Asphalt Reconstruction WALL ST COLUMBUS ST 400 N Asphalt Reconstruction Colors -Arterial/Collector Local Street *To Be Completed in 2022 April 2022 Page I 6 Pavement Condition Report Summary A pavement condition report was funded by Salt Lake City Council and Administration in 2016 and completed in 2017. Due to the critical nature of the pavement network, the decision to expedite a new survey in 2021 was approved. The results of most recent 2021 survey are forthcoming this summer (2022). The 2021 survey was performed by Roadway Asset Services, LLC (RAS) and began on October 10, 2021. Date collection was completed on October 31, 2021 for approximately 591.78 centerline miles of the City's roadways. RAS used a Roadway Asset Collection (RAC) vehicle to collect street level right-of-way (ROW) images and Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS-2) pavement images. The pavement images were used to identify street segment pavement distresses and severities through analysis and the 360-degree panoramic right-of-way images were used to confirm pavement distresses and identify right-of-way assets. All Class C (City-maintained assets) roadways were analyzed using a series of instruments which include images of all roadway segments. Pavement distress type, distress extent, and distress severity were quantified from these images. A Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was assigned to each roadway segment. International Roughness Index (IRI) values were also collected along the survey segments, as part of the analysis, utilizing a laser profiler and accelerometer. The Overall Condition Index (OCI) is calculated using the PCI and IRI values. This survey project used proprietary pavement management software for calculating the PCI and OCI value, as well as analyzing the network PCI and OCI ranges. An Overall Condition Index (OCI) was applied to all City-maintained roadway segments. The OCI measure is a classification of the overall pavement condition, on a scale of 0-100 with the highest numbers representing the best roadway segments in the City. The summary of results of the recent survey will be presented in a Council transmittal later this year. Automated Data Collection and Equipment To determine the general distress characteristics of each roadway segment, RAS utilized one RAC collection vehicle, represented in Figure 1. The vehicle collected street level (ROW) imagery and downward (LCMS-2) pavement imagery. The automated distress data collection was performed in general accordance with ASTM D6433-11 (Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys) and ASTM Standard E1656 (Standard Guide for Classification of Automated Pavement Condition Survey Equipment), utilizing a Class 1 device as defined by the specifications. April 2022 Page I 7 Figure 1 -Laser Profiler and Van Survey Equipment RAS's vehicles combine multiple engineered technologies to collect real-time pavement data, ROW data, and images at posted speed limits . This effectively eliminates the need to place pavement inspection technicians in the field. IRI indexes were obtained from measured longitudinal road profiles and provides a driver's perspective to the bumpiness and roughness of the ride. In 2017, the network average was rated as poor (48 OCI). This figure was obtained by averaging all street segments, regardless of type and length to obtain an overall network average. Salt Lake City utilizes Cartegraph OMS to manage their pavement network for maintenance decisions and budget optimizations. Within the Cartegraph program, PCI is listed as one index that may be combined with other selected indices, such as IRI, to calculate the Overall Condition Index (OCI). Further, Cartegraph utilizes a deterioration curve to predict pavement deterioration between cycles of survey. This will be discussed in later sections of this plan. The 2021 data will be presented later in 2022. The condition of the network as of 2017 is presented below for reference. GO Bond funded projects already specified for CV 2020-2025 will not be changed or rescheduled as a result of the new survey. April 2022 Page I 8 Table 1 -Overall Condition Percentages from the 2017 inspection Overall Condition Percentage Condition Index (OCI) Range Description of Network Legend 86 -100 Good 1.60% 71 -85 Satisfacto 8.89% 56 -70 Fair 25.84% 41 -55 Poor 36.61% 26 -40 Ve Poor 21.31% 11 -25 Serious 5.41% 0 -10 Failed 0.34% Total 100.00% The 2017 survey and report are available on the Funding Our Future website here . The 2017 survey summary states that approximately 63% of the roadway segments within the City are rated in the poor or worse classifications. As the table depicts, more than half of local streets, arterials and collectors, in 2017, are no longer candidates for preservation or rehabilitation treatments. Many pavement segments have deteriorated below a level where preservation methods are effective. Most are candidates for reconstruction. New collection techniques and utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for analysis of pavement defects are utilized in the 2021 survey. Engineering expects improved accuracy and an improved prediction strategies going forward from the summer of 2022. These will be shared with the Council and Administration as soon as the data is made available to the City from Roadway Asset Services, LLC. Decision Trees and Recommendations Decision trees are a helpful mechanism to determine strategies for roadway maintenance on an overall street network scale. The Overall Condition Rating (OCI), previously mentioned, is a good guide, but final decisions and prioritizations should be done with human i nteraction, field verification, and sound engineering judgement. The following chart is a refined decision tree used to determine the preservation and maintenance methods meant to be used alongside the Overall Condition Rating results. Engineering will create a decision tree, in cooperation with Streets, specific to Salt Lake City. April 2022 Page I 9 Updated Decision Tree April 2022 Is the " ·, age less than 2 years -', .·. ls the '•,,, age 3 years or OCI >86? Ls the ·-._ age greater ',, '._ than 7 years or OCJ :- 75-85? l ! Yes Yes Are Yes ♦<: there potholes? _>_ Yes Is there minor ' •-Yes crackJng ·· reatme nt Type Slurry Seal Do Not hing Spot Pattti And Slur-r¥ Seal Is the OCI 56 -74? Are there pot- _:-Yes ♦ _ holes in> 10% of >• Yes _the segment? -_. Gh ifi Se-al <Dr 1" Thin Mill and ©verla1,1 ls the OCI 40-55 Is the last treatme nt an overlay or oa 0-39? ls there nilling _,_ Yes . ~ l0% in the segnwn! . 3• Medium Mill an<il ©vellay Yes -------.w~3• Med ium MIii and ove rTay Yes Figure 2 -Sample Preservation and Maintenance Tree Page I 10 Remaining Service Life Remaining Service Life (RSL) is another strategy the Engineering Division is evaluating as a measure of pavement maintenance and preservation. RSL is defined as the anticipated number of years that a pavement can remain structurally and functionally sound with expected scheduled maintenance. Ideally the pavement service life proceeds in the following manner: • The service life begins when the pavement has been constructed or reconstructed; • Preservation techniques should be employed within the following two years to provide the new pavement surface with adequate protection; • Next, rehabilitation treatments must be applied before the roadway has suffered too much damage. Therefore, the timing of rehabilitation techniques is crucial to make the properly leverage funding; • Pavement segments in advanced states of degradation require reconstruction in order to restart the service life clock. Pavement in deteriorated condition are not suitable candidates for maintenance activities . Moreover, maintenance of deteriorated pavement is an inefficient use of funds and these activities are best used elsewhere. Determining the optimal threshold for treatments is the key strategy to preserving and rehabilitating pavement assets. Those thresholds are set to correspond to the ideal conditions for preservation and maintenance activities while the life-cycle cost is with in an optimal cost range. The graph below depicts the concept of applying the proper treatment at the proper time within the pavement's life cycle. C 0 +-' "'O C 0 u +-' C (lJ E (lJ > ro 0... 100 8 ....... t-- 60 ....... - 4 1,-.... - 2u-.... - 0 April 2022 ······· for preservation activities / optima_! time for pre~~~tative maintenance act1v1t1es potential deterioration without properly -timed treatments Years Between Proper Treatments Figure 3-Optimal Pavement Treatment Timing Page I 11 Two of the key components to an effective pavement management plan is to recognize the optimal timing for treatments and establishing acceptable thresholds for roadway performance. A balanced perspective of observing OCI, understanding the remaining service life, and knowing when the last maintenance activity occurred is fundamental to maintaining optimal pavement network health. The use of Cartegraph by Streets and Engineering has led to further collaboration and alignment of preservation, rehabilitation, maintenance, and construction activities. Using a balanced view of RSL and OCI to establishes a framework and will continue to refine our processes. Cartegraph will be used to track the asset condition and Engineering, in cooperation with Streets, will plan work accordingly. This is explained in further detail in the Project Prioritization section below. Cartegraph OMS uses a prediction model to understand where an asset is at in its lifecycle, Scenario Builder examines the data captured in each asset's condition category, prediction group, deterioration curve, and condition group. These data points along the curve help estimate how a particular set of assets will deteriorate over time if no maintenance is performed. While Cartegraph comes with sample deterioration curves, Engineering expects to continue fin- tuning the data to be applicable to our region, and asset material. The 2021 survey data will prove indispensable validating the initial prediction curves established in 2016. Project Prioritization Maintenance The Streets Division began utilizing Cartegraph extensively in 2018 to capture and plan streets maintenance activities . The Engineering Division and the Streets Division interact cooperatively to develop a 3-year fiscal plan for maintenance. The flow chart in Figure 2 provides the framework for the segment selection and Cartegraph is used to document and plan work. The schedule for maintenance roughly follows: • A slurry seal is applied 2 years after a roadway reconstruction as a general maintenance strategy. As mentioned above, this provides a roadway section with protective sealant preventing oxidation and moisture intrusion. • Another round of slurry seal is applied within 7 years of reconstruction or when the OCI is estimated to be within 75-85. Spot patching or pothole repair might also be required during this time. If there is minor cracking, crack-sealing can be utilized to prevent infiltration of water. • Once the segment has deteriorated or when the OCI is estimated to be within 56-74, or if there are potholes in more than 10% of the roadway surface, a preliminary crack-seal is applied. Specific areas can be patched and filled to level the adjoining areas of deterioration, then the segment receives a chip-seal. Highly deteriorated sections may require a thin 1" overlay to further extend the roadway surface. A deeper overlay of 3" may be required for roadway surfaces which are significantly rutted but are still within this OCI range . Per the State Code, overlays of 2" or less in thickness are considered a maintenance activity while overlays over 2" are considered a construction project. • Additional maintenance considerations: April 2022 Page I 12 o Areas unusually impacted by traffic loads or construction may receive inlays to keep them passable until reconstruction funds are available. o Chip seal is sometimes used on poorer roads to keep them pothole free. o In-lays are also used to smooth out rutted roads caused by heavy traffic. Figure 4 represents the preferred asphalt maintenance strategy with attention to best practices relating to properly timed treatments and ideal service life thresholds . 100 90 80 c3 Q, 7l) >< Q) "C -= 60 C 0 :.::, 50 'c C 0 0 40 ~ Q) > 30 0 20 10 Satisfactory Fair ~00f Asphalt Pavement Maintenance Strategy Chip seal or over&ay, depending on condltlOn Increased pavement OCI with applied surface treatments 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Pavement Age (Years) Figure 4 -Preferred Asphalt Pavement Maintenance Strategy Rehabilitation and Reconstruction The Engineering Division partnered with the Streets Division, Transportation Division, Public Utilities Department, and the Redevelopment Agency to produce a sound project prioritization plan. While primarily a pavement plan focused on street reconstruction needs, Engineering seeks input from many other affected groups to achieve more inclusive project prioritization results. Maintenance is a critical aspect of ensuring pavement longevity, therefore, this plan also includes recommendations for maintenance activities. This plan helps collaborate efforts with Public Utilities and other private utility companies as they determine their utility needs. With a moratorium of 7 years on excavation within newly constructed streets, and 3 years on repaved (overlaid) streets, it is critical that projects are planned and prioritized with consideration of planned future utility improvements. Engineering's goal is to improve overall condition of the roadway network to a Fair condition (minimum average OCI of 55 or greater). In addition to the decision tree noted above, Engineering uses the general OCI guidelines and observes threshold timing in the service life to help provide a simple framework to help guide rehabilitation and reconstruction activities. April 2022 Page I 13 Table 2 -OCI Maintenance Method Framework Overall Condition Index (OCI) Range Condition Description Method Legend 86 -100 Good in First Two Years Maintenance U Preventative Do Nothing or Slurry Seal --------+------------+-----i 75 -85 Satisfacto Patch or Crack Seal Preservation 56 -74 Fair 40-55 Poor Rehabilitation 26 -39 Ver Poor Reconstruct 11 -25 Serious Reconstruct Reconstruction 0 -10 Failed Reconstruct Visual examples of pavement conditions are included in Appendix A. Review -Asphalt Pavement Management and Maintenance Strategies A brief review of pavement management strategies is presented below as guidance of techniques employed by the City's Divisions. Pavement maintenance strategies are accomplished through the Streets Division. Asphalt overlay and reconstruction projects are funded by the City's Capital Improvement Program and administered by the Engineering Division. Pothole Filling This is an emergency type repair to fill holes in existing deteriorated roadways. Quality construction, timely maintenance activities, and proper utility cut restorations, are all components that significantly reduce the frequency of pothole repairs. Patching and Crack Sealing These maintenance strategies address specific distresses in the roadway surface . Localized patching addresses significant defects in the pavement surface. Crack sealing places specialized materials into asphalt pavement cracks to prevent infiltration of water. These repair types are generally followed by a roadway surface treatment within two years to provide a cost-effective program of roadway preservation. April 2022 Page I 14 Slurry Seal and Chip Seal Surface Treatments Slurry seals and chip seals are thin surface treatments applied to the entire pavement surface of a roadway section to prevent oxidation and moisture intrusion. Slurry seals are applied to streets that are in good condition, and chip seals are applied to streets that have deteriorated to a satisfactory condition rating. Both treatments extend the pavement life and improve long- term performance. Asphalt Pavement Mill and Overlay Asphalt mill and overlay projects remove the top 1" to 3" of the existing pavement and replace it with a new asphalt overlay, which adds structural strength to the existing pavement. This pavement maintenance strategy is generally applied to roadways that have a poor condition rating. In accordance with City's commitment to the elimination of pedestrian barriers in the public way, ADA accessibility ramps are installed in conjunction with all overlay projects. Curb and gutter are also evaluated, and appropriate repairs are included in the overlay project to enhance safety and alleviate drainage problems. Per the State Code, overlays of 2" or less in thickness are considered a maintenance activity while overlays over 2" are considered a construction project. A 3" mill and overlay is advised for road which have deteriorated to a range of an OCI of 40-55. This is typically the bottom limit of refurbishment and per the State Code, is not considered a maintenance activity. The Streets Division coordinates with the Engineering Division when segments have deteriorated to this level. Spot activities can occur to preserve a segment or area along these routes, but overlays are required to rebuild substructures to prevent further degradation. Pavement Recon struction Roadway pavements that have exceeded their functional life are designated for reconstruction through the City's Capital Improvement Program. Pavement reconstruction projects involve removal of the deteriorated roadway section and replacement with a new roadway structural system using new or recycled materials. Reconstruction projects address all necessary street repairs, including roadway base materials, asphalt or concrete pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, accessibility ramps, and drainage improvements. To maximize our investment in road reconstruction, maintenance should be funded at a level that prevents further degradation, increase remaining service life, and delays the need for reconstruction. The most efficient maintenance strategy is to keep good roads in good condition. With proper and timely application of surface treatments on new roads, it is feasible that the pavement can be kept in good condition for a very long time -25 to 35 years or longer. The current range of pavement conditions requires careful planning to select the best pavement treatment options. As a comparison, for the cost of every lane mile that is reconstructed, roughly 50 miles can receive a surface treatment. Street maintenance is closely coordinated between the Engineering and Streets divisions utilizing the Cartegraph asset management system. April 2022 Page I 15 Project Plan and Budget Methodology From the data collected, Engineering developed a six-year project list. This plan provides a framework for planning and budgeting purposes with the goal of improving pavement condition to a fair condition network wide. The plan, discussed in detail below, identifies and prioritizes the following: • Selecting roadway reconstruction candidates • Selecting roadway rehabilitation candidates • Ranking candidates according to needs as identified by other City divisions • Specifying roadway treatments to be performed by the Streets Division • Developing an annual budget framework for decision-makers and stakeholders Engineering created a proposed project list, as a first step in the planning process. The list utilized OCI data to identify the worst local/residential 200 roadway segments in the City. Engineering developed an in-house geospatial application to curate the list of 200 local/residential street segments. This application allowed other divisions and departments to rank, by degree of importance, these street segments. This refined list was combined with some of the worst arterial/collector roadway segments previously identified in a combined effort between Engineering, Streets, Public Utilities, and Transportation Divisions. The arterial/collector list includes some roadway segments that do not meet the "worst" criteria as determined by OCI. Instead, these segments met other critical needs as identified by other departments. In addition, a subset of roadway candidates falling into a middle classification having an OCI of 50 to 51 was selected. This group comprises a list of roadways qualified to receive a mill/overlay rehabilitation. Budget Strategy Engineering in consultation and agreement with Transportation recommends that the funding sources for street reconstruction and overlays be distributed 80% for arterials/collectors and 20% for local streets. For the purposes of planning, the Engineering Division adopted this hierarchy as an approach to budgeting for future pavement construction. Salt Lake City Council agreed with this recommendation and supported the expenditure of street Bond funds in this way. Support for prioritizing arterials and collectors in this hierarchy follows: • These are the primary emergency response routes to hospitals and snow removal routes and should be maintained at the highest level possible. • Greatest value for the $/mile -though the average cost to reconstruct an arterial/collector street is higher than a local street, a much larger segment of the community will benefit from the upgraded arterial/collector street. Most everyone in the community uses the arterial/collector streets on a daily basis whereas each local street serves a smaller segment of the community. • Local roads have much less Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT of less than 2,000) versus arterial/collector streets (AADT of 5,000 -15,000). The slower posted speeds and shorter travel distances makes it much easier for drivers on local streets to tolerate pavement distresses such as potholes. April 2022 Page I 16 • Inclusion of the Transit Master Plan priorities, such as enhanced bus corridors, occurs along arterial and collector routes such as 200 S. • Economic activity, movement of people, goods and services rely on a well -maintained transportation network with arterials and collectors as its core that connects population hubs and council districts. Based on the issuance of $87 million in bonds over the next six years along with $3.0 million of Class C funds received each year ($18 million over 6 years), the 80/20 breakout is shown below. 80/20 Funding Scenario -ear u . get $87M Bond + $18M dass C Funds 105M Total Artena l an d Co ll ·ect or Ro.adways $84M ,e constr u ct 1on an Figure 5 -Fund Distribution Scenario Local Str e ets $21M The capital budget plan does not include City-wide roadway maintenance, which is funded through other programs. Engineering also recommends continuing to fund the pavement condition survey every 5 years. A regular census of pavement condition provides detailed information from an independent source, allowing for Engineering to calibrate Cartegraph OCI estimates. The time period of five years balances the desire to regularly collect data on pavement condition with budgetary constraints . We will also reevaluate this plan annually based on funding received and new priorities. Project Breakout The following pages detail the planned project lists for the next six years. Items on this list include funding from the $87 million Bond issuance and $18 million Class C funds. The project priorities for these projects are listed below: • Worst First o Data driven o Based on OCI from pavement condition survey April 2022 Page I 17 • Transportation Priorities o Safety needs o Multimodal and Complete Streets needs • Public Utilities Priorities o Curb/Gutter/Storm Drain study o Impacts to Public Utility project budgets o East West Aqueduct alignment • Overlap with Current Plan where Available o Impact fees, capital facility plans o 9-line plans o The list does not include provisions for new roads in Northwest Quadrant It should be noted that this list is only a current snapshot in time of the priorities at the time of the revision of this document. Roadways do not deteriorate at the same pace due to many competing factors. As mentioned, Engineering expects to revisit this list, and the priorities, annually during the Roadway Selection Committee to insure the current needs of the City are being addressed. Plan Implementation As the plan is executed, Engineering acknowledges that there are variables affecting the actual cost of projects. The following will help staff manage the expected differences between the actual project costs versus staff's estimated costs: • Every fall, staff will revisit the plan with the Roadway Selection Committee. Based on the past summers actual cost of construction, adjustments to the plan will be made adding or deleting projects as necessary. In addition, another year of projects will be added to the plan, so it remains a 6 year look ahead . • The current plan shows an estimated $100 million to be spent. The Bond and Class C funds total $109 million. The $9 million contingency will be managed as follows: April 2022 o If staff finds that final project costs exceed the estimated budgets, the contingency funds will be used to cover the overruns; o Once the contingency funds are spent, projects will need to be truncated or removed from the plan; o If final project costs are coming in lower than the estimated budget, staff will add projects to the list; o At the end of the six-years, all $87 million plus earned interest of the bond funds will be spent. Page I 18 Reconstruction Plan Map -link to map here .... i . (< -!l "" • 1-:'-- jll _1_ : . ..a - L-- Co..,;illlsh:l1 . ■-- Cocmcilllisn:t3 .---; \ . __ , -t-, ,_ '-!. -j.- fl I · -•..!. -~1' ... , -!.. ~, -.. =11 i\ J.:..-----·~ .. -.:.:-· c-..i-c (_f . --. I ·.:/ / \ c-.alllllslricil ~-·--i .. :; A ...... ,"·· \ \ ' . April 2022 . -..;!:-.;- i - i == ~1 \ ; I :I ii eo...dlDislrict' ii :.-- 7 -·, l }--;: ~ I "F: ---. . ":'' Cau1cilli5Dd o~ ·---__ :-L-~ '="' ' I ~-, ' t_,- ' -l =-:. L -. -""'"' _r j ii .:- !~ .:...\ -i ',. ,,.- I ' i ~..; ;! .::-:: -i ~.·!!,~\ :~.::::, ! -= ':._~ ~\ I--· f ii j j j I 11 iii Ii Street Reconstruction Projects PrOIOCIS by cocwrucaon Ytr. ~-:..xal5".l't--e1f(1"(on:(f~ t',I". "'- -;,,ii;i:OAl~'l!,tot;ig:r.,,st;~onsv..~ :,;r.:~ ..oc.W ~ M<Ol'Y".::1...a:,or, ,;.-a:;,• ~"' &-Cahec::W: P.«Ott.tr...C.O'I = -.. ~,,,. ... ..-1.,~~...a(Jll -~ltf"~II-COI ~«tA,VC:oOf' ;:w.: :..OUl :t,:'J'~-flte<ON;:)'u!llOfl :!'tr-AW..oetW & C.Olwe-tsr bifoni::tr!Je.on !U'~i.,(.M~,+e:Q.e.:~l.,mo,"lo -!O~J..r~\,N ;,.~~ Esuna!ed &ilge(Tooils byCUl!lruelion y.., 2020 Loc.a,1:S-~.&Db Arte~ &. Co4 1ecm,: S4,B00,000 2021 Leal: J;.2,.755,5172 ktena.l & Collo!CtOr. $16,2SO,OOO 2022. Local: S.3..0!!0,006 ArrenaJ .S. Colle-cmr: S14,&00,000 2023 l.OCat 53.04.2..677 N'tena-1 &. Collector'. S 14 .4()(1.000 2024 Loe.al: 52.989. 77& Arterial & Colll!CTOr. sa.300.000 2 □2S L..ocal; J.2220,.335 Artenal & CoJl.aor 59,SOO,OD0 Estnated 8!.llgeHootal i..Dei,i l: 517.128,.372 Ara!rlal & c:ollecror: S&7,!ISO,QOO ..--,~._i,XlC. Page I 19 Current Proposed Streets Ma i ntenance Pl an li nk to map here a t,· j 11--' ~ ~·,· -urvK i".':iH~• :r ',r,; ••.•~•·J •. fl l ~ ~": ....... ""t- t.-y..--. )' :.-, .. ,:,-. ~ 1 -~ .; ;_..,.,,. ...:,,. l•U .. ,....,,. ~.; .;; .... -:~·•., ..... ~-· ~•· -~ ~ •► /,Pl~:or-= r:-:>. ;:: . _ . ., ~\ . '" J:L__.,._ •-·:,,,_-..--,~-, --I ... ~ • ,fl{ : I I flh*IFCMPG April 2022 FY2020 - FY2021 -- .,.., ~-;~~\ .-.. ! .-,,< \L .. ,1., -:---. . .. -""" ,. \', l l 11' ~ ;~ ,-\ :z . !--- < -~ u ~,[ -~ . ~ ,•;:,•,-,-. t t r ·' ·•~tlpt!' ,: :: ,, ..... t ~1 ..... J 111,·,. . ... ~ !.~,~• .. -:.,:, ~.,~ · r -· .. .:r~Jl~-:'"\ r 1' L -~f.: ~ 11 I t J j ... • "-r ~ .... m,._ _ol_lJ t.,Joll,11 ,...-.:-.,:a :/·'• ~- .,- -.f r<; \!V,)..~~ E ;;11·1 ~ ....... , .. ltf '1 '1 ' c .,/· I ~-l II ~ ,. ~., .. -;t.-J ... ,."\. r-..1rv 1·,,-n1.•1 11 1.!"•I \)..ul\_.,; ,,,-, I ;,-, = ------1104,1« tt,,,h•,Y>- " :,•-----, . i..O) \___. :,,,u i F ;:.·•"' ~--, j;-,t =i,..._ \ n, ,1__,.n,v:.- -· [ ~ I "I F ':ti,• \ ·;.~~; -s.-,.\l. ,, h", ~~';.::::~ P, ··~ ~, ~ . d ' .3 . B-'•~.u., ~ --... ~ .... ,.... ·:'- .. _ ...... ~-•1 .... ... ,· j , I ~ ,;-; , ,'>: ~-~(·•· ~ . . ... ... -·-~ ~ ~ .... ~,-~ C _j -~ ~ r..:.; l " ~'"'" ,. -. '· \ ".' ~ ,-la \,<'\ •.• I -r::::. ,,, .• ~ n~ , 71•:• ., G~J~ /'' .; :. I .;.·'l'J• -.,..N ~ ' .. -j .... '"" " ---....... '-\ l~ ~ .., .,: ~ • :· ~.po .,. .. ~ ~r-.. ~ .,.. ~<'-\_ !, 1--~ _...t. ,-.,, ' Tflif' l 1ti¥ -:; •.: .._.u .I r,, -" I t:.'0.,.1111~ ._. JL _:i ~ -.-: 1 , . ::;:t,~ :.<) .1~,'": , ._ t:.;. 1.n .• • • • ~ . .. ,~ -,:J;.~1 . t,,t ~"" IL .. ,,_. .,:~:" 0 •:=~. c .},:·: ·~~ L::::; ~,,~d~err,,,--~~:·:·~ ~:-s.C [;c ,er~~-: =er< 11,,:<>.n/:r,,-;,_ .; J~-c f,1 ' • 1 ~· tl~L""' -·~ "- Page I 20 Proposed Street Listing by Year and Reconstruction Type This page intentionally left blank . April 2022 Page I 21 Arterial & Collector Reconstruction Candidates Cost Estimates at Year Street From To Bond Inception Council District Impact Fee Total for Year 500 East 1700 South 2100 South $1,500,000 5 $124,500 2020 2000 East Parley's Way City Limit $1 ,300 ,000 7 $107 ,900 $4,800,000 700 West 1600 South 2100 South $2,000,000 2 $150,600 300 West -Phase 1 900 South 1300 South $8,650,000 5 $651,345 2021 900 East Hollywood Ave 2700 South $2,600,000 7 $172,640 $14,250,000 900 South -RDA Phase 900 West Lincoln St No bond $ spent 2 100 South University St 900 East $3,000 ,000 4 $282 ,000 300 West -Phase 2 1300 South 2100 South $8,600,000 5 $651,345 2022 200 South -Phase 1 400 West 900 East $6,000 ,000 2,4 $406,550 $15,850,000 900 South -Phase 1 and 2 900 West Lincoln St $1 ,2 50 ,000 2,5 $144,000 200 South -Phase 2 400West 900 East $6 ,000 ,000 2,4 $406,550 2023 900 South -Phase 1 and 2 900 West Lincoln St $1,250,000 2,4,5 See 2022 $14,050,000 1100 East/ Highland Dr Ramona Ave Warnock Ave $2,900,000 7 $192,560 1100 East 900 South Ramona Ave $3 ,900,000 7 $232,400 Virginia St South Temple St 11th Ave $1,300,000 3 $122 ,200 2024 300 North 300 West 1000 West $1,600,000 1,3 $133,480 $9,900,000 1300 East** 2100 South City Limit $3,000,000 7 $722,166 West Temple North Temple 400 South $4 ,000,000 3,4 $283,600 2025 1700 East 1700 South 2700 South $2,000 ,000 7 $132 ,800 $9 ,500,000 2100 South 700 East 1700 East $7 ,500 ,000 5 ,7 $622 ,500 ~ ~f G'o~on.<J Funding 2026 900 West••• North Temple 600 North $2,800 ,000 2 $2,800 ,000 2027 700 North (with WFRC/FED S) Redwood Road 2200 West $4,700,000 1 $4,700,000 This plan will be ,evaluated annually based on funding and City priori ti es. ••1300 East (2100 South to City Limit) is receiv ing federal funding. Total $75,850,000 •••Dependent on funding and City priorities Page 22 Local Street Reconstruction Candidates Cost Estimates Council at Bond Year Street From To District lncepifon Total for Year 500 N JORDAN RIVER REDWOOD RD 1 $186 ,274 ARIES CIR CULDESAC END NEW STAR DR 1 $193 ,975 BRIARCLIFF AVE AMERICAN BEAUTY DR AUTUMN AV 1 $147 ,286 COATSVILLE AVE BOOE 900 E 7 $251 ,049 DUPONT AVE CAPISTRANO DR AMERICAN BEAUTY DR 1 $209,736 DUPONT AVE CAROUSEL ST 1500W 1 $229,937 ELIZABETH ST CRYSTAL AV STRATFORD AV 7 $122,209 2020 ELIZABETH ST STRATFORD AV WHITLOCK AV 7 $132,387 $2,794,181 HASLAM CIR CULDESAC END GARNETTE ST 1 $75 ,267 KENSINGTON AVE 1400 E 1500 E 6 $223,691 PARKWAY AVE ELIZABETH ST HIGHLAND DR 7 $121 .678 RAMONA AVE 900 E LINCOLN ST 7 $86,240 RAMONA AVE LINCOLN ST 1000 E 7 $133.535 TALISMAN DR 800 N 1200W 1 $288 ,113 TALISMAN DR CULDESAC END CORNELL ST 1 $139,477 ZENITH AVE 800 E 900 E 7 $253,329 Page 23 Local Street R e cpnstruction Candidates Cost Es timates Counc il at Bo nd Year Street From To District Inception Total for ~ear 1900 E SUNNYSIDE AV 900 S 6 $140,801 200 N 400W W TERMINUS END 3 $180,606 ALTA ST 2NDAV 3RDAV 3 $108,932 ALTA ST 3RDAV FEDERAL HEIGHTS DR 3 $212,668 BLAINE AVE NEVADA ST FOOTHILL DR 6 $514,874 CAMBRIDGE WAY CHANDLER DRIVE TOMAHAWK DR 3 $420,559 2021 GREENWOOD TER 9005 SUNNYSIDE AV 6 $105,6.01 $3,269,30S FOLSOM AVE 900W 1000W 2 $513,333 KENSINGTON AVE KEN REY ST 2100 E 6 $385,770 L ST 7THAV 8THAV 3 $155,347 L ST 9THAV 10TH AV 3 $149,095 MST 3RDAV 4THAV 3 $163,352 NEVADA ST WILSON AV BLAINE AV 6 S111 ,276 WALL ST COLUMBUS ST 400 N 3 $107,091 P~ge 24 Local Street Re'construction Candidates ... Cost Estimates c ·ouncil at Bond Year Street From To District lnceptaon Total for Year 800W ARAPAHOE AV 600 S 2 $191 ,476 eoow ARAPAHOE AV 700 S 2 S2 18, 109 eoow 700 S 800 S 2 $423,512 800W 800 S 900 S 2 $399 ,162 2022 BRYAN AVE 800 E 900 E 5 $310,153 $2,573,571 INDUSTRIAL RD 2100 S ASSOCIATED AVE 2 $401 ,643 KENSINGTON AVE 800 E 900 E 5 $308,933 LIBERTY AVE LAKE ST 800 E 5 $81 ,454 ROOSEVELT AVE 600 E 700 E 5 $239 .128 100 S 600W scow 2 $696,337 1000 E ATKIN AV 2700 S 7 $327 ,363 1700E 1300 S SHERMAN AVE 6 $176 ,000 BENCHMARK CR AND DR LAKELINE DR TERMINUS 6 TBD DALLIN ST COUNTRY CLUB DR STRINGHAM AV 7 $37 1,763 2023 GREGSON AVE 900 E LINCOLN ST 7 $127 ,494 $2,nS,817 LINCOLN ST ELM AV 2100 S 7 $244,435 MEADOWLN GREEN ST 700 E 7 $61 ,644 PIERPONT AVE 400W 300W 4 $182,269 RICHARDS ST 900S eoos 5 $405 ,280 UNIVERSITY ST 600 S 700 S 4 ,6 $183 ,231 Page 25 Local Street Reconstruction Candidates Cost Estimates Council at Bond Year Street From To District Inception Total for Year 18TH AVE LITTLE VALLEY RD TERRACE HILLS DR 3 $156 ,924 BONNEVIEW DR 1500 E MICHIGAN AVE 6 $305 ,250 COUNTRY CLUB CIR PARLEYS CANYON BLVD TERMINUS 7 $133,833 DE SOTO ST GIRARD AV N TERMINUS END 3 $317 ,145 DEVONSHIRE DR SUNSET OAKS DR LANCASTER DR 6 $623,231 KENSINGTON AVE WASATCH DR INDIAN HILLS CIR 6 $274,482 $3,194,638 2024 KRISTIANNA CIR VIRGINIA ST E CULD AC END 6 $292,344 OQUIRRH DR OAK HILLS WY ST MARYS WY 6 $581,727 PERRY AVE TRAFFIC-Y-SIGSBEE TRAF CIR 3 $116,446 PERRY AVE VIRGINIA ST LAUREL ST 3 $144 ,856 PERRYS HOLLOW RD TOMAHAWK DR NEW BONNEVILLE PL (PVT) 3 $75,171 SIGSBEEAVE SIGSBEE TRAF CIR SIGSBEE TRAF CIR INCLUSIVE 3 $112 ,534 WEST CAPITOL ST ZANE AV GIRARD AV 3 $60 ,695 600 S 900W 800w 2 $746,984 EMILY CIR S TERMINUS END 800 N 1 $48,876 GARNETTE CIR W CULDESAC END GARNETTE ST 1 $65,516 GOODWIN CIR W CULDESAC END GARNETTE ST 1 $54,420 IRVING ST S CULDESAC END 800 N 1 $96,787 2025 NEBULA WAY W TERMINUS END SILVER STAR DR 1 $70,430 $2,260,130 PARK ST BROWNING AV SHERMAN AV 5 $222,546 PARAMOUNT AVE 300 W TERMINUS 5 $262 ,167 PRINCETON AVE 1100 E DOUGLAS ST 5 $389 ,756 REDONDO AVE 600 E 700 E 5 $210 ,658 VAN NESS PL 400 E E TERMINUS END 5 $91,990 Erntof GoBond Funding 2026 1100W HAYES AVE AMERICAN AVE 2 $200 ,000 $200,000 2027 SMALL STREETS/CUL-DE-SACS Throughout $1,500 ,000 $1,500,000 This plan will be revaluated annually based on funding and City priorities . l Total $18,567,643 Page 26 Summary Arterial & Collector Arterial & Co,lledor local Street local Street Overlay Yearly Totals Reconstru.ction Overlay Recons:truction 2020 S4,800,000 S526,560 S2,794,181 $1,790,680 $9,911,421 2021 $14,250,000 $2,693,160 $3,269,305 S1,120,320 $21,332,78'5 2022 S15,850,000 S1,491,040 S2,573,571 $1,694,360 $21,608,971 2023 $14,050,000 $1,6 45,240 $2,775,817 $1,580,880 $20,051,937 2024 $9,900,000 $1,259,960 $3,194,638 $1,093,480 $15,448,078 tozs $9,500,000 $2,260,130 $11,760,130 2026 $2,800,000 $200,000 $3,000,000 2027 -$4,700,000 $1,500,000 $6,200,000 Method $75,850,000 $7,615,960 $18,567,643 $7,279,720 $109,313,323 Totals This plan will be revaluated annually based on Mlding al)d City priorities. Page 27 Appendix A: Descriptions and Photos of Pavement Condition Classifications Overall Pavement Condition (OCI) Ratings Examples The following pages present examples of roadway maintenance strategies that would be recommended based on the stated roadway pavement condition. Pavement Condition: Good Recommended Maintenance Strategy: Pavement requires only minor or no maintenance activities over the next five years April 2022 Page I 28 Pavement Condition: Satisfactory (Minor cracking and oxidation) Recommended Maintenance Strategy: Slurry Seal Pavement Condition: Fair (Significant cracking and oxidation) Recommended Maintenance Strategy: Chip Seal April 2022 Page I 29 Pavement Condition: Poor (Major cracking, rutting, and oxidation) Recommended Maintenance Strategy: Rehabilitation (Overlay) Pavement Condition: Very Poor (Major cracking, patches, and sunken pavement) Recommended Maintenance Strategy: Reconstruction April 2022 Page I 30 Pavement Condition: Serious and Failed (Pavement has failed -ongoing repairs needed to maintain the roadway in a safe passable condition) Recommended Maintenance Strategy: Reconstruction April 2022 Page I 31 Appendix B: Descriptions and Photos of Pavement Activities Crack Sealing Hot rubberized sealant to pre- vent water intrusion. Slurry Sealing Mixture of small rock, asphalt, cement and water. Chip Sea ·ng Fin e grave l, evenly sprea d 1 covered by liqu id a spha It. Aspha llt Overlay Re mova l of top l ayer and replaced with new asphalt. Reconstruction Rebuild of entire road structure. April 2022 Page I 32 w w t- i--~ ~ 0 u z 0 -t-u w C _,J 0 w V) V) cS ~ ~ s ~ C ~ <( w 0 ~ er: 0 N MEETING AGENDA • Welcome • Purpose & goals of RSC • FoF bond projects: Construction Year 2022 • Six-Year Plan project list • Project milestones • Budget considerations: Changes to Engineering's 2022 CY allocations • Schedule implications, impact fees, & Class C • Future considerations • Synergies ~ ROADWAY SELECTION COMMITEE PURPOSE Work as a unified group to prioritize improvement projects for the City's mos t critical rights-of-way (lowest OC/s) in an equitable and practical manner. CY 2022 FoF BOND PROJECTS Street From To Status 300 WEST 900 SOUTH 2100 SOUTH 2 year 200 SOUTH -PHASE 1 200 EAST 900 EAST 2 year 900 SOUTH -RDA PHASE 300 WEST 500 EAST 900 SOUTH -PHASE 1 & 900 WEST 300 WEST 2 year 900 SOUTH -PHASE 2 WEST TEMPLE LINCOLN ( 945 EAST) Local street projects listed on next slide ARTERIAL & COLLECTOR I BOND-FUNDED PROJ _ECTS Blue = Change from previous year Arterial & Collector Reconstruction Candidates Year Street From To Cost Estimates at Impact Fee Council Total for Year Bond Inception District 500 EAST 1700 SOUTH 2100 SOUTH $1,500,000 $124,500 5 2020 2000 EAST PARLEY'S WAY CITY LIMIT $1,300,000 $107,900 7 $4,800,000 700 WEST 1600 SOUTH 2100 SOUTH $2,000,000 $150,600 2 300 WEST -PHASE 1 900 SOUTH 1300 SOUTH $8,650,000 $651,345 5 900 EAST HOLLYWOOD AVE 2700 SOUTH $2,600,000 $172,640 7 2021 $14,250,000 900 SOUTH -RDA PHASE 900 WEST LINCOLN ST No bond $ spent 2 100 SOUTH UNIVERSITY AVE 900 EAST $3,000,000 $282,000 4 300 WEST -PHASE 2 1300SOUTH 2100 SOUTH $8,600,000 $651,345 5 2022 200 SOUTH -PHASE 1 200 EAST 900 EAST $6,000,000 $406,550 4 $15,850,000 900 SOUTH -PHASE 1 AND 2 900WEST LINCOLN ST $1,250,000 $144,000 2,4,5 Continued on next slide ARTERIAL & COLLECTOR I BOND-FUNDED PROJECTS Arterial & Collector Reconstruction Candidates Year Street From To Cost Estimates at Impact Fee Bond Inception 1100 EAST/HIGHLAND DR LOGAN AVE WARNOCK AVE $3,900,000 $192,560 1100 EAST 900 SOUTH LOGAN AVE $2,900,000 $232,400 2023 200 SOUTH -PHASE 2 400WEST 200 EAST $6,000,000 $406,550 900 SOUTH -PHASE 2 900 WEST LINCOLN ST $1,250,000 $144,000 VIRGINIA ST SOUTH TEMPLE ST 11TH AVE $1,300,000 $122,200 1300 EAST 2100 SOUTH CITY LIMIT $3,000,000 $722,166 2024 300 NORTH 300 WEST 1000 WEST $1,600,000 $133,480 WEST TEMPLE NORTH TEMPLE 400 SOUTH $4,000,000 $283,600 1700 EAST 1700 SOUTH 2700 SOUTH $2,000,000 $132,800 2025 2100 SOUTH 700 EAST 1300 EAST $7,500,000 $622,500 End of current GOBond funding 2026 900 WEST NORTH TEMPLE 600 NORTH $2,800,000 2027 700 NORTH (WITH WFRC/FED $) REDWOOD ROAD 2200 WEST $4,700,000 ($3M Fed) This plan will be ,evaluated annually based on funding and City priorities Blue = Change from previous year Council District 7 7 3,4 2,4,5 3 7 1,3 3,4 6,7 5,7 2 1 - Total for Year $14,050,000 $9,900,000 $9,500,000 $2,800,000 $4,700,000 $75,850,000 2022 LOCAL STREETS I BOND-FUNDED PROJECTS Blue = Change from previous year Local Street Reconstruction Candidates Year Street From To Cost Estimates at Bond Council Total for Year Inception District 800 WEST ARAPAHOE AVE 600 SOUTH $191,476 2 800 WEST ARAPAHOE AVE 700 SOUTH $218,109 2 800WEST 700 SOUTH 800 SOUTH $423,512 2 800WEST 800 SOUTH 900 SOUTH $399,162 2 BRYAN AVE 800 EAST 900 EAST $310,153 5 2022 INDUSTRIAL RD 2100 SOUTH ASSOCIATED AVE $401,643 2 $2,573,571 JEFFERSON ST S TERMINUS END 1400 SOUTH $80,300 ~ KENSINGTON AVE 800 EAST 900 EAST $308,933 5 LIBERTY AVE LAKE ST 800 EAST $81,454 5 PARAMOUNT AVE (NOW 2025) ~ TERMINUS $262,167 ~ ROOSEVELT AVE 600 EAST 700 EAST $239,128 5 Continued on next slide 2023 LOCAL STREETS I BOND-FUNDED PROJECTS Blue = Change from previous year Local Street Reconstruction Candidates Year Street From To Cost Estimates at Bond Council Total for Year Inception District 100 SOUTH 600 WEST 500 WEST $696,337 4 1000 EAST ATKIN AVE 2700 SOUTH $327,363 7 1700 EAST 1300SOUTH SHERMAN AVE $176,000 6 640 SOUTl=l IVeRSON ST CO N\AJ.'\¥ CT $49,804 4 BENCHMARK DR AND CR LAKELINE DR TERMINUS TBD 6 DALLIN ST COUNTRY CLUB DR STRINGHAM AVE $371,763 7 2023 $2,775,817 GREGSON AVE 900 EAST LINCOLN ST $127,494 7 LINCOLN ST ELM AVE 2100 SOUTH $244,435 7 MEADOW LN GREEN ST 700 EAST $61,644 7 PIERPONT AVE 400WEST 300 WEST $182,269 4 RICHARDS ST 900 SOUTH 800 SOUTH $405,280 4 UNIVERSITY ST 600 SOUTH 700 SOUTH $183,231 4/6 Continued on next slide 2024 LOCAL STREETS I BOND-FUNDED PROJECTS Blue = Change from previous year Local Street Reconstruction Candidates Year Street From To Cost Estimates at Bond Council Total for Year Inception District 18TH AVE LITTLE VALLEY RD TERRACE HILLS DR $156,924 3 BONNEVIEW DR 1500 EAST MICHIGAN AVE $305,250 6 COUNTRY CLUB CIR PARLEYS CANYON TERMINUS $133,833 7 BLVD DE SOTO ST GIRARD AVE N TERMINUS END $317,145 3 DEVONSHIRE DR SUNSET OAKS DR LANCASTER DR $623,231 6 KENSINGTON AVE WASATCH DR INDIAN HILLS CIR $274,482 6 2024 KRISTIAN NA CIR VIRGINIA ST E CULD AC END $292,344 6 $3,194,638 OQUIRRH DR OAK HILLS WY ST MARYS WY $581,727 6 PERRY AVE TRAFFIC-Y-SIGSBEE TRAF CIR $116,446 3 PERRY AVE VIRGINIA ST LAUREL ST $144,856 3 PERRYS HOLLOW RD TOMAHAWK DR NEW BONNEVILLE PL $75,171 3 SIGSBEE AVE SIGSBEE TRAF CIR SIGSBEE TRAF CIR $112,534 3 WEST CAPITOL ST ZANE AVE GIRARD AVE $60,695 3 Continued on next slide 2025, '26, & '27 LOCAL STREETS I BOND-FUNDED PROJECTS Blue = Change from previous year Local Street Reconstruction Candidates Year Street From To Cost Estimates at Bond Council Total for Year Inception District 600 SOUTH 800WEST 900 WEST $746,984 2 EMILY CIR S TERMINUS END 800 NORTH $48,876 1 GARNETTE CIR W CULDESAC END GARNETTE ST $65,516 1 GOODWIN CIR W CULDESAC END GARNETTE ST $54,420 1 IRVING ST S CULDESAC END 800 NORTH $96,787 1 2025 $70,430 $2,260,130 NEBULA WAY W TERMINUS END SILVER STAR DR 1 PARAMOUNT AVE 300 WEST TERMINUS $262,167 5 PARK ST BROWNING AVE SHERMAN AVE $222,546 5 PRINCETON AVE 1100 EAST DOUGLAS ST $389,756 5 REDONDO AVE 600 EAST 700 EAST $210,658 5 VAN NESS PL 400 EAST E TERMINUS END $91,990 4 End of current GOBond funding 2026 ll0OWEST HAYES AVE AMERICAN AVE $200,000 2 $200,000 2027 SMALL STREET/CUL-DE -SACS $1,500,000 Throughout $1,500,000 This plan will be revaluated annually based on funding and City priorities V') LJ.J z 0 1-- V') LJ.J .....J z 0 V, <( w V, z 0 -t-u ::, a:: I-v, z 0 u """' N 0 N 'l"-4 Cl.I Ill n, .s::. c.. I C 0 '+i u ::::J ... .... Ill C 0 u Cl.I a:: .s::. .... ::::J 0 V, 0 0 CTI C 0 ti ::::J ... .... Ill C 0 u Cl.I a:: .... Ill ~ 0 0 ,.,, C 0 "+i u ::::J ... .... Ill C 0 u Cl.I a:: .s::. .... ::::J 0 V, 0 0 Ln 'l"-4 M r--- L.f'\ 0 0 .-I M 00 ..... Vl ro LJ.J 0 0 L.f'\ 0 ..... ..... Vl (lJ s 0 0 M 0 M \D 0 0 .-I M 00 ..c ..... ::J 0 Vl 0 0 .-I N 0 ..... ..c ..... ::J 0 V'I 0 0 °' .-I M l.D 0 0 .-I M !2£. ..... Vl QJ s 0 0 r--- N 0 ..... "'O rn 0 0::: "'O 0 0 s "'O QJ 0::: QJ _c u ..... 2 >-E 0 QJ N I.... 0 QJ N I.... Q) (lJ > _o ·..:; E ro QJ ..... > C 0 Q) z Vl Q) L.. s C. Q) (lJ 0::: > ..... (lJ u 0::: Q) ~ 'o L.. 0 a.. s;j" • • 0 co f- 0 Q) N > 0 ·..:; rn N ..... >-C ro Q) 2 1/l Q) L.. s C. Q) (lJ 0::: > ..... QJ u a:: Q) 'o ~ L.. 0 a.. s;j" • • 0 N 0 0 co N f-I... QJ Q) _o > E :.:; QJ rn ..... ..... 0.. C Q) QJ 1/l V) ~ 3 C. (lJ Q) 0::: ·;; (lJ w a:: Q) 'o ~ 0 L.. a.. s;j" • • 'l"-4 N 0 N C 0 '+i u ::::J .-I .-I N N 0 0 N N >- >-I.... rl I... ro N ro ::J 0 I.... ::J _o N C (lJ ..r:::. ro LL. u L.. ... .... Ill C 0 u Cl.I a:: Ill .... Cl.I 3 s ro ~ (lJ (lJ > > Q) QJ (U ..... a:: a:: ro * 0 ro 0 C :'Q I'-LL. co Cl.I ... ... V, n, u 0 ...I • • • C 0 ... u ::::J 0 0 N N 0 0 N N I... I.... QJ QJ .-I _o _D N E E 0 ... .... Ill C 0 u Cl.I a:: QJ QJ N ..... u ~ 0.. QJ QJ 0 ro V) :::J .s::. .... ::::J 0 C s s ro (lJ QJ -, V, 0 > > Q) QJ QJ ..... a:: a::. ro 0 * ro C "'C 0 co I'-LL. 0 T'"I • • • C 0 ... u 0 ::::J N 0 N 0 0 '-N N (U 0 0 _o N N E L.. _c QJ Q) u .µ ..c I.... Q_ E ro QJ (l/ 2 V) 0.. 3 3 Q) QJ V) QJ ·;; ·;; Q) (U ..... QJ a:: ro a: 0 * ro C "'C 0 in I'-LL. ... .... Ill C 0 u Cl.I a:: .... Ill n, w 0 0 CTI • • • Vl ::J ......J cxl >- QJ -0 ro I.... l.D co "-I" I.... l.D QJ 0 0 _:,L N 0 I... 0 0 .-I ro 0... N N M 0 L 00 Vl 0 N QJ Q) _o rl L.f'\ N L N > 0 (lJ E "-I" ·..:; 0 l.D ro N _o (U N 0 ..... >-0 u ~ 0 C ro ..... QJ u rl Q) 2 0 0 ro M Vl :::, Q) C 00 L.. s s s Cl. ro Q) (lJ QJ QJ -, 0::: > > > Q) ..... Q) QJ (U ..... u a:: a:: a:: ro (l/ N 0 'o QJ * * ro I.... C -0 L.. QJ 0 0 co a.. 0... <ct I'-LL. • • • • • ~ rl l.D 0 0 .-I M 00 QJ > ·.::: 0 Cl 0 N Vl co 0 rl ::J f-N N 0. 0 I... 0 E Q) N QJ N rl rn > 0 _o >-N u ·..:; N E L 0 rn QJ ro N ..c ..... QJ > ::J ..... C C C ~ '-Q) ::J 0 ro 0 1/l z ro --. :::, z ~ s C 0 C. s s ro ..... Q) QJ QJ QJ -, ..... 0::: ·;; > > Q) Vl w QJ QJ QJ ..... ro a:: a:: a:: ro LJ.J Q) 0 0 'o * ~ ro 0 L.. 0 0 C "'C °' a.. s;j" I'-LL. co • • • • • M <ct l.D -0 0 ro 0 _o rl ro M I.... Vl 00 ro z ..c ..... C 0 ::J E N 0 0 0 Vl ro N N 0 0 a:: 0 I... N 0 0 N QJ 0 r---Q) N I.... _o N N > 0 (U E ·..:; L.. 0 ro N ..D QJ Q) ..... ..... >-0 > ..0 QJ C ro .µ 0 E Q) 2 u > 1/l 0 z Q) <( Q) > "'C L.. s 3 3 0 C. 0 Q) (U QJ QJ z 0 0::: > > s Q) 3 w QJ QJ QJ ..... 2!-a: a: a: ro Q) 0 0 'o ~ ~ ro I L.. 0 0 C -0 a.. s;j" I'-LL. co • • • • • V) w z 0 I- V) w ....J z 0 V, ct w V, z 0 -1-u ::, a:: I-v, z 0 u N N 0 N T"-t QJ 11'1 tU ..c C. I C: 0 +-' u ::I "-+-' 11'1 C: 0 u QJ a: ..c +-' ::I 0 V) 0 0 °' C: 0 +-' u ::I "-+-' 11'1 C: 0 u QJ a: +-' 11'1 QJ 3: 0 0 t'l'I cYl I'- L.f) 0 0 rl ('() 00 ....... V) ro UJ 0 0 L.f) 0 ....... ....... V) Q) s 0 0 cYl 0 cYl \.0 0 0 rl cYl 00 .c ...... :::::i 0 Vl 0 0 rl N 0 ....... ..c: ....... :::::i 0 V1 0 0 en Q.J _c u .-t= 2 >-E 0 Q.J N !...._ 0 Q.J N !...._ Q.J Q.J > ..0 ·..:; E l1l Q.J ....... > C 0 Q.J z V) Q.J I... s C. Q.J Q.J 0::: > ....... Q.J u c:: Q.J 'cf:. "a I... 0 a.. s:j- • • 0 co I- 0 Q.J N > 0 ·..:; l1l N ....... >-C m (l) 2 Vl (l) I... 3 C. (l) Cl) 0::: > t Q.J c:: Q) 'cf:. "a .... 0 a.. s:j- • • N N 0 N C: 0 ·.;. u ::I "-+-' 11'1 C: 0 u QJ a: 11'1 +-' QJ QJ "-+-' V) tU u 0 ...J rl rl N N 0 0 N N >- >-!...._ rl !...._ ro N ro :::::i 0 !...._ :::::i ..0 N C Q.J .c ro LL u I... T"-t QJ s l1l 3 2 Q.J Q.J > ·s Q.J Q.J Q.J ....... c:: c:: ro 'cf:. 0 ro 0 C -c 11'1 tU ..c C. C: 0 I'-LL cc • • • t; ::I "-+-' 11'1 C: 0 u QJ a: ..c +-' ::I 0 V) 0 0 0 N N 0 N 0 0 N N !...._ !...._ Q) Q.J rl .D ..0 N E E 0 Cl) Q.J N ...... u c 0. Q.J Q.J 0 l1l l/) :::J s C 3 l1l Q.J Q.J -, ·;; ·;; (l) Q.J Q.J ..... c:: c:: l1l 0 'cf:. m C :"Q 0 r---LL cc • • • Vl :::::i _J cxl >-Q.J rl -0 ro rl !...._ 0 co rl !...._ rl N Cl) N s .cL 0 rl !...._ ro N N 0 a.. !...._ 0 a: rl Cl) N o' Q.J N ..0 !...._ N > 0 E Q.J N rl ~ N .D 0 0 l1l Q.J 0 N rl +-' !...._ +-' ...... c N C Q_ u s (l) Q_ Cl) 0 l1l Vl <( l/1 :::::i 0 (l) 3 C I... s 3 0::: C. ro Q.J Cl) Cl) Cl) -, 0::: > > > (l) t Cl) Cl) Cl) ....... c:: c:: a: l1l Q.J N 0 "a Q.J 'cf:. 'cf:. m L. C -c I... Q.J 0 0 a.. 0.... s:j-r---LL in • • • • • I..() rl 0 0 N s 0 rl 0::: 0 rl N N 0 ....... co 0 N V) I-N ,.__ ro rl Cl) UJ Q) >-N ..0 N 0 > L. 0 E N ·..:; ro 0 0 N en l1l :::::i Q.J N ....... L. Cl) u c 0 C ..0 C Q.J ....... Q.J Q.J :::::i 0 l1l V) LL ....... Q.J :::J V) :i C l1l L.. 3 3 0. l1l UJ Q.J Q.J Q.J Cl) -, 0 0::: s ·s s Q) 0 t QJ (lJ Q.J ..... N c:: c:: c:: ro (I) 'cf:. 'cf:. 0 "a m L.. 0 0 C -c a.. s:j-r---LL in • • • • • V) LU z ~ V) LU .....J z 0 V, <C w V, z 0 -b :::::) ci:: Iii z 0 u M N 0 N C .2 .... u ::J ... .... Ill C 0 u QJ cc:: ... C ""O C "' .c -~ :::c --.... .... Ill "' LU 0 0 ""'4 ""'4 N QJ Ill "' .c c.. C 0 .... u ::J ... .... Ill C 0 u QJ cc:: .c .... ::J 0 V, 0 0 N rl \0 0 0 N s 0 N 0::: Q) ._ Q) Q) 0... > l/l <( ::J ..::,,t. _J u a QJ C .2: '-+-' (1) (1) s +-' C a QJ ..... l/l QJ Q) ,._ > a. <( QJ 0::: C (1) +-' llO u 0 QJ _J 'o ,._ 0... • M " Lf) 0 0 rl M 00 0 +-' V, co (1) f-LU 0 QJ 0 > Lf) ·.;:::; (1) 0 +-' +-' C +-' a., l/l Vl Q) a., s L.. a. a., 0 0::: 0 +-' M u a., 'o L.. 0... • N N N 0 N N N N 0 N > 0 N N ._ N ._ 0 ro Q) N +-' ::J l/l ..0 ,._ ._ ::J a QJ ..0 0.0 +-' ~ Q) ::J u E LL <( 0 QJ 3: > 3 3 0 Q) -~ Q) z s > > <Li Q) Q) Q) 0::: 0::: a:: +-' (1) ?f!. ?f!. ro 0 0 0 C ~ -tj-" LL cc • • • • rl N 0 N N N rl 0 rl > N N N ._ 0 0 ro N _c ::J u N ._ Q) ._ ,._ ..0 C ro a., Q) ::J 2'. ~ LL a +-' 3 3 3 u Q) 0 a., QJ > > s a., Q) Q) a., +-' a:: a:: a:: C1l ?f!. ?f!. 0 ro 0 0 C "'Cl -tj-" LL ii5 • • • • M co N -0 0 ro N ..0 C ro ._ 0 l/l rl ro .... rl z u 0 C ::J rl rl N ... N E N N .... s ro 0 0 Ill 0 a:: N N C a:: ._ ._ 0 Vl N Q) Q) u o' a., N ..0 ..0 M QJ > 0 E E N rl ·.;:::; N 0 cc:: 0 ro Q) Q) N rl +-' ·.:::: +-' > ~ Ill N C Q_ 0 .... s a., Q_ Q) z C1l QJ Vl <( V) :::, QJ 0 a., 3 C L.. 3 3 ... 0::: a. ro .... a., Q) Q) Q) -, V, 0::: > > s QJ ti Q) Q) Q) +-' "' a:: a:: a:: ro u (l/ ?f!. ?f!. 0 0 ,--, 0 ro ...J e co 0 0 C "O c.. f--tj-" LL ii5 • • • • • co Q) C _c u 0 ..... .... Q) 2'. u > ::J <( >-... C E N N .... ro Q) N N Ill llO ._ 0 0 C 0 Q) N N N 0 _J -, L L u Vl N Q) a., a 0 m QJ +-' a., N ..0 ..0 N > E E cc:: _c ·.;:::; _c 0 +-' ro u Q) Q) N .... ::::i +-' L +-' > ~ Ill 0 C ro Q_ 0 "' V) a., 2 Q) z ro LU 0 Vl > V) :::, a., Q) C 0 0 L..-3 3 3 ro 0 O') C. -0 Q) -, a., ro Q) Q) ""'4 0::: L s > > a., ""'4 co Q) a., Q) +-' t, L 0::: 0::: 0::: ro a., Q) ?f!. ?f!. 0 .--,_.>L. ro 0 L C -0 ,._ ro 0 0 ii5 Q.. 0... -tj-" LL • • • • • BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS • Class C and Impact Fees are currently supplementing bond projects • Leaving little to no funding for overlay projects • Consider leveraging federal or sales tax FoF funding sources to improve outlook CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE Analyze and publish new pavement data -course correct and tweak deterioration curve Capital planning and collaboration Develop preservation, maintenance and reconstruction program plan Discuss new funding strategies Roadway Selection Committee Meeting Minutes Loc ation : Date : Time : Attendees · Hybrid Meeting Teams and In-Person Plaza 349 April 4, 2022 1 :00pm to 2:00pm Felafoai Fano (notes), Jennifer Bryd (notes), Jorge Chamorro, Boyd Ferguson, Tammy Hunsaker, JP Goates, David Jones, Ben Luedtke, Jon Larson, Debbie Lyons, Tony Milner, Becka Roolf, Julianne Sabula, Jeff Snelling, Mark Stephens, Kort Utley, Alex Walker, Joshua Wille, Kevin Young Agenda items 1. Purpose of Roadway Selection Committee (RSC) working group • Past RSC meetings have focused on selecting streets for work and discussing funding options. • With the creation of the 6-year plan; we are now meeting to d iscuss changes and make adjustments in the 6-year plan; this includes additions of new road projects on a rolling 6 year basis with the goal of keeping Engineering focused on upcoming projects and interdepartmental collaboration. 2. CY 2021 FoF Bond Projects (Josh Willie reporting) • 300 West phase 1 -This is a 2-year project, and the second year of the project has started. The contractor has starting at the south end of 2100 South and making their way north towards 900 South. The focus now is mostly on the west half of the road . Once the west half of the road is completed traffic will be switched over and work can begin on the east half of the road. • 200 SOUTH -PHASE 1 is in pre-construction phase right now. The bidding process is complete. A contractor has been selected and is under contract. The contractor is planning to start on 900 East and continue west. Construction should be kicking off in late April or early May. Engineering is coordinating with Dominion Energy who is installing a main line running down 200 S, just ahead of the roadway reconstruction project. Public information for the 200 S project will be conducted by AECOM and Avenues Consultants. AECOM is the consultant that designed the project and performed initial public engagement in conjunction with the Transportation Division. Avenue Consultants will continue the effort with public outreach during construction. Representatives from the Transportation and Engineering divisions have been canvassing the corridor and distributing flyers to prepare the public for the commencement of construction. • 900 South (RDA Phase) project starting at 300 West last year. The 2nd year of work is behind the original schedule due to complications working with Rocky Mountain Power and other utility providers. The project involves undergrounding a subset of aerial lines . Project complications have delayed the project. The contractor is, nevertheless, planning on completing the phase this year. Kort Utley clarification -RDA funding on 900 S is focused on a subset of that geography, which is from 300 West to West Temple. • 900 SOUTH PHASE 1 & 2 section of this project begins at 900 West and proceeds eastward. Construction begins th i s week. The intent is to extend construction to State Street this year. The project continues next year from State Street to Lincoln Street/945 East in the second phase. Since this is a 3-year project, it has broken up into different sections and will have 2 distinct contractors. Clarification on construction public outreach (Mark Stephens) -One of the things we really wanted to do with these projects is to ensure that our messaging was consistent for businesses and residents. We are working with Avenue Consultants and others to refine messaging to assist businesses be better prepared for the impacts of construction. The goal of this preparation is to help the community to support each other through the process. Preparation of materials like the "How to Survive Construction" brochure has been drafted and is offered at workshops and project meetings. 3. Status of Engineering Division Projects Bond Funded Roadway Projects -Arterial and Collector Candidates -2021 through 2027 (David Jones presenting) o Slide information in BLUE indicated changes from the previous year . o Changes made: • 900 South -added phase 2 to project year 2023 • 300 North -added to CY 2024 • Added CY 2027 CY 700 North Project noted with WFRC/Fed funding $4.7M • Becka Roolf noted that WFRC funding for 900 W (2026) was "recommended" as part of matching funds for the project, but not until 2028 2 4. Status of Engineering Division Projects Bond Funded Roadway Projects -Local Street Candidates -2022 through 2027 (David Jones presenting} o Slide information in BLUE indicated changes from the previous year. o Local Streets changes made: • 2022 • Jefferson St removed, developer nearby will be repaving a large portion of this segment • Paramount Ave moved to 2025 due to construction conflicts on 300 W • 2023 • 640 S removed -in survey phase, this segment was determined to be a private City-owned parcel • Adding Benchmark Dr and Benchmark Cr, these streets are amongst the worst street segments in the City. Benchmark Cr is also a Constituent CIP request and if this is approved, the Bond funding will be redistributed to another project • University St -constituents desire placemaking initiatives added to the project, but funding will be community-based and not provide by the City • 2024 -no changes • 2025 • Moved Paramount from CY 2023 • 2026 • Reaffirm 1100 W from last year ■ 2027 • Engineering proposes adding a short segments and Cul -De-Sac program funded at $1.5M to address these segments which did not rank as a high priority in the initial planning of Bond funding. Note that this proposal is scheduled after the current Bond funding has been exhausted. 5. Project Milestones Lists (David Jones presenting} • Milestones blocks o Quick review of schedule and project management details. Note that some projects remained unassigned due to recent turnover in Engineering staff. o Ben Luedtke question: "Is the project representative the point of contact if City Counc,I office gets a question about one of these projects and is that the person we should refer the staff to for more information?" David: Yes, I would advise the Council to contact the project representative. In addition, they should copy Leah Smith and myself should a constituent request arise. This way, the question is answered in a timely fashion. Leah Smith does the outreach on all Engineering projects. 6. Budget Considerations (David Jones presenting} 3 • Currently, Engineering is using Class C and Impact fees for supplementing Bond projects. Originally these funds were earmarked to fund Overlay projects, but none of these projects have been undertaken. • In the future, we hope to leverage federal funding or sale tax $$'s to supplement Bond projects and improve this outlook. This way, we can move forward with Overlay projects using Class C funding as intended. • This meeting is also the time to begin discussing a new round of Bond funding if the Council and Administration supports ongoing pavement improvement beyond the 2025 horizon. 7. Considerations for the Future (JP Goates presenting) • The pavement condition survey was the point the Engineering Six Year Plan started in 2017. A new pavement study is forthcoming, along with a new pavement deterioration curve. These data will soon be available to help guide planning beyond the 2025 horizon. (Clarification note from David J: the new pavement study is not expected to change the scope or list of projects in the current Six Year Plan). • JP explained that Capital planning efforts are expected to provide additional guidance beyond pavement condition. The Capital plan will provide decision-makers with insight to better align with future funding strategies and collaborative interests. Improved forecasting of pavement condition, with Cartegraph, will include effort to re-examine funding for Overlay candidates and pavement maintenance with our Streets Division. o JP opened the floor for discussion • Jonathan Larsen discussed the vision of having a group of planned projects which could align with proposed funding strategies so that we are not "caught flat- footed" if/when new funding opportunities present themselves. Jonathan also emphasized that, collectively, we have trended in the right direction in the past couple of years by way of improving our collaboration. • Becka mentioned several types of future funding possibilities which could strategically be timed to plan future projects. • Tony Milner also mentioned equity and the geographic distribution of projects must also be considered. 4